_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
test-international-gmehbisrip1b-con03b | Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people. |
test-international-gmehbisrip1b-con02a | Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009: “A return to the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, would bring the conflict into Israel's borders. Establishing a Palestinian state will not bring an end to the conflict.” [1] This is why the American ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1967 war pointed out that “Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure”, and American President Lyndon Johnson, shortly after the war, declared that Israel's return to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Johnson advocated new 'recognized boundaries' that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war.” [2] An Israel that withdrew completely to the 1967 borders would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centres and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. This would hurt Israel's ability to deter future attacks and thus make conflict in the region even more likely. This ability of Israel to deter aggressors is particularly important not only due to the region's history of aggression against Israel, but also due to the unpredictable future events in the highly volatile Middle East. There is no way, for example, to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria), nor that a Jordan's Palestinian majority might seize power in the state (leaving Israel to defend itself against a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya), nor that in the future, militant Islamic elements will not succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime. [3] Given its narrow geographical dimensions, a future attack launched from the pre-1967 borders against Israel's nine-mile-wide waist could easily split the country in two. Especially seeing as Islamic militants throughout the Middle East are unlikely to be reconciled to Israel even by a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, such a withdrawal therefore would actually make peace in the region less likely and encourage war against Israel. [4] [1] Lazaroff, Tovah. “Lieberman warns against '67 borders”. Jerusalem Post. 27 November 2009. [2] Levin, Kenneth. “Peace Now: A 30-Year Fraud”. FrontPageMag.com. 5 September 2008. [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005. [4] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009. |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro03b | A unified labour market will not be achieve if root issues remain unresolved. Within East Africa, the construction of an East African Community has been met with political tensions. The recent evictions of nearly 7,000 Rwandan refugees from Tanzania indicate the idea of free movement does not provide a sufficient basis for unity [1] . Despite regional agreements for free movement, political tensions, the construction of ethnicity and illegality meant forced deportation was carried out by Tanzanian officials. Political hostilities amongst heads of government is continuing to divide the nations within East Africa. Further, cases of xenophobia remain prevalent across Southern Africa. Frequently reported cases of xenophobic attacks on foreign nationals - including nationals from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi [2] - indicate the inherent tensions of migration when jobs remain scarce and poverty high. Dangers occur in advocating a free labour market when the perception of migration is misunderstood, and/or politically altered. [1] See further readings: BBC News, 2013. [2] See further readings: IRINa. |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro05a | The freedom to move is a human right. Mobility is a human right - which needs to be enabled across national spaces and Africa. Obstacles need to be removed. Mobility enables access to interconnected rights - such as ensuring women their right to move enables empowerment in the political, social and economic spheres. Taking the case of migration of young people, the process reflects a right of passage, a means of exploring opportunities and identity.For example the Mourides of Senegal have established a dense network sustaining informal trading across multiple scales based on a foundation of ‘Brotherhood’ youths leaving rural areas become integrated into dynamic social networks and educated within the Mouride culture. As research in Tanzania shows although migration is not a priority for all youths, many identify the opportunity as a time to prove yourself and establish your transition into adulthood. The process empowers human identity and rights. |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro01a | Free movement will provide benefits for productivity. A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets. Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] . [1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU. |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro04b | Promoting a free labour market across Africa will exacerbate difficulties for planning. The geography of migration is uneven; and spatial disparities in the proportion of migrants presents challenges for urban and rural planning, which needs to be considered. First, where will migrants be housed? The housing crisis, and prevalence of slums, across Africa show an influx of new workers will overburden a scarce resource. In addition, the complex, and insecure, nature of land tenure across Africa raises further questions for housing and productivity - will new migrants be able to buy into land markets to enhance their capabilities? Second, are road infrastructures safe enough to promote the frequent movement of labour? Will implementing a free labour market ensure the safety of those migrants? We need to ensure planners and policy can establish fundamental rights to a home, land, and personal safety, before promoting free movement. |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro03a | Policies towards a free labour market will create unity. National borders are a result of Africa’s colonial history. The boundaries constructed do not reflect meaning or unite ethnic groups across the continent. The border between Togo and Ghana alone divides the Dagomba, Akposso, Konkomba and Ewe peoples. [1] Therefore encouraging freedom of movement across Africa will erase a vital component of Africa’s colonial history. The erasing of boundaries, for labour markets, will have significant impacts for rebuilding a sense of unity, and reducing xenophobic fears, of which have been politically constructed. A sense of unity will motivate citizens to reduce disparities and inequalities of poverty. [1] Cogneau, 2012, pp.5-6 |
test-international-miasimyhw-pro04a | Implementing a free labour market will enable effective management of migration. Even without the implementation of a free labour market, migration will continue informally; therefore policies introducing free movement and providing appropriate travel documents provides a method to manage migration. In the case of Southern Africa, the lack of a regional framework enabling migration is articulated through the informal nature of movement and strategic bilateral ties between nation-states. Several benefits arise from managing migration. First, speeding up the emigration process will provide health benefits. Evidence shows slow, and inefficient, border controls have led to a rise in HIV/AIDs; as truck drivers wait in delays sex is offered [1] . Second, a free labour market can provide national governments with data and information. The provision of travel documentation provides migrants with an identity, and as movement is monitored, the big picture of migration can be provided. Information, evidence, and data, will enable effective policies to be constructed for places of origin and destination, and to enable trade efficiency. Lastly, today, undocumented migrants are unable to claim their right to health care. In Africa, availability does not equate to accessibility for new migrants. In South Africa, migrants fear deportation and harassment, meaning formal health treatment and advice is not sought (Human Rights Watch, 2009). Therefore documentation and formal approval of movement ensures health is recognised as an equal right. [1] See further readings: Lucas, 2012. |
test-international-miasimyhw-con03b | Positives arise from a predominantly male out-migration. Women are provided with a means of strategic, and practical, empowerment - as power is redistributed within the household. Women are placed in a position whereby capital assets and time can be controlled personally [1] . [1] For more on the debate see: Chant (2009); Datta and McIlwaine (2000). |
test-international-miasimyhw-con02a | Urbanisation without industrialisation, the dangerous livelihoods of migrants. Across Africa a reality of ‘urbanisation without industrialisation’ is found (Potts, 2012). Economic growth, and activity, have not matched the urban phenomena across Sub-Saharan Africa. The sombre picture of urban economics questions - what do new migrants do as opportunities are not found? More than 50% of Youth in Africa are unemployed or idle. [1] With migrants entering urban environments presented with a lack of safe and secure jobs unhealthy sexual politics are found, and precarious methods are used to make a living. The scarcity of formal jobs, means a majority of migrants are forced to work in informal employment. Informal employment will continue to rise creating its own problems such as being barrier to imposing minimum wages and employment security. [1] Zuehlke, 2009 |
test-international-miasimyhw-con01a | Migration reasonings and exploitation. A free labour market perceives migration in a predominantly neoclassical light - people migrate due to pull factors, to balance the imbalance of jobs, people move due to economic laws. However, such a perspective fails to include the complex factors enticing migration and lack of choice in the decision. Promoting a labour market, whereby movement is free and trade enabled, makes it easier to move but does not take into account the fact migration is not only purely economical. By focusing on a free labour market as being economically valuable, we neglect a bigger picture of what the reasons for migration are. Without effective management a free labour market raises the potential of forced migration and trafficking. Within the COMESA region trafficking has been identified as a growing issue with the 40,000 identified cases in 2012 being the tip of the iceberg (Musinguzi, 2013). A free labour market may mean victims of trafficking will remain undetected. Moving for ‘work’, how can distinctions be made to identify trafficked migrants; and clandestine migration be managed? A free labour market, across Africa, justifies cheap and flexible labour to build emerging economies - however, remains unjust. Promoting free labour movement needs to be matched with a question on ‘what kind of labour movement’? |
test-international-miasimyhw-con02b | Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative. |
test-international-ghwcitca-pro03b | While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power. [1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses. [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘ Sovereignty@Bay : Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000, |
test-international-ghwcitca-con03b | Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability. [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, |
test-international-ghwcitca-con01a | It would never work There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2] Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban. [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013, [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013, [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013, |
test-international-ghwcitca-con02b | Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states. [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013, |
test-international-gmehwasr-pro02b | The west has historically not been good at picking the winner in the Middle East; take its backing of Saddam in the 1980, the Shah in the 1970s, or the mujahideen in Afghanistan. All have either lost power or turned on those who supported them. If we back the wrong group in Syria then we end upon a worse position than backing none at all; the west is already perceived as being pro Sunni and is seen as being partisan rather than attempting to build a broad inclusive democracy for all communities. [1] So backing any group simply undermines longer term western aims to create a democracy. [1] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 |
test-international-gmehwasr-pro02a | It is in the national interest for democracies to support those seeking to oust dictators Democracies should support moderate groups seeking to oust dictators because the result will hopefully be a moderate, democratic state. This would then be a reliable partner for the future that would be more willing to help engage and resolve the region's problems. But this is not all about being high minded and wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East, arms need to be provided in order to ensure future influence in Syria. We already know that there are jihadis operating in Syria so it is plain that this is a conflict that will eventually have wider implications for the west. If we want to have influence in Syria after Assad is overthrown then we need to begin helping opposition groups. It is in our interest to build up the moderate groups so as to deny support to the extremists; once this is over we would be in a much better position if we have grateful friends on the ground rather than groups who are resentful that we provided fine words but no real help. We don't want to find ourselves having to root out terrorists from the air using UAVs. [1] [1] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 |
test-international-gmehwasr-pro01a | Syria clearly meets the standards for intervention The Assad regime has clearly lost its legitimacy and has precipitated a humanitarian crisis in Syria. The February estimate of 70000 killed [1] is up from an estimate of 60000 only a month before, [2] so clearly the violence is escalating. The conflict is also affecting neighbours; refugees have flooded into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, and Israel is already believed to have attacked a convoy or research facility involved in chemical and biological weapons development. [3] Clearly the presence of these weapons show how much worse the situation could get if Assad is not overthrown. Not intervening risks the whole region being slowly destabilised and drawn in to the conflict. [4] [1] Nichols, Michelle, ‘Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief’, Reuters, 12 Feb 2012 [2] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013 [3] ‘Q&A: Israeli ‘strike’ on Syria’, BBC News, 3 February 2013 [4] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 |
test-international-gmehwasr-pro05b | Simply because there is stalemate in diplomacy and on the ground does not make arming the rebels the option that should now be taken, indeed it does not mean that outside powers need to take any action at all. Those with Syria's best interests at heart would remain on the sidelines, provide humanitarian assistance, and encourage new diplomatic initiatives. The response should not be to turn Syria into a rerun of the proxy wars of the Cold War with the west arming be side and Russia the other. |
test-international-gmehwasr-pro03a | The Free Syrian Army is outgunned The Syrian army is one of the biggest armies in the world; it is nothing like the poorly equipped Libyan army that was beaten by western backed rebels in 2011. The government has aircraft, and helicopters that are used to bomb the rebels, and heavy Russian built tanks that are impervious to most of the small arms the free Syrian army has. Providing arms would quickly even the odds; light anti-tank weapons would be effective against Syrian armoured vehicles repeating the success with which Hezbollah employed them when they knocked out sixty Israeli armoured vehicles in 2006, [1] while man portable air defence systems would quickly make the skies too dangerous for the Syrian airforce so protecting free Syrian controlled areas from the threat of attack from the air. [2] [1] Cordesman, Anthony H., ‘Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17 August 2006, P.18 [2] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013 |
test-international-gmehwasr-con03b | This is a pointless argument; the consequences of inaction are just unknowable. Doing nothing could lead to exactly the same consequences. Alternatively arming the moderates could speed the end to the civil war and the creation of a democratic state. |
test-international-gmehwasr-con05a | Would it work? The most fundamental question for any policy is whether it would actually work if implemented? In this case it seems to be doubtful that in practice arming the rebels would be enough to allow them to prevail. It will simply be helping to even the odds; providing enough arms to prevail over a fully equipped army that is supplied by Iran and Russia would require a truly colossal effort. No one is seriously going to consider providing M1 Abrams tanks to overcome Syrian armour when there are even concerns about providing anti-aircraft missiles. Even supporters of arming the rebels such as Senator John McCain say "this alone will not be decisive". All arming the rebels does then is make the government appear to be doing something (in a bad way since it is an unpopular policy), and stick a toe in the water (also bad as that may lead to escalating commitments), and another decision point six months down the line. [1] [1] Lynch, Marc, ‘Shopping Option C for Syria’, Foreign Policy, 14 February 2013 |
test-international-gmehwasr-con05b | We cannot know whether this policy will work until it is tried. The Free Syrian Army has been remarkably successful so far capturing large swathes of the country and taking the fight to the regime in the capital Damascus. [1] With more sophisticated weaponry to naturalise the tanks, warplanes, helicopters of the regime the Free Syrians may well be able to finish the job. [1] BBC News, ‘Syria: Mapping the insurgency’, 4 December 2012 |
test-international-gmehwasr-con02b | Public opinion is not the decider of what is right and wrong in foreign policy; people are rarely in favour of any kind of action in a volatile international situation. Had public opinion been the decider the allies would have rolled over and let Poland be taken in World War II. |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro02b | This proposition line does not lead to a situation where developing countries forgive their colonisers and forget the suffering of the past; rather, it will lead to a situation where they identify those colonial forces as the source of their suffering, but also as the power which tried to undermine their human integrity by paying them off. Such developing countries will always view reparations as ‘insufficient compensation’ [1] , because there is no lump sum on money which can atone for the acts and atrocities committed against human life. This motion is not only ineffective but will exacerbate the current situation by portraying the West as a place where money has a higher value than the human lives of developing countries; as such, there is no reason for former colonies to believe that their have gained any status other then an ‘opportunity’ for the West. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro02a | Reparations would be a step towards closing colonial scars. It is difficult for former colonies to feel as if they can move on and develop a wholly independent identity when their ties to the past, and to their former colonisers, have not been definitively ended. For example, while it is important to remember those who suffered under slavery, the overwhelming memory of it [1] overpowers the history of those countries and innately links them back to former colonial powers. Furthermore, many of the problems now faced by former colonies can be traced back to the actions of colonial-era masters, for example the birth of ethnic tensions between minorities in Rwanda [2] and Burundi [3] . In order to move on from that damaging legacy, and to conclusively prove that such prejudices are always wrong, it is necessary for former colonial powers to show a tangible move towards closing that colonial chapter of their history. In this way they can begin to move towards a fresh, equal and co-operative relationship with the developing countries which were their former colonies, without the background of history which currently warps such relationships. Italy’s payment of reparations to Libya [4] allowed Libya to ‘mend fences with the West’ [5] and to improve international relationships. This is a step to recognise developing countries as a nation, rather than an economic opportunity. In this way, reparations would be an effective way of demonstrating a global community and spirit. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11. [4] Time. ‘Italy Pays Reparations to Libya’. Published 02/09/2008. Accessed from on 12/09/11. [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro03b | These reparations have done little to satisfy the recipient countries. For example, Israel asked Germany to improve the reparations agreement [1] , which resulted in Germany withdrawing reparations entirely [2] and only served to increase tensions between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel has become reliant on German reparation money [3] , suggesting that reparations do not in fact allow the recipient country to develop their whole national identity without ties to former dominating countries. Moreover, despite the payment of reparations from Italy to Libya, Libya still believes that it was ‘insufficient compensation for colonial damages’ [4] . Just because reparations have been made in the past does not, by any means, show that they were successful or indeed that they are the best option available in the present day. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11. [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro01a | What happened during the colonial era was morally wrong. The entire basis for colonisation was predicated on an innate ‘understanding’ and judgment of one superior culture and race [1] . This ethnocentric approach idolised western traditions while simultaneously undermining the traditions of the countries which were colonised. For example, during the colonisation of America, colonists imposed a Westernised school system on Native American children. This denied their right to wear traditional clothing [2] or to speak their native language [3] , and the children were often subject to physical and sexual abuse and forced labour [4] . The cause of this was simply ignorance of culture differences on behalf of the colonists, which was idyllically labelled and disguised as ‘The White Man’s Burden’ [5] . Colonial powers undermined the social and property rights [6] of the colonies, using military force to rule if civilians should rebel against colonisation in countries such as India [7] . After Indian fighters rebelled against British colonial force in the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 [8] , the British struck back with terrible force, and forced the rebels to ‘lick up part of the blood’ from the floors of the houses [9] . The actions which occurred during colonisation are considered completely inappropriate and undesirable behaviour in a modern world, and in terms of indigenous rights to culture and to property, as well as human rights more generally. Reparations would be a meaningful act of apology for the wrongs which were committed during the past. [1] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [7] Accessed from on 11/09/11. [8] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [9] Accessed from on 11/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro05b | Disguising the purely economic balance illustrated here as a demonstration of heartfelt regret undermines the principles outlined by previous proposition arguments. This is, in fact, a hollow gesture – one that is disguised as a reparation to overcome a country’s right (though we may not agree with it) to reject the aid which is offered to them. The rejection of aid is a demonstrative action in itself; it sends a message that the recipient country does not wish to associate themselves with the donor country. By trying to use reparations as a loophole, this concept simultaneously criticised the recipient country’s right to choose whether they receive aid or not, and undermines the value of reparations elsewhere as a genuine gesture. |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro04b | Most of the Western world is currently undergoing a financial crisis [1] . However prosperous these former colonies might have been, in the modern world they simply do not have the money to provide reparations to these countries on any scale which might come close to closing the economic gap between them. America’s enormous debt almost caused a complete economic collapse in August [2] ; Britain was struggling under £2252.9 billion of debt as on July 2011 [3] . The proposition’s naive balancing argument fails to take into account the realities of the economy and debt in raising this motion – it would be impossible to achieve. [1] The Telegraph. ‘Double-dip fears across West as confidence crumbles’. Published on 30/09/2011. Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] BBC. ‘IMF calls for US to raise debt ceiling and cut spending’. Published 25/07/2011. Accessed at on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro03a | There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states. In the past, dominating global powers have paid reparations and compensation for historical wrongs. For example, Germany pays an annual amount of money to Israel to recognise wrongs committed against Jews during the Holocaust, and to recognise the theft of Jewish property at this time [1] . These reparations have helped Israeli infrastructure enormously, providing ‘railways and telephones, dock installations and irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture’ [2] and contributing to Israeli economic security. Japan also paid reparations to Korea after World War II as the Koreans were ‘deprived of their nation and their identity’ [4] . Britain has paid compensation to the New Zealand Maoris for the damage done during colonial times and the seizure of their land [5] , and Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during the invasion and occupation of 1990-91 [6] . There is little reason why other nations should not be paid for the grievances caused to them by domination countries. There is support for the notion that colonial powers should pay for free universal education in Africa [7] ; this would be an entirely appropriate and desirable measure. [1] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014, [2] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014, [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [7] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro04a | Reparations would effectively right the economic imbalance caused by colonialism. Given that much of the motive for colonisation was economic, many former colonies have suffered damage to their natural resources [1] or human resources, [2] which has left them less able to sustain a healthy economy. Colonists targeted countries with rich natural resources and little ability to defend themselves from invasion and manipulation. By this method, they could supply their own markets with the natural resources which they had already exploited at home [3] , and find cheap (or free) human labour for their markets [4] . Given that powerful countries such as Britain [5] and France [6] gained their own economic prosperity through the exploitation of the economic potential of the colonies, it is entirely appropriate and logical that they should pay reparations as compensation. In this way, the economic disparity between former colonies and colonists would be equalised. [1] Accessed from on12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] ‘The Haitian Revolution and its Effects’. Patrick E. Bryan. Accessed from on 12/09/11. |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con03b | Taxpayers already fund the foreign aid which is distributed habitually [1] [2] ; they are not to blame for a famine in Somalia, for example, but they continue to pay for it [3] . There is frequently a disconnection between the people who pay for aid and the people who receive it. However, we recognise that the need is great enough in such countries to make it not only legitimate, but a moral duty. Most citizens of former colonial powers can recognise that some of the acts committed during colonial times was wrong and deserves repairing. Given that this is a productive means of doing so, and already has the precedent of foreign aid more generally, it is entirely appropriate. [1] The Daily Mail. ‘Foreign aid budget to cost every family £500’. Published 22/10/2010. Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] BBC. ‘Somalia famine: UK insists aid is “getting through”’. Published 18/08/2011. Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con01b | Given that many former colonies remain poor (even after so many years), it is very unlikely that these people would have no need for such money. The difference in timescale is irrelevant; what is relevant is that such former colonies have a demonstrated need for this money, and that atrocities occurred during the colonial era. If it became to hard to track down specific people, it would also be easily possible to give money to the government as Italy did to Libya [1] , in which case the potential for improved infrastructure and basic living conditions could have a nation-wide benefit. Just because it may be difficult does not overrule the many powerful arguments that we should do this. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con02a | Such reparations would do little to actually improve the developing countries. Reparations are an incredibly short-term economic measure. To have any substantial impact, long-term systems would need to be put in place to truly benefit such countries, and it would be far better to encourage sustainable growth [1] than a one-off bumper payment. Developed countries should look towards improving their long-term relationship with former colonies and establishing measures such as fairer trade rules or debt relief as an efficient measure. This would allow the aid to be focused in the places where these countries need it most. The symbolism of reparations is also potentially dangerous. Firstly, paying reparations may bring the belief that former colonial powers have ‘paid their debt’ and no longer have to seek to improve their own conduct of foreign policy. Secondly, this measure would allow dictators such as Robert Mugabe to feel justified in their declarations that colonial powers are independently responsible for all the problems affecting their countries [2] [3] [4] . In this way, Mugabe tries to hide his own shortcomings and place blame entirely on the West, which has negative impacts on the potential for international relations. In the case of Italy’s reparations to Libya, this could be seen as strengthening the Gaddafi dictatorship at the expense of the Libyan people and the West, particularly as Gaddafi is prone to blaming the West [5] or indeed anybody else he can [6] . [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con04a | The very payment of reparations exerts a neo-colonial power over former colonies. The recognition that many former colonies are in desperate economic need only adds to the sense that former colonial powers desire to hold sway over them. Giving reparations induces dependency and can weaken the appearance of government in the former colonies, and may allow the donor government to exert influence over policy areas within the recipient country [1] . Far from giving the recipient country the means to develop itself as an independent nation, this motion simply recalls the old power structure which existed during colonisation. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con03a | Reparations unfairly target the taxpayers of former colonial powers who had nothing to do with the deeds committed under colonisation. It is unclear who exactly is being punished under this mechanism. Ordering reparations rather than, for example, a public apology from a monarch or government, only serves to harm tax-paying citizens whose money would be used to pay such reparations. There is a huge disconnection between the people who actually committed wrongs and the people who are now forced to literally pay for them. This is likely to lead to an increase in hostility from the taxpayers who do not understand why they are being punished, towards the people of former colonies. It is no longer a case where reparations could ever be paid from the direct profits of exploitation as any profit from that must have been spent long ago. It is wrong to impose undue guilt and obligation of payment on to people who are entirely disconnected from that history. |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con04b | There is a fundamental difference here between colonisation and the modern day; whereas colonial powers were formerly damaging infrastructure [1] and natural resources [2] , in the modern day under reparations they would be helping to preserve such resources and finance the development of a sound infrastructure. Nor would the former colonial powers be exerting military strength [3] [4] [5] . There is an obvious difference between the relations of a colonial power and its colony, and a developed nation offering reparations to a less developed nation. One notable change is that the flow of money has changed direction – instead of exploiting the economic potential of the colony, the developed country is actually giving money to the former colony. This opposition point simply does not stand [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
test-international-aghbfcpspr-con02b | It is entirely possible that reparations could be paid in smaller instalments over a much longer term as Germany has done [1] , thereby providing a longer-term solution rather than one lump sum. Furthermore, it is likely that if former colonial powers offer reparations as a genuine attempt to accept and apologise for the wrongs previously committed, the longer-term relationship between the two countries would be eased. Finally, it is at least more likely that citizens in countries such as Zimbabwe and Libya might re-think their opinion of the West if reparations and help were offered, rather than blankly refused. While the dictators may continue to denounce the West, it will be harder for them to do so if former colonial powers show every attempt to help and communicate with the people they have wronged. [1] Rising, David, 'Germany increases reparations for Holocaust survivors', Times of Israel, 16 November 2012, |
test-international-gpsmhbsosb-pro01a | South Ossetia has a right to self-determination The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [1] By this measure, South Ossetia has the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. In 2006, South Ossetia held a referendum that found over 99% of its population of over 100,000 desire independence from Georgia. 95% of the population turned out to vote. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers. [2] These facts are the core of the case for South Ossetian independence. It demonstrates that South Ossetians are entirely unified and enthusiastic in their desire for independence. The strength and unity of these calls for independence are almost unprecedented and cannot be ignored by the international community. And, certainly, the percentage of a population that desires independence is of relevance to assessing the legitimacy of the call and a country's right to self-determination. By this standard, South Ossetia's right to self-determination is highly legitimate. [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993. [2] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. |
test-international-gpsmhbsosb-con01a | Illegitimacy of the 2006 referendum South Ossetia was wrong to hold elections under conflict conditions. In 2006, South Ossetia can be said to have been in 8 conflicts with Georgia when it held its 2006 referendum on independence. Holding referendums under such conflict conditions is generally illegitimate because the results of the elections are skewed by the conflict, threats, and the various risks for the voters involved. This caused David Bakradze, the chairman of a Georgian parliamentary European Integration Committee, to comment, “Under conflict conditions, you cannot speak about legitimate elections.” [1] This mirrors European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe’s, denunciation of the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [2] Furthermore Russia's involvement in the 2006 referendum arguably corrupted its validity, as many of the authorities in S. Ossetia were installed there by the Russian government. [3] [1] Radio Free Europe. “Overwhelming Support For South Ossetia Independence”. Radio Free Europe. The Journal of the Turkish Weekly. 13 November 2006. [2] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006. [3] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006. |
test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro02b | At that rate, war in Africa is not going to be ended by 2020. Moreover, progress in the past does not mean that the progress will continue into the future. |
test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro01b | Having a system is useless if it is not sufficiently funded to fulfil its objectives, at the moment the AU does not provide sufficient funding for peacekeeping. [1] Moreover, reaction does not prevent war - just shortens it and reduces the intensity. The Panel of the Wise is one method of attempting to stop conflict before it becomes really violent but external mediators can only do so much in preventing conflict; most needs to come from the parties in conflict. [1] Williams, 2011, p.12 |
test-international-apwhbaucmip-con03b | While events cannot be foreseen, fixing fragile states to make conflict less likely is possible. Eradicating poverty is already an international goal and improving governance is a regular concern among donors. The AU recognises that development, democracy and good governance are necessary to ensure stability and peace. [1] [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Towards a Continental Early Warning System for Africa’, ISS Africa, paper 102, April 2005, , p.2 |
test-international-apwhbaucmip-con01a | War is in human nature War and conflict between groups is in human nature. As Hobbes famously wrote “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short… Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another”. [1] Although the motives have changed, conflict has been a constant throughout human history. The first militaries were created around 2700 BC but conflict between societies almost certainly occurred before this. [2] Pledging to end all war is high minded, but it is unlikely to actually succeed in overturning human nature. [1] Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Chapter XIII of the Natural Condition of Mankind as concerning their felicity and misery’, Leviathan, [2] Gabriel, Richard A., and Metz, Karen S., A Short History of War, 1992, |
test-international-apwhbaucmip-con04b | While the AU cannot completely prevent conflicts from breaking out it is establishing a Continental Early Warning System. This will use publically available information and involve organisations at all levels from international to local to enable the AU, and any threatened states, to take preventive action in the common good. This is linked to regional organisations such as ECOWAS which has its own conflict prevention mechanisms and has the authority to react with peacekeeping, mediation of disputes or other peace building mechanisms. [1] The AU can also ensure any conflicts that do break out are ended quickly. The creation of the African Standby Force should give the AU the strength to react to crises and prevent conflicts escalating. [1] Cilliers, 2005, pp.1, 10 |
test-international-iighbopcc-pro02b | While there are sure to be some countries that won’t live up to their pledges this is also the case with binding agreements even if they have built in penalties. This has been shown by the European Union where Germany and France both flouted budget rules that allowed a maximum deficit of 3% at the start of the millennium despite the threat of fines. [1] [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘France and Germany to flout budget rules until 2006’, The Guardian, 30 October 2003, |
test-international-iighbopcc-con03b | The United States Senate would be a potential sticking point for any treaty however it would be unlikely that the United States would hold out against the rest of the world. At the worst case it would simply sign next time the democrats gain a majority. |
test-international-iighbopcc-con01b | Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place. |
test-international-iighbopcc-con03a | A more informal agreement avoids the US congress The United States Congress is a potential hurdle for any climate agreement. While President Barack Obama is keen to make tackling climate change a legacy of his Presidency the Republican dominated Congress is both likely to try to block the President for that very reason and is sceptical of climate change. It is therefore a major benefit to have an agreement that will not need to be submitted to Congress for approval as any treaty needs to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State Kerry argues that it is “definitely not going to be a treaty,” and “not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto”. It won’t need to be passed to the Senate because the President already has the power to implement the agreement through existing law. [1] [1] Mufson, Steven, and Demirjian, Karoun, ‘Trick or treaty? The legal question hanging over the Paris climate change conference’, Washington Post, 30 November 2015, |
test-international-iighbopcc-con01a | Sovereign states should be allowed to set their own targets and be trusted to meet them States are sovereign entities meaning that only they have power within their borders and climate change should not be a cause for groups of countries meddling in the business of others. Each state making its own commitment and then doing its own monitoring and enforcement is the right way to go about preventing climate change. By doing it this way no countries will feel unduly burdened or persecuted. |
test-international-bldimehbn-pro02a | On issues such as gay marriage, human rights activists have taken the line that the right to marry is nobody else’s business. That principle of privacy should work both ways. Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them. [1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories. If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable. If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news. [1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10th August 2012, |
test-international-bldimehbn-pro01a | Broadcasters almost never show scenes of torture or torment because they know this will cause offence, the same principle should apply here. Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives [1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement [2] . Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership. [3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs. [4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, [4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, |
test-international-bldimehbn-pro01b | All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid. Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.” [1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook, [2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit. [1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91. [2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012, |
test-international-amehbuaisji-pro02b | Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves. The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted. If the US and Israel do have issues where military officials have broken the international criminal law, they can be dealt with by the existing Courts-Martial of their respective militaries. Both Israel and the US are states that obey the rule of law. The ICC was unnecessary when the US military convicted William Calley for the My Lai massacre, or the Mahmudiyah case. The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-pro03b | Just because there is widespread public support for a thing or measure does not mean that it should automatically be the case. The issue should be debated on its own merits, rather than resting on a potentially ill-informed public. Ratification of treaties is left to congress and the Knesset to ensure that their consequences are properly considered. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-pro03a | The American people support ICC membership. In a democracy the voice of the people should carry weight in determining how the country acts internationally. According to a 2005 poll carried out by the Chicago Council on foreign relations 69% of the US population are in favour of US participation in the ICC. This clearly shows that the US people are unconvinced by the arguments on the theorized drawbacks of the International Criminal Court and are happy for it to be ratified. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-con01b | It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined. While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-con04a | ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations. There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-con03a | The rest of the world is better off with the US out The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction. When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution. This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either. |
test-international-amehbuaisji-con04b | While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world. While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International. While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US. |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro02a | A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises. Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved. Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough. [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23. |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro03b | A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect. |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro03a | A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves. A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together. |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con04a | A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population. Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1. 1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787 |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con03a | There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare. If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance. |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con05b | The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices. 1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86 2, Ibid |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con04b | A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates. 1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26 |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro02b | As argued below (Opposition argument 2), the UN has in fact been instrumental in developing the modern concept of human rights, which prior to its foundation essentially did not exist as an idea, and certainly not as a body of coherent international law. And the UN has acted to prevent and condemn human rights abuses all over the world. Where the UN has failed to prevent genocide or human rights violations, it has generally been due to the failure of the international community rather than the UN itself. For example, the bloodshed in Rwanda went unstopped not because the UN was unconcerned, but because those nations that might have intervened, such as the US, France or neighbouring African countries, were unable or unwilling to do so - not a failure that can fairly be laid at the door of the UN. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro03b | Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them! |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro05a | Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework. The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1] [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro01a | : Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved. The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully. In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War. [1] [1] Harrison, Mark & Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro01b | It is unfair to say that the United Nations has failed just because conflict has not been eradicated from the world. The causes that drive nations to war with one another often cannot be resolved by diplomatic means; to set global peace as the test for the UN’s efficiency is clearly unfair. Nonetheless the UN has served as an effective forum for behind the scenes diplomacy in many international crises. It has come to the aid of countries when attacked, as in the examples of [South] Korea and Kuwait in 1950 and 1990 respectively; it has also kept the peace in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and East Timor. The fact that armed conflicts around the world have become less common since 1990 is, arguably, at least partly down to the good offices of the United Nations. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro05b | Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports. [1] In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body. [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro04b | The United Nations is no more corrupt than any large organisation, much less national governments, and far more transparent than many comparable institutions. It is true that the Human Rights Council contains some nations with bad records on civil liberties but it is surely better to engage with such regimes and shame them into slowly improving their human rights standards, than simply excluding them from UN organs and losing any influence over how they treat their citizens. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro03a | UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient. The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1] [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website. |
test-international-ghbunhf-pro04a | Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised. As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1] There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state. [3] [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011. [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005. [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011. |
test-international-ghbunhf-con05b | It is arguable that the era of globalisation makes the United Nations less important, not more. Trade disputes are settled bilaterally or through the WTO; economic crises through the offices of the World Bank and IMF; security problems, as often as not, through the mediation of the US or other interested powers. All too often, the UN is a forum not for dispute resolution but the airing of grievances against other nations. For example, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War, both the United States and its detractors, such as France, used the UN to publicise and justify their position on military action, not to discuss it in any meaningful way. If a United Nations did not exist, and we were obliged to invent one, we would hopefully do a better job next time! |
test-international-ghbunhf-con04b | This debate is about whether or not the UN has failed. It may well be that the response to a failing organisation is not abolition but wholesale reform, as the opposition argue here, but that would not change the fact that the UN has not achieved what it was designed to do. And while reform has been promised for many decades, nothing has ever been done to resolve the systemic flaws of this organisation. So promises of reform are an unsatisfactory answer to the charges against the UN. |
test-international-ghbunhf-con02b | The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model. It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create. |
test-international-aghwrem-pro03b | Since the government is still controlled by the military and there is no evidence to that corruption levels will go down in the new regime, engaging in trade with Myanmar will only strengthen the ruling elite. There is little accountability for developmental aid actually reaching its desired goals.1 Trading with Myanmar means trading with organisations controlled by the state/military in a nationalised economy. Common people are exploited and kept in poverty while the profits are reaped by a few. This has been the experience of international trade with Myanmar involving countries other than US and EU, and there is no reason that this will change. Further, there is no necessary link between business activity and development of the rule of law, as the experience of many African countries has shown. Opportunistic business entities are more likely to be involved in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that benefit them, instead of causing social change. 1 BBC News, ‘UN frustrated at Burma response’, 13 May 2008. |
test-international-aghwrem-pro05a | Regional factors favour re-engagement Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken. |
test-international-aghwrem-pro01b | This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1 1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2. |
test-international-aghwrem-pro05b | Though countries in South Asia have displayed ambivalence in their attitude towards Myanmar, it is not a reason for the US and the EU to change their stance. Regional players have sometimes tended to support the pro-democracy movement in their rhetoric, but have not adopted policies that are aligned with it. Therefore, they have not been able to cause any real democratic reform. If there is a united international community that does not actively seek to isolate Myanmar, but to the contrary engages with it, the force that can drive such reform will become even weaker. The risk of harm from long-existent differences in attitudes between regional players and those who seek to disengage is very low, and nothing has occurred since 1990 to suggest otherwise. |
test-international-aghwrem-pro03a | There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change. 1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011. 2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy) |
test-international-aghwrem-con03a | Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1 1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’. |
test-international-aghwrem-con04b | Regional players like China and India are interested in border security and internal stability for Myanmar. There is no basis to say that their political and commercial relationship with Myanmar must necessarily be for short-term benefit. It is unfair to compare Myanmar with Western standards of preserving human rights or with ‘a model democratic state’, though there may not be any countries in the world that fit the description. It is sufficient if it is at a stage where its standard of governance is comparable with other countries in South Asia that do not face international isolation or censure. There is also evidence to show that exposure to more sophisticated markets does have a positive influence on the development of internal legal systems. Though Russia may not be a model economy, its economic growth has been accompanied by gradual changes to attitudes and institutions internally. Reengagement would make it easier for these changes to take place, while a policy of disengagement would, in effect, be a policy of apathy. |
test-international-aghwrem-con02b | While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar. |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro03b | Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech. [1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013 [2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro01a | Authoritarian leadership President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1]. Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress. The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3] [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014 [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011 [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013 |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro03a | International concern Rwanda, though a progressing country is still aid dependent which has been a backbone for its achievements today[1]. Spoiling Rwanda’s relations with the international community would therefor be destabilising Rwanda’s focus and growth. This has been evident when some countries cut aid to Rwanda recently following allegations of the government supporting insecurity in Congo [2]. Most donor governments are strong backers of human rights and freedom. Continued restrictions to freedom of speech may provoke international reaction through cutting aid and trade ties a move that may hinder the success of Rwanda’s goals. Aid has been cut on other human rights issues for example donor countries have recently acted to cut aid to Uganda as a result of their criminalisation of homosexuality.[3] [1] DFID Rwanda, ‘Growth and Poverty reduction grant to the government of Rwanda (2012/2013-2014/2015), gov.uk, July 2012 [2] BBC news, ‘UK stops £21m aid payment to Rwanda’ bbc.co.uk, 30 November 2012 [3] Plaut, Martin, ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, theguardian.com, 25 February 2014 |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-con03b | It is a wrong assertion that Rwandans are valued in the process of policy making when their genuine opinions are limited to a certain level. The national dialogue is a three day event and cannot cover the concerns of more than 11 million Rwandans. Moreover when people still fear to say the truth as they go through in daily life [1], how can one expect such people to raise the right issues on a public platform with the most powerful people in the country? [1] Amnesty International, 2011 |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-con01b | Restricted press and speech also limits political debate and engagement which are crucially needed in adopting fruitful policies[1]. The best policies are those that are rigorously debated and analysed. The current leadership may have acted to check corruption but without institutionalised freedom of the press to encourage whistleblowing there is no guarantee that corruption won’t return in the future. Rwanda’s progress is therefore dependent on individuals, fine in the short term but development takes decades. In the long term for a state to progress there has to be balancing mechanisms so as to prevent misrule and importantly persuade investors there will be stability. Moreover Rwanda is trying to create a knowledge economy. It is not like China’s creation of a manufacturing based economy, instead it relies upon critical thinking, ideas and analysis – all things that benefit from freedom of speech. [1] UNESCO, ‘Press freedom and development: an analysis of correlations between freedom of the press and the different dimensions of development, poverty, governance and peace’, unesco.org |
test-international-bmaggiahbl-con02b | While the government of Rwanda has chosen the economy this does not mean the people agree – simply that the government controls the narrative so giving the impression, or persuading them that they agree. Restricting free speech and press has increased critics from the Rwandan diaspora evidence that inside the country, citizens have no way of putting forward their say[1]. Economic growth is not the only kind of progress. In order to drive forward the economy Rwanda is stunting the progress of individual rights. [1] Keung, Nicholas, ‘Paul Kagame: Rwanda’s saviour or strongman?’, thestar.com, 26 September 2013 |
test-international-appghblsba-pro03b | There is no guarantee that the SA government will indeed try to make a change after the integration of the Lesotho territory. The narrative is quite different in Europe for example where regions like Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are trying to secede because they do not feel the national government is addressing their problems as they should. Even if we agree that SA is the most powerful country in Sub-Saharan region and that they have more money that the Kingdom of Lesotho, there is no certainty that the money will be redirected toward that region. SA already has a lot of problems of its own. |
test-international-appghblsba-pro04b | While any annexation would be mutually agreed there is no guarantee that the whole international community would see it positively; any resistance from groups within Lesotho and it could be a PR nightmare. Moreover the spin of it being a humanitarian gesture is reliant on it following through and improving conditions. If it succeeds then SA will likely be called upon to resolve other humanitarian situations in the region such as in Swaziland. |
test-international-appghblsba-pro03a | Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line [1] , Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus. [2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change. [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project, [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014, |
test-international-appghblsba-con03b | The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer. [3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden. [1] The World Factbook, 2014, [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service, [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011, |
test-international-appghblsba-con02a | A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3] [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011, [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012, [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009, |