The Taliban is a cruel and undemocratic regime, and so it should not be given any power.  The Taliban oppressed their own people, especially women and ethnic or religious minorities. A very strict, distinctive interpretation of Sunni Islam was enforced zealously (with public executions and amputations) as they attempted to build the world’s purest Islamic state. Television and music were banned, women had to be fully covered up and were forbidden from receiving an education or working (despite many families having lost their male members after years of warfare, and so rendering many families entirely dependent upon food aid for survival), and their access to healthcare was restricted.  The well-known story provided by Time Magazine: Aisha who ran away from her husband’s house. Her husband was abusing her physically and mentally. When she was caught by the Taliban «soldiers», she was taken to the Taliban Court and given a punishment in their law. The punishment was, her ears and nose was cut. She was then left for dead however she survived because an Afghan Rights group managed to save her. She is just one example. Therefore, if we let the Taliban participate in power-sharing, they will try to implement their form of justice which is totally biased when it comes to women. We cannot afford to sacrifice women rights for peace in Afghanistan.  Another example of the violence is the massacre of Yakaolang in January 2001: Hazaras were victimized for 4 days, detained 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of humanitarian orgnisations. Men were shot at public places. Rocket launchers were fired at Mosques were 73 women and children were sheltering. In May 2000, 26 civilians of Hazara Shi’as group were executed in robatak pass. In August 1998 Taliban captured Mazar- I- Sharif. Reports of killing of around 2000- 5000 people mostly of Hazara clan were presented. [1]  All of this shows the barbarity of the Taliban’s activities, which so far hasn’t stopped.  [1] Eyewitness accounts of Taliban massacre in Yakaolang, By RAWA reporters, June, 2001


Intense international demand for opium has led to poppies becoming a preferred cash crop among Afghan farmers. Although historically known for its fruit and vegetable production, the high prices commanded by opium mean that it is regarded as financially resilient, immune to large price fluctuations and still offering decent returns, even if a large proportion of a crop fails. Although the Taliban profited from levies on the opium trade, so did the warlords they displaced. In fact, in 2000 the Taliban, responding to global concern over the heroin trade and its own religious impulses, issued orders that opium should not be grown. As a result, production dropped by over 90% with a noticeable impact upon street prices of heroin in Europe. This suggests both that engagement with the Taliban was potentially constructive, and that a collapse of central control would give drug runners a free hand.


The Taliban are not the only regime in the world to have sheltered terrorists – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are all viewed by the USA’s State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, although the Taliban provide shelter for terrorist groups to train, the other states could be seen to go further, by actively initiating and funding terrorism. Moreover, given that Russia and the Central Asian former soviet states have been opposed to the Taliban from the start, and backed the Northern Alliance against it in the Afghan civil war, it is hardly surprising that the Taliban backed their own rebel movements. It could also be asked whether rebels in Chechnya, Kosovo and China should be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters.  The opposition cannot be expecting the proposition to defend the reinstatement of the pseudo-religious-extremist-fundamentalist Taliban regime. We are in fact calling for exactly the opposite: Please the Taliban by negotiating with them on the coalition's terms not theirs and avert the old form of Taliban rule in the region. If the coalition leaves without any talks whatsoever then an extremist Taliban takeover of both Pakistan and Afghanistan is a distinct possibility. If the coalition leaves after buying the Taliban out while imposing conditions imperative to human rights and western values (including respect for other ethnic/religious/ideological groups). Then we have a chance for peace. To claim that aggressively fighting on the ground will end racial conflict when 9 years of fighting have only exacerbated these problems; is rather ignorant. It entails learning nothing at all from history/past-mistakes. If this kind of warfare which the Taliban are much better at; continues the war will be lost. If instead as the wonderful Obama has suggested we resort to peaceful talks this time directly with the Taliban, then we have a chance of winning.


The example of Kosovo is not similar because of the terrible treatment including ethnic cleansing, mass murder and torture that Kosovars suffered within the former Yugoslavia and Serbia. Even if other examples are more similar, they are regrettable themselves, we should be seeking to bring nations together through means such as the EU and UN not split them apart.  The main reason for Kosovo's recognition stemmed from the fact that it was never really simply part of Serbia. Until the illegal constitutional changes made by Milosevic in 1989, Kosovo was a part of the Yugoslav federation in its own right, with its own seat on the Yugoslav presidency. One can't possibly claim the same constitutional status for RS, which is quite simply the areas of Bosnia which the Bosnian Serb forces were able to ethnically cleanse and keep after the war ended in 1995. Unlike Kosovo, the RS has no historical, legal or constitutional precident and is to a large degree the product of ethnic cleansing.


There is legitimate precedent.  Kosovo became formally independent from Serbia in 2008 [1] and Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006 [2] as a result of referenda within those territories. If these states and the many, many others which previously achieved independence have a right to self-determination why doesn’t RS? To deny some groups of people access to self-determination is hypocritical and unjust.  [1] BBC News, ‘Kosovo MPs proclaim independence’, 17 February 2008,   [2] BBC News, ‘Montenegro declares independence’, 4 June 2006,


This is just an argument for reforming state structures to reduce dysfunction, perhaps by moving to majority votes instead of each side having a veto. Additionally if the two sides have difficulty cooperating now, why would that cooperation become easier when they no longer share a state? This would at the minimum lead to two neighbouring states without a functional relationship and thus limited ability to act collectively on cross border crime or trade.


Increased sense of identity with the state increases social solidarity.  Where groups of people do not identify with the state they are less likely to be willing to invest in more generous state services since they do feel that peoples with whom they have no affinity will benefit from them. Conversely, where people feel like the state is mostly composed of people like them, they are more willing to invest in education, healthcare and a welfare state. These things will ultimately significantly improve the lives of the people in each new state and lead to stronger states than the one that exists now. For example the Scandinavian states, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland with their largely homogenous societies are also associated with very high levels of social happiness and generous welfare provision.


Serbs have a right to Self-Determination.  The right to self-determination is a basic human right which underpins the legitimacy of the nation-state. Where a large group people do not feel represented or accepted by a state and thus do not consent to its rule, the states control over that people becomes illegitimate. The right to national self-determination is enshrined with the UN charter [1] and formed the basis for the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.  [1] United Nations, ‘UN Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Art. 1, Part 2’. 26 June 1945,


Where does self-determination end? Do cities or towns have a right to self-determination, what about individuals within the state? Allowing further secessions will just lead to increasingly smaller and less viable states without producing benefits. Nations are invented human constructs with no inherent value. The right to self-determination is limited, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that there were only three circumstances in which external self determination to three circumstances (a) those under colonial domination or foreign occupation; (b) peoples subject to "alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context;" and, possibly, (c) a people "blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally." [1] None of these apply to RS.  In the case of RS there were Bosniaks and Croats who were already in the region and were expelled in the 1990s who in many cases formed a majority in many municipalities in what is now Republika Srpska. Should these smaller groupings have the same right? And if so would individual villages within these municipalities then be able to exercise their own self determination?  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., ‘Self-determination of the p[eoples of Quebec under International Law’, J. Transnational Law & Policy, Vol.10 No.1, p.12,


Some groups of people will always not identify with the state, for class based, political and cultural reasons. State solidarity has to be based on a common humanity as that is the only fundamentally unifying factor.


Areas of intermixing do exist, such as the capital, Sarajevo. Steps should be taken instead top encourage communities to live together for example with housing subsidies for mixed developments and with cross communal education.


The present state structure does not work.  The existing state structure does not work, because it requires agreement between the representatives of RS and the FBH, Given the fundamentally divergent aims and opinions of the two sides compromise is almost impossible leading to perpetual gridlock on basic issues such as policing and education. This gridlock can be shown by the fifteen months it took for Bosnia and Herzegovina to form a government, and even then a compromise was only reached due to financial pressure from the IMF and EU. [1]  [1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina: the financial situation forces politicians to reach a compromise regarding the government’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 4 January 2012,


The people within the state have no desire to live together.  The constituents peoples (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) live almost entirely in separate segregated areas with very little communal intermixing. They already essentially live in separate states but without the ability to actually direct their own affairs or receive international recognition. [1] It should be remembered that the Bosnian Serbs have already voted ponce for secession as in a referendum in November 1991 in areas which were Serb ethnic 96.4% voted for an independent State within the then Yugoslav federation. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina’,   [2] Application of Genocide convention, ‘Dissenting opinion of Judge Kreca’, International Court of Justice, 11 July 1996, p.738,


The region is no longer the powder keg of tension it once was. The independence of Kosovo did not lead to widespread fighting, but only to localised rioting for a period of days or weeks and the Montenegrin secession was entirely peaceful. The awareness of the possibility of escalation of tension will only to serve to make the new states and the international community even more focused on preventing violence and they are thus likely to react accordingly with peacekeepers, international monitors and aid.


Whether or not Nations are imaginary, they are seen as being important and form a key part of individual’s identity. Nationalism does not have to lead to a sense of superiority, nations can be proud of their identity without being disrespectful of other nation’s culture and history.


Secession will hurt minorities in the new state  This increased nationalism will hurt minority ethnic groups within the new states, both already existing minorities such as Jews, Roma, and foreign immigrants who will no longer be part of a largely diverse state with strong legal protections for minority rights, where there are mechanisms for preventing either side dominating, [1] but will instead be part of new ethnically defined states to which they will be perceived as not belonging. Additionally it will hurt the ‘new’ minorities, the Bosniaks and Croats in RS and the Serbs in the FBH, who will be physically and mentally cut off from the state which at least in some respects formerly represented them. Instead they would be made a minority within a group of people judged fundamentally different from them and incapable of living with people like them.  [1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina – an ongoing erosion of the state’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 30 March 2011,


Republika Srpska cannot survive economically as an independent state.  The RS and FBH have very little industry and few exports, RS for example only exports 720million euros worth compared to imports of 1.25billion euros, [1] the economy is largely based on tourism and foreign aid both of which would likely be adversely affected by the turmoil of secession. A new RS would therefore likely quickly become economically dependent on Serbia and would be unable to make the investments needed to ensure a successful new state. The drop off in tourism revenue will also reduce the prosperity of the citizens and increase poverty in the area.  [1] Remikovic, Drazen, ‘Devicit of Bosnia’s Republika Srpska half billion euros’, Balkans.com, 30 August 2011,


Secession will strengthen Nationalism in neighbouring states.  The upsurge in Nationalism would not be limited to just the two parts of Bosnia & Herzegovina, given the ethnic kinship between the Croats and Serbs of Bosnia and those of Croatia and Serbia, but would also in all likelihood lead to renewed nationalism in Serbia, Croatia and other FYRs as happened during the earlier rise of the nationalists before and during the Yugoslav wars [1] . This would jeopardise the progress made within and between these states and damage international cooperation. It would also likely set back the drive towards increased integration, the close cross national feeling and shared culture termed ‘the Yugosphere’ and ultimately being joined together again within the EU.  [1] Pesic, Vesna, ‘Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis’, Peaceworks No.8, April 1996, United States Institute of Peace,  .26


Secession will lead to renewed conflict.  The combination of an increased nationalism and the plight of minorities trapped within states overwhelmingly composed of the ‘other’ people is likely to lead to low level tension, rioting and even potentially warfare particularly over areas which have large Serbs or Bosniak populations forming enclaves within the other state as has happened in many previous secession disputes such as the Croatian secession from Yugoslavia [1] This would plunge the area and the whole region back towards the catastrophic fighting of the 1990’s and needlessly cost many lives as happened in the partition of India [2] . It would also likely lead to waves of refugees and decreased investment and tourism in the new states blighting their futures.  [1] Reuters, ‘Roads Sealed as Yugoslav Unrest Mounts’, The New York Times, 19 August 1990,   [2] Brass, Paul R., ‘The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab 1946-47: means, methods, and purposes’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.5, No.1, 2003, pp.71-101, p.75,


Both Montenegro and Kosovo had similar economic situations and have subsequently prospered after independence. Even if there were economic problems they were also both still allowed to become independent. Independence can also lead to an economic boom with new investment and diaspora emigrants returning to the country as happened with the Baltic states after independence. [1]  [1] Fifka, Matthias S., ‘The Baltics: Continuing boom or bursting bubble? A rocky short-run should not obscure a promising long run’, Business Economics, October 2008,


Secession strengthen Nationalism in the new states  Nations and Peoples are invented human constructs that have no intrinsic value. [1] Self-determination merely reinforces the idea that different groups of people are fundamentally different and not part of a shared humanity. Nationalism leads to a belief that some groups of people are superior to others, which in turn leads to discrimination against groups of people who are not seen as part of the nation. [2]  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, p.48,   [2] Ajnadžić, Mirza, and Kamber, Ajdin, ‘Bosnia’s “Others” Fight for Their Rights’, Institute for War & Peace Reporting, 746, 19 June 1012,


The progress in the other former Yugoslav Republics is now largely irreversible as young people grow up without experience of fighting or significant ethnic division. The processes of education and increased prosperity that have led to this phenomena mean that it will likely be largely unaffected by events in Bosnia-Herzegovina.


The constitutions of the RS and FBH already enshrine the protection of linguistic and religious minorities and the new states will be aware of the international focus on the ‘new’ minority groups and will thus focus resources on protecting them in order to protect the reputation of the new state.


While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.  [1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012.


Foreign aid benefits the United States  While foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for example Cargill was paid $96million for supplying food aid in 2010-11. [1] Secondly there are also indirect benefits. Through the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Obama administration hopes to “develop partnerships with countries committed to enabling the private sector investment that is the basis of sustained economic growth to open new markets for American goods, promote trade overseas, and create jobs here at home”. [2] Essentially, through foreign aid, both the economies of the developing world and the United States come out ahead. Even Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that the 1 percent the United States spends on foreign aid “not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing countries – which means it has an impact on our economy”. [3]  [1] Provost, Claire, and Lawrence, Felicity, ‘US food aid programme criticised as ‘corporate welfare’ for grain giants’, guardian.co.uk, 18 July 2012.  [2] ‘What we do’, USAID, 12 September 2012.  [3] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.


Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]  [1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.  [2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012.


The aid budget has to increase to meet rising commitments  Despite a large national deficit, the Obama administration has stated over [1] and over [2] again that they have no plans to cut Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the 2011 budget reflects that by putting the United States on a path to double foreign assistance by 2015. [3] The Obama administration has requested $56 billion for international affairs in Fiscal Year 2013 that would go towards USAID funding and programs. [4] This would go a considerable way towards the target, first pledged in 1970, of rich countries committing 0.7% of GNP to Official Development Assistance. [5]  This increase is necessary because Obama has increasing commitments to meet. The administration wants to embrace the United Nations Millennium Development Goals [6] to cut global poverty by 2015 in hopes that foreign assistance can help countries build “healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth”. [7] The Obama administration wants to increase foreign assistance to make investments to combat terrorism, corruption and transnational crime, improve global education and health, reduce poverty, build global food security, expand the Peace Corps, address climate change, stabilize post-conflict states, and reinforce conflict prevention.  In a speech promoting good governance in Ghana, President Obama stated, “the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by—it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.” [8] The goal remains to expand diplomatic and development capacity while renewing the United States as a global leader.  [1] LaFranchi, Howard, ‘Obama at UN summit: foreign aid is ‘core pillar of American power’, The Christian Science Monitor, 22 September 2010.  [2] Zeleny, Jeff, ‘Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views’, The New York Times, 24 April 2007.  [3] ‘U.S. Department of State and Other International Programs’, Office of Management and Budget.  [4] Troilo, Pete, ‘Ryan VP pick could yield clues on Romney’s foreign aid plans’, devex, 13 August 2012.  [5] ‘The 0.7% target: An in depth-look’, Millennium Project, 2006.  [6] We Can End Poverty 2015, UN.org.  [7] ‘The Obama-Biden Plan’, Change.gov, 2008.  [8] Wallis, William, ‘Obama calls for good governance in Africa’, Financial Times, 11 July 2009.


It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.  [1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.  [2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.


Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]  [1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.  [2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011.


The foreign aid budget can be made more effective and transparent  While a second Obama administration is not going to cut back on foreign aid the Obama campaign however, does argue for pragmatic budgetary approaches to foreign aid, [1] creating transparency measures [2] to ensure that “assistance [is] more transparent, accountable and effective”. [3] The Obama administration has signed the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation [4] which makes transparency a key pillar of overseas development [5] and has succeeded in significantly increasing transparency; in 2010 the U.S. was ranked 24th [6] in Quality of Official Development Assistance rankings on transparency, by 2012 it had moved up to 9th. [7] It is also clear how beneficial transparency is for the recipients of aid; Uganda implemented Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in 1996. Surveys had shown that only 13% of funds for schools was actually getting to the schools but the introduction of PETS increased this to between 80-90% simply because it was public that the school should have received money. [8]  [1] ‘U.S. Foreign Aid By Country’, Huffington Post, 30 August 2012.  [2] Foreignassistance.gov.  [3] Shah, Rajiv, ‘Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of International Development Aid’, The White House Blog, 1 December 2011.  [4] ‘Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’, busanhlf4.org, 29 November – 1 December 2011.  [5] Atwood, Brian, ‘The Benefits of Transparency in Development’, OECD Insights, 3 April 2012.  [6] Baker, Gavin, ‘U.S. Scores Poorly on Transparency of Foreign Aid Spending’, OMB Watch, 7 October 2010.  [7] ‘Transparency and Learning’, Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2012.  [8] ‘Empowerment Case Studies: Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys – Application in Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana and Honduras’, World Bank.


Aid benefits National Security  In Obama’s 2012 campaign, promoting good governance through foreign aid makes sense for a range of foreign policy and development objectives. Through contributions in healthcare, education, poverty alleviation and infrastructure, investing in foreign aid and increasing the foreign aid budget will help create a more peaceful and safe global environment. Robert Gates, former US Secretary of Defense, has stated that “cutting aid jeopardizes US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.” [1] In much the same way as encouraging people to eat healthily will likely reduce expenditures on healthcare in the future so some spending on aid with resulting development and better perceptions of the United States can reduce conflicts in the future so saving money in the long run by preventing the need for expensive armed interventions.  [1] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.


The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]  The United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: "There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom." [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]  [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.  [2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.  [3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.  [4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE.


Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent on foreign aid.  It is also wrong to assert that the US government debt is borrowing money from China as most government borrowing comes from the US private sector. [2] China owns a mere 9.3% of US government debt with the majority being owed either to US individuals and institutions (41.7%) or to the Social Security Trust Fund (17.1%). [3]  [1] Geiger, Jacob, ‘Barak Obama says foreign aid makes up 1 percent of U.S. budget’, Tampa Bay Times, 13 April 2011.  [2] Krugman, Paul, ‘Fear-of-China Syndrome’, The New York Times, 30 August 2012.  [3] ‘Who Owns U.S. Debt’, RealClearPolicy, 2 April 2012.


The focus should be on trade not on aid  Governor Romney does not prioritize encouraging good governance and stability abroad through foreign aid, and there have been no mentions of any plans to reduce global poverty, improve healthcare and engage in sustainable development. While foreign aid is not specifically mentioned in any campaign materials, “Mitt’s Plan” regarding Africa, for instance, declares, “a Romney administration will encourage and assist African nations to adopt policies that create business-friendly environments and combat governmental corruption.” Despite wanting to cut economic aid and contributions to the United Nations, World Bank and IMF, his campaign further argues, “greater market access across the continent for U.S. businesses will bolster job creation in Africa as well as in the United States.” [1] It is notable that the countries that have been most successful in reducing poverty have been those that have focused on trade to create economic growth rather than relying on aid; China has succeeded in bring its poverty down from 84% thirty years ago to 16% today through economic growth. [2] In spite of Romney’s calls for cutting foreign aid spending, his foreign policy is going to focus on international trade and job creation both domestically and abroad, which will benefit both the United States and international economies.  [1] ‘Africa’, Romney Ryan.  [2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.


US spending should focus on defence rather than aid  Romney believes that the United States should be focusing more on national security; however this in turn does benefit other nations so could be considered aid. Governor Romney was quoted as saying “foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.” [1] When it focuses on its own national security the United States is providing public goods for the rest of the world. These include reducing the incentives for others to engage in the use of force – ‘the global policeman’, maintaining open global markets, maintaining a virtual commons in cyberspace, preventing weapons proliferation [2] and maintaining freedom of navigation just as the United States is doing in the South China Sea. [3] All of these to a greater or lesser extent need US military forces to maintain them.  The Romney campaign rejects the notion that the United States has an obligation to rely on foreign aid in its international development efforts, wanting to “[cut] the ongoing foreign aid commitments” and “[you] start everything from zero”. Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, has proposed a budget that includes cutting international affairs and foreign assistance by 29 percent in 2012 and 44 percent by 2016, which would dramatically cut funds for USAID and their foreign aid programs. [4] The Republican party believes that cutting down all sorts of government spending, including international spending, would help bring the economy out of the deficit and back towards a balanced budget.  [1] Rosenkranz, Rolf, ‘At GOP debate, presidential candidates vow to cut foreign aid’, devex, 20 October 2011.  [2] Nye, Joseph S., ‘America and Global Public Goods’, Project Syndicate, 11 September 2007  [3] Cronin, Dr. Patrick M., ‘Averting Conflict in the South China Sea’, Center for a New American Security, 4 September 2012.  [4] Smith, Adam, et al., ‘U.S. foreign aid is not a luxury but a critical investment in global stability’, The Seattle Times, 17 April 2011.


We should not be borrowing to fund foreign aid  As a fiscal conservative, Governor Mitt Romney believes that Americans and the United States economy will be better off cutting foreign aid expenses. In an October 2011 Republican primary debate, Romney passionately defended the GOP stance of questioning humanitarian assistance and foreign aid. He said, “I happen to think it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give to another country for humanitarian aid . . . . We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are taking that borrowed money.” [1] This was a reference to the size of the deficit; currently Obama’s projected deficit for 2012 is $1.33 trillion [2] and much of that is borrowed from other countries and China has most holding $1.164 trillion as of June. [3] Romney’s campaign often compares President Barack Obama’s policies to those of Europe. He criticizes the Obama administration’s foreign assistance efforts as largely squandered by a fragmented Washington bureaucracy.  [1] ‘Full Transcript CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate’, CNN, 18 October 2011.  [2] ‘ Budget Overview’, Office of Management and Budget, 2012.  [3] Capaccio, Tony, and Kruger, Daniel, ‘China’s U.S. Debt Holdings Aren’t Threat, Pentagon Says’, Bloomberg, 11 September 2012.


Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach international markets. Freer trade has not obviously been a driver of growth; poverty has fallen while the Doha round of trade liberalisation has got nowhere. [1] Instead the policies that have succeeded for China have been mercantilist policies, China may rely on trade to export its goods but it succeeded in creating its manufacturing capacity because of currency manipulation and government subsidies, things that anyone for free trade would be against. [2]  [1] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.  [2] Prestowitz, Clyde, ‘China’s not breaking the rules. It’s playing a different game.’, Foreign Policy, 17 February 2012.


Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.


It would help distinguish between levels of elections  The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.


This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?


Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes  Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.  Yet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.  [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510,  , p.506


The voting age should be the same across the Union  It is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.  [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013


By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around.


This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.


While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.


Youth are not represented in politics  Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.  [1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,   [2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission,  , accessed 3 May 2013  [3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012,   [4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012,


An opportunity for civic studies  There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.  Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.  [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011,  p.13


This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error.


Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013


A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes  The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.  [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013


EU elections would put young people off voting  Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues "the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place". [1]  To make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.  [1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009,  , p.9  [2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,


Would complicate elections  Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.  [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland,  , p.3


There should not be different voting ages for different elections  There can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 3 May 2013


This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections


While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.


Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.


Policy should not be dictated by religion  Article 7 of the Ugandan constitution is clear in its separation of church and state “Uganda shall not have a State religion.” The government must serve all its people equally regardless religious and cultural orientation. But this bill has been created with a religious motive. In his interview defending the anti-gay bill, MP David Bahati lamented, that God doesn’t accept homosexuality quoting a bible verse that the wages of sin is death[1]; as if the Ugandan parliament is filled with righteous souls! The constitution allows freedom of religion and prohibits the creation of political parties based on religion[2]. Laws and policies should therefore not base on bible verses as not everyone will share the same belief to such scriptures.  [1] Jack Mirkinson, ‘Rachel Maddow Interviews David Bahati, Author Of Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' Bill’, huffingtonpost.com,   [2] U.S. Department of State, ’Uganda’, state.gov,


In the same chapter, the constitution states that nothing within the article shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws that are necessary for implementing policies and programmes aimed at redressing social, economic or educational or other imbalance in society; or providing for any matter acceptable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society[1]. It is on this clause that most officials have based their support for the anti-gay law. The majority of Ugandans deem homosexuality immoral and unacceptable. There is therefore a democratic reason to enact such a law. The law is justified by democracy.  [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org,


Marginalising the minority  Human rights are fundamental and universal. They do not only apply to a certain group of people and invalid to another such as homosexuals. Criminalising homosexuality in Uganda considers all in the LGBT minority to be worse than second class citizens. Making them almost automatically criminal renders homosexuals sub human depriving them of their identity as Ugandans. The government has a responsibility to protect every citizen but in this case the Ugandan government has taken the first step in rejecting and mistreating its own people.  The new law infringes on fundamental rights to privacy, non-discrimination, equality and freedom from cruelty and inhumane treatment[1]. Even before the bill was introduced the government prevented there being room for LGBT activists to explain their cause showing their lack of freedom of expression. This and rights such as equality are universal and fundamental rights that the government of Uganda has on numerous occasions signed up for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights among other documents.[2]  [1] Reuters, ‘Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Prompts Court Petition’, huffingtonpost.com, 11 March 2014,   [2] Organisation of Africa Unity, ‘African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, achpr.org,


Homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonialism. It was signed into law and amended in Uganda’s constitution but did not change after independence. The blame should therefore go to the British not Ugandan government. If it is a violation of human rights then it is a violation that has been occurring for decades. The long term effect has been that Ugandans now are agreed that LGBT people are not a minority but criminals who deserve punishment.


The law is contrary to the constitution  Chapter 4 of the Ugandan constitution recognises fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as inherent and not granted by the State. The constitution states; All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law; Without prejudice, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability[1]. It defines “discriminate" as giving different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.  The government has acted contrary to their own law, with President Museveni remarking that what homosexuals do is disgusting, un African and had no place in his country[2] and MP David Bahati, asserting that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated as humans. Breaching such a law while relying on such logical fallacies is a sign of how the government failed on human rights.  [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org,   [2] Mark Duell & Leon Watson, 'Gay people are unnatural and disgusting', says Ugandan president as he signs bill punishing homosexual sex with life in jail’, dailymail.co.uk, 24 February 2014,


The fact that Ugandan government did not take measures to curb insecurities, harassment and threats towards the LGBT community, shows how reluctant it was in enforcing human rights. Unfortunately things have been even worse after the new law was passed with Uganda’s tabloid the Redpepper exposing homosexuals[1]. The new law has given a green light to mockery, attacks and harassment towards the gay community, many have lost their jobs, other have quit school and some have left the country due to such threats. This all could have been avoided by the government if it were to accept LGBT as a minority that has the same rights as other minorities. Such an acceptance would be a first step towards tolerance in Uganda.  [1] The guardian, ‘Ugandan tabloid prints list of 'top 200 homosexuals', thegurdian.com, 25 February 2014,


Democracy is not just about enabling a tyranny of the majority. It is about enabling everyone have a say in running the country and about protecting the rights of those minority viewpoints. Simply accepting that the majority is always right is the path to populist dictatorship; most people can be bought by promises of better times ahead and attempts to put the blame for any problems on minority groups. Human rights are intrinsic and cannot be determined on what the majority or civil society believes. The simple maxim ‘do unto others what you would have them do to you’ shows why minorities need to be protected. Everyone is a minority in something whether it is because they are a particular ethnic, sexual, language group or the views they hold we would not want to be discriminated on the basis of that aspect of ourselves. Where the majority wants to harm the minority the role of the government is to protect the minority. The bill was introduced to parliament individually by MP David Bahati[1] who spearheaded it through the end not the large Ugandan majority and the government should have stopped it.  [1] The Economist, ‘Uganda’s anti-gay law; Deadly intolerance’, economist.com, 1 March 2014,


Traditional and religious beliefs  More than 90% of Uganda’s population believe that homosexuality is not part of their culture and should never be accepted[1], its seen as indecency, criminality and a taboo in the community. This is something the government did not invent and not something it can simply wash out of society. Shelving the bill would not suddenly create tolerance from Ugandan society towards the gay community but instead would isolate and impose a threat to the LGBT community.  Others would have tried to create laws anti-gay laws. This ‘kill the Gays bill’ was originally intended to include the death penalty for some homosexual acts such as when one of the participants is a minor, HIV-positive, disabled or a "serial offender".[2] The bill is therefore considerably better than what the alternative could have been – the government has done its duty and moderated it. Any wider change to the culture of the country is not the duty of the government.  [1] Patience Akumu, ‘It pains me to live in a country, Uganda, that hates gay people and 'indecent' women’, thegurdian.com, 22 December 2013,   [2] BBC News, ‘Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill: MPs drop death penalty’, 23 November 2012,


Not passing the bill would bring a threat to the public peace  Homophobia in Uganda was not introduced by this law. Refusing to sign the bill into law would result in increased brutality and cruelty to the LGBT minority from the majority of citizens who were angry that president Museveni even considered vetoing the bill. Shortly after the president’s letter to parliament requesting the shelving of the bill was revealed, thousands of Ugandans took on to the streets protesting against the move complaining that homosexuality will never be allowed in their society. Known gay Ugandans were forced not to move while others were attacked in their homes. Long before the bill was passed by parliament, homosexuals and LGBT activists were beaten, harassed and killed by their fellow Ugandans. David Kato a leading figure in demanding equal rights for the gay minority was killed in January 2011[1]. The situation may have worsened had the bill been shelved as angry Ugandans would attack the gay community seeking revenge, something that they made clear would happen during the anti-gay protests. Most Ugandans had supported a death penalty for homosexuals and clearly have few qualms about launching attacks, sometimes murderous against homosexuals.  [1] BBC News, ‘Obituary: Uganda gay activist David Kato’, bbc.co.uk, 27 January 2011,


Rule of the majority  As a democratic country, Uganda favours and runs according to the will of the majority. This is also part of the constitution that recognises the opinion of the majority where all policies and rules that govern the country should base. With more than 90% of Ugandans against homosexuality and speaking in support of the anti-gay law[1], it was therefore inevitable for the government to pass such a bill despite president Museveni’s letter to parliament to ignore the law[2]. It is not the Ugandan government that has failed its LGBT citizens but the Ugandan people. A democratic government simply responds to what its people wants.  [1] Patience Akumu, ‘It pains me to live in a country, Uganda, that hates gay people and 'indecent' women’, thegurdian.com, 22 December 2013,   [2] Warren Throckmorton , ‘Full Text of Letter From Uganda’s President Museveni to Speaker of Parliament Kadaga Regarding the Anti-Homosexuality Bill’, patheos.com, 17 January 2014,


The government is an impartial and independent body which should not be led by tradition but lead tradition instead. Governments don’t just exist to let events flow but to lead, to create policy, and shape events. If government never takes a lead then it would cease to exist as another leader would take its place. Under Uganda’s constitution, religions should be registered and accredited by the government and should adhere to law and government policies. The constitution recognises equality for all so the government should be encouraging a belief and tradition of such equality[1]. It is therefore wrong to argue that on a particular policy, tradition had to lead.  [1] Parliament of Uganda, ‘CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995’, parliament.go.ug,


Not allowing any meetings with the President does not mean no negotiations can take place. Groundwork can be done by diplomats, negotiators, third parties, and even high-ranking administration officials from the state department, like the Secretary of State. Such tactics can also strengthen moderates. However, a meeting with the President is a powerful symbol, and it should only take place if either significant headway has been made, or if the leaders of these regimes are fully committed to negotiating, which they can prove by agreeing to preconditions.


Preconditions are like granting a veto to the extremists.  No government is monolithic. In every regime there will be moderate forces willing to use diplomacy and negotiations and extremist elements that do not. By demanding that preconditions be fulfilled before a meeting, all power is given to the extremists. Israel-Palestine is an example of this. By often demanding that violence cease before negotiations can take place, the US and Israel give a veto over negotiations to Hamas, who are the perpetrators of violence. They get to decide if and when negotiations take place. Instead, the president of the United States should always try to engage and strengthen moderates within these regimes.


That is true. But that is mostly the case with preconditions that are strategically flawed or an attempt at political gamesmanship, when a leader makes outrageous demands the other party cannot possibly meet in order to paint them as unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate. However, chosen carefully, preconditions can set talks and negotiations on the right course, and give a strong indication of the sincerity and commitment of both parties.


The more the US waits, the stronger its opponents become.  Preconditions delay engagement and negotiations. Sometimes it can take years before the parties even start talking to each other. In that time, Iran will continue to enrich uranium [1] and North Korea will continue to expand its nuclear arsenal [2] . If the US waits for preconditions to be agreed on and met, by the time president Obama gets to talk and negotiate directly with the leaders of these states, he will have a much bigger crisis to deal with. It may have even gotten to the point where diplomacy can no longer be used effectively.  [1] Borger, James. “Iran’s acceleration of its nuclear programme angers the west.” Guardian. 19 July 2011.   [2] Neuman, Doug. “North Korea expands nuclear relationships with outcast states.” Examiner. 11 May 2010.


Doing away with ‘US arrogance’.  From its early days, the Obama administration has strived to change the tide of US foreign policy, by moving away from America’s unilateralism and dismissiveness of other nations. [1] Its treatment of its foes is a product of that same attitude. The general policy not to meet or negotiate without preconditions is akin to dangling a spot at the table like some sort of prize that foreign leaders need to work for. In international law, all states are sovereign and equal with no one having a right to interfere with other’s internal affairs. This means that all leaders should treat each other with respect and deference.  [1] Harnden, Toby. “Barack Obama: ‘arrogant US has been dismissive’ to allies.” The Telegraph. 3 April 2009.


While legally all the world’s leaders are equal, morally they are not. For decades, the US has been the standard of what it means to be a liberal democracy and have respect your citizens’ rights and liberties. That is not arrogance; it’s moral leadership. This is a vision that the US should aggressively promote in its foreign policy. The President of the United states should not meet as equals with tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people, and endanger world peace and security. Not unless these people give any indication they are even vaguely committed to moving toward some common goals.


If talks don’t take place, that doesn’t mean no actions can be taken against rogue regimes. Diplomatic pressure, third party talks or even sanctions can be effective ways to deal with states like Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Neither of these requires the President himself to sit down with these leaders.


Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US [1] . Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours.  [1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011.


Preconditions can damage a country’s negotiating position.  No country is likely to agree to conditions that will significantly reduce its bargaining power once it gets to the table. It would be diplomatically foolish to agree to preconditions that would essentially be the subject of the negotiations and the reason why the negotiations were needed in the fist place [1] . If North Korea agreed to freeze development of its nuclear arsenal, or if Iran agreed to stop its nuclear enrichment programme, once the meeting between the two leaders took place, the position from which they started negotiating would be significantly weaker than the US’s.  [1] Klein, Rick. “Obama’s Evolving Take on Meeting with Iran.” ABC News. 20 May 2008.


Agreeing to preconditions can damage a leader’s position at home.  If, in order to meet with his counterpart, a ‘rogue leader’ needs to compromise on his and his country’s position even before he gets to the table, this would be a signal of weakness to his opponents at home and those vying for his job. For example, in North Korea, which is going through a dynastic transition [1] , the new leader Kim Jong Un is yet to become established and consolidate his status as dictator. Any concession to the sate’s designated mortal enemy, the US, might jeopardise the succession. Similarly, in Iran where Ahmadinejad has fallen from the graces of the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah [2] , agreeing to preconditions in order to get a meeting with Obama would signal to the Iranian President’s rivals that it may be a good moment to attempt to force a change of guard.  [1] “Profile: Kim Jong un”. BBC. 31 December 2011.   [2] “Ahmadinejad v Ayatollah: Who will win Iran dustup?” BBC. 8 July 2011.


Sanctions will always be hanging in the background. It will also be obvious pretty soon whether the other party is really interested in negotiating or just stalling. However, diplomacy should always be tired before sanctions.


Agreeing to sit down and talk can equally be seen as a gesture of good faith. The further requirement to prove themselves and their intentions can put off leaders who are on the fence about engaging the US on their differences. It should be remembered that the mistrust is not only one way; ‘rogue’ regimes leaders also mistrust US intentions. As a result demanding preconditions frames the negotiations, from the onset, from a position of mistrust


Rogue leaders can exploit such meetings to bolster their legitimacy  If no proper groundwork is done before such a meeting, and no preconditions are laid out, such events can easily be used by these foreign regimes as propaganda at home to try to bolster their own legitimacy [1] . A meeting with the leader of the free world would give an opportunity to Ahmadinejad or Chavez to portray themselves as great statesmen and leaders, equals to the president of the United States. The same is true of North Korea, which is a regime that rules almost entirely through the strength of state propaganda [2] . If they don’t have to agree to any preconditions, there is no cost to these leaders exploiting a meeting with Obama to their own advantage, while having no intention to actually engage in genuine negotiations and diplomacy.  [1] “Clinton: Obama is ‘naïve’ on foreign policy.” Associated Press. 24 July 2007.   [2] Myers, B. R. “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters”. Melville House. 2010.


Meeting with these leaders today might jeopardize America’s interests tomorrow.  The Arab Spring demonstrated just how unpredictable and unstable some of these regimes could truly be. And the new governments coming to power are unlikely to forget America’s role in supporting their former dictator. For example, Egypt’s transition from dictatorship has led to a rise in anti-American sentiment, as the US is perceived to have been a supporter of the Mubarak regime [1] . It may not be wise for President Obama to associate himself, and the US, so closely to leaders like Assad or Ahmadinejad who are susceptible to being deposed through the same type of massive demonstrations that swept through the Arab world in 2011. Doing so without preconditions would signal a trust and deference to these leaders that may be unforgivable to their successors, and to the people of Syria and Iran.  [1] Lee, Mathew. “US troubled by rising anti-Americanism in Egypt”. Associated Press. 10 August 2011.


Rogue regimes can use such meetings as a dilatory tactic to stall sanctions against them.  Nuclear countries like North Korea and Iran have been keen to use such a meeting as a stalling tactic against the onslaught of sanctions prompted by its nuclear programme [1] . Negotiations can be continually spun out with very little result in order to keep the United States from taking action simply by encouraging the United States to believe that there will be action after a meeting. Again, if there is no cost to them sitting down to negotiate, then negotiations are an easy way to deflect pressure, while they continue to pursue their nuclear and WMD programmes. As a result the preconditions need to be met before the negotiations to prevent such tactics from being possible.  [1] Yeranian, Edward. “Iranian President Offers to Meet President Obama.” Voice of America. 2 August 2010.


Preconditions are an essential gesture of good will.  Preconditions are not about posturing or scoring some easy, early points. They play an essential diplomatic role. By agreeing to make some concessions before negotiations start in earnest, a ‘rogue state’ would signal its good faith in the negotiating process and its willingness to compromise and work diligently toward a common goal and reaching an agreement. Without such proof of commitment, the US should have every reason to doubt the true intentions of leaders like Ahmadinejad.


No president can sit and wait until the dice fall before making a move on foreign policy. Presidents have to deal with the here and now. If the situation changes, the US will have to reassess. However, at any given time the President has to do what is in the US’s best national interest. And at times that may be meeting with unpopular dictators.


The President does not just sit down with a foreign leader without previous groundwork. No preconditions does not mean no preparation. Diplomats can be dispatched in advance to gage the level of interest and the intentions of the other party. Intelligence can be gathered to take the pulse of the regime and understand what is going on in the country, whether the moment is auspicious for change and diplomacy or whether the rogue leader is just looking for a popularity boost. The President should always have a very good idea of what to expect when he or she meets with a foreign leader. They don’t just find out once they get there.


While distasteful, sometimes cutting deals with perpetrators is necessary to bring a quick end to the human suffering that conflicts cause [1] .  In advocating prosecutions, justice can simply ignore victims. Atrocities are more than likely to have been committed by more than one side in a conflict. As those leaders do not want to be prosecuted, justice can act as a bar to peace. Moreover if people are responsible and accountable to society then that society should be able to agree to forgo justice in order to create peace if it is deemed necessary.  [1] Grono, Nick and O’Brien, Adam, “Justice in Conflict? The IOCC and Peace Processes”, Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, 2008, available at  , chapter 2


Accountability  It is a fundamental principle of morality that individuals should be held responsible for their crimes – that is the reason why we, as societies, have criminal law.  Prosecuting people – holding them responsible for their crimes – is a moral imperative. We all wish to live in a society where everyone is equally accountable when they commit crime as one in which not everyone is held to account is fundamentally unjust; it creates one rule for the powerless and another for those who are ‘needed’ to help create peace. This would simply incentivise people to try to make themselves indispensable strongmen – not a sustainable basis for a peaceful society.


Holocaust denial does still exists today despite the Nuremburg trials and immense amounts of evidence. Also, Japanese denialism over forced prostitution in the Second World War is part of mainstream politics [1] .  Despite ICTY convictions, denial of atrocities in the Yugoslav wars continue.  [1] See Honda, Masakazu and Takada, Makoto, “LDP Pressure led to cuts in NHK show”, The Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2005,


Justice is needed for a lasting peace  By prosecuting perpetrators, justice creates a deterrent. The deterrent effect, as accepted in criminal law generally, is likely to make the peace more long standing and stable in the future – it will make those minded to perform atrocities think again. If those who committed atrocities ‘get away with it’ they will be much more likely to plunge the country back into violence.  The career of Laurent Nkunda is a good example of this; he fought in the Tutsi group that took control of Rwanda in 1994 ending the genocide and then was a rebel commander in both Congolese civil wars in which he was accused of atrocities before launching his own rebellion, only now after 14 years as an army commander is he under arrest. [1] Clearly Nkunda being locked up at some stage would have been better than regularly negotiating with him to try and create peace.  [1] BBC News, “Profile: General Laurent Nkunda”, 23 January 2009,


This fails for two reasons. Firstly, prosecutions are not always a deterrent to future crimes. Secondly that justice is not necessary in all cases to prevent recidivism – justice has not been needed in many cases, such as in Haiti after the 2004 coup, Haiti’s subsequent problems being caused by natural disasters.


Justice is needed to help end denialism.  By creating a historical record through the investigations and trial proceedings [1] , International justice can create a narrative that helps fight denialism over events in the past. It creates an accepted version of events where both victim and accused have had their say.  Denialism can be dangerous because it is likely to create perceptions that are likely to make conflict more likely again. For example the post-First World War Dolchstoßlegende (stab in the back myth) was used by the political right in Germany after WWI implied that the German Army had not lost but Germany had only done so due to the civilian leadership. This not only encouraged a belief that Germany could win in another war but also as the accusation was levelled particularly at socialists and Jews helped pave the way for the holocaust. [2]  [1] Goldstone, p422  [2] Holocaust Encyclopedia, ‘Antisemitism in history: World War I’, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013,


Justice is not easy. However, it needs to be done – for its own ends, and for a lasting peace. In cases where there are a huge number of perpetrators then the obvious approach is to offer an amnesty to those who committed smaller crimes while prosecuting those who provoked or ordered the crimes.


Argentina did not prosecute for a long time after the collapse of the junta [1] , a 1986 law, commonly known as the Full Stop Law (also known by its number, Law 23492), prohibited prosecution of those involved in the dirty war which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths.  However, Argentina managed to build a lasting peace, and society without prosecutions.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “The Fallacy of Sequencing Peace and Justice”, Opinio Juris, 29 September 2011,


Justice can harm peace.  Former ICTR chief prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, argued that the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic prevented them from attending the Dayton peace talks. The Russian government tried to get those indictments suspended, but Goldstone informed them that he did not have the power to do so. Slobodan Milosevic, the representative of Serbia also represented Republika Srbska. [1]  In 2006 thyere was an agreement by the Lord’s Resistance Army to a ceasefire but before they would negotiate towards a final peace the LRA demanded the suspension of the ICC indictments. [2] Even six years on none of the LRA leadership have been caught – had peace been put first it might have occurred then rather than intermittent conflict continuing for years.  Peace is a valid goal. However, an overzealous pursuit of justice may impede negotiations.  [1] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006,  at p421-p322  [2] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clarck eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28


Justice can be impossible  The Rwandan genocide one of the largest the world has ever seen since the Second World War. A large number of victims – at least half a million – means a large number of perpetrators. There are 100,000 alleged perpetrators in Uganda. While an informal Gacaca system has been criticized by human rights groups for not being able to provide fair trials, a full system of fair trials would be impractical [1] .  Rwanda is now relatively peaceful, with a functioning economy.  [1] Hannum, p492


Peace has occurred without justice  Argentina did not prosecute for a long time after the collapse of the junta [1] , a 1986 law, commonly known as the Full Stop Law (also known by its number, Law 23492), prohibited prosecution of those involved in the dirty war which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths.  However, Argentina managed to build a lasting peace, and society without prosecutions.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “The Fallacy of Sequencing Peace and Justice”, Opinio Juris, 29 September 2011,


Dayton worked despite not inviting Karadzic and Mladic. Both of those are currently on trial for the most serious crimes imaginable – Karadzic for, amongst other things, his alleged role in ordering the Srebrenica massacre, and Mladic for Srbrenica and the Siege of Sarajevo.  These prosecutions have not caused problems for peace in the Balkans and Croatia, one of the participants in the conflict, has joined the European Union.  Similarly, despite the ICC indictment, coupled with better results obtained by the Ugandan military, has lead towards the prospect of surrender by the LRA, despite their leaders such as Joseph Kony being indicted [1] .  [1] BBC News, “LRA leader Joseph Kony ‘in surrender talks’ with CAR”, BBC News,


Integration through globalisation is not necessarily, or purely, positive. Globalisation can have desirable and undesirable effects. For example greater airline links may encourage educated Kenyans to leave creating a brain drain; the country already exports nurses.(Lehmann, 2004)


Liberalisation enables national development  The aviation industry is vital for economic growth for bringing Africa into the positive side of globalisation. The state-owned Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise is one example of a success story for an African airline. Ethiopian Airlines has the greatest amount of traffic as a result of air traffic liberalisation. The returns gained from Ethiopian Airlines have been central to promoting Ethiopia’s national growth strategy. Governments can only gain from liberalisation in multiple sectors, including airlines. Liberalisation, and deregulation, of airlines acts creates cumulative causation, where one event causes multiple changes, for tourism, production networks, jobs, and infrastructure development. In Ethiopia, air networks are building industries and the pushing regions economic development [1] . In Kenya’s case, deregulation of airlines may improve the speed and availability of key global commodities, such as tourism, and flowers [2] - booming industries that require rapid transport.  In Africa 20% of tourism-related jobs are supported directly by the aviation industry (World Bank, 2014).  [1] See further readings: Anna Aero, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Lawrence, 2011.


We need to be critical of what foreign business and multinational corporations can do for Africa. Earnings from foreign airlines will likely leave the continent rather than being used for African development. There will be some benefit with some local workers, particularly in airports, but the degree of power inequality between foreign airline owners and local people implies benefits will be unequally spread.  On another hand, what will incentivise foreign airlines to stay? Markets are volatile; therefore a long-term vision is required. What will ensure foreign investors buying airlines are encouraged to stay and actually build a stable, functioning airline market rather than simply taking advantage of the few routes where they can make a quick profit?


A competitive airline industry  The introduction of a Pan-African Open Sky agreement will ensure competition. A competitive airline industry will have a cumulative effect on prices and safety standards. First, prices will be reduced as the market is no longer monopolised by a few airlines. Currently national governments are able to place strict regulations, high fuel and passenger taxes on airlines. Liberalising the industry would mean that airlines are increasingly controlled by the hand of the market, not the state. Competitive airline prices will ensure air travel is no longer exclusively an elite luxury.  Secondly, introducing new competition will force airlines to implement higher standards - of service and safety. Power is redistributed to the consumer and traveller, who are able to pick and choose the best service. Therefore the companies need to be on the top of their game.  Evidence in Europe has shown the competitiveness of liberalisation, resulting in the rise of cheap air travel. Such low-cost carriers now account for a third of intra-EU travel (ECMT, 2010).


To what extent will a competitive industry emerge if direct problems are not resolved? The issue is not simply a need to introduce more airlines. Airline prices cannot be reduced unless fuel prices are lowered. The cost of buying fuel for airlines remains higher in Africa; suggesting that it is not just the airline market but also the market in fuel supplies that requires change. There will be no opportunity for European style budget airlines so long as fuel is expensive.  Additionally, can a competitive airline industry emerge without transparency and good governance first? The fact good governance remains debatable in many African states raises a question of how the market will work. As new business opportunities arise who will be setting up new airlines? It is likely to be government cronies or those with support from the government rather than those with the most innovative models.


Incorporating foreign airlines  Introducing a treaty whereby flights are liberalised across Africa, and foreign airlines incorporated, will provide benefits for Africa. For example, foreign companies will be able to tackle gaps in the market. Currently there is a lack of direct flights between key destinations. Direct flights mean direct interconnections to desired; and new, places. For example, with new business opportunities emerging in Nigeria a direct flight connecting Cape Town and Lagos requires investment.  Air traffic in the EU is a positive example. As a result of deregulation budget airlines have expanded throughout the continent EU air traffic and new flight routes introduced. There has been a 120% increase of intra-EU routes and 320% increase in the number of routes provided by at least two companies (ECMT, 2010).


Alliances create an oligopolistic market. The promotion of alliances creates two key market results – controlling supply and demand. Firstly, choice is restricted. Customers are restricted in what prices and services are available. Secondly, the market competitiveness is restricted. Different airlines are not able to compete with each other, but merely cooperate as the leading company takes the largest proportion of profits. Alliances fail to stimulate a competitive market or place companies on an equal platform to compete for profits.  Open skies are also seen as a means to ensure safety and reduce the rising accident rates. The World Bank (2014) note accident rates would fall if African states use bilateral sanctions to ensure airlines meet safety standards; currently Africa’s aircraft hull-loss accident rate is more than 6 times higher than Asia and Latin America and 12 times Europe. Open-skies ensure bilateral collaboration and intervention.


Sustainable development does not mean stopping development. The SDGs emphasise how a new perspective is required for future development. There is no evidence to suggest an open-sky agreement would increase environmental degradation, nor is there to say that if an open-sky agreement is not implemented we will develop in a more sustainable way. The introduction of open-skies will mean an introduction of better planes – more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly designs as a result of competition on quality and safety. Advancements have been made over time to improve the environmental performance of aeroplanes. Today’s planes are 75% quieter, with carbon-monoxide levels declining by 50%, and increasingly more fuel-efficient [1] . An open-skies agreement enables new ideas and designs to be integrated, encouraging the implementation of sustainable models.  Sustainable development is about how we understand, appreciate, and implement future objectives. An open sky agreement is not necessarily unsustainable.  [1] See further readings: IATA, 2014.


Terrorism  Terror remains a key concern both in and about Africa. A key issue with a potential open sky agreement is who will regulate it and how. Effective control to prevent terrorism is required; passengers and nations need to be ensured security. Liberalising airlines and markets potentially lays the foundation for a new risk of terror and insecurity. West African airports have been particularly criticised for their lax security which creates an insider threat (Brandt, 2011). More planes, more staff, and more passengers mean a higher probability of risk. Is liberalisation best when we consider the war on terror, and emerging security risks?


Focusing on national development first  An open sky agreement will only act to reinforce the brain drain occurring in Africa. The level of development across Africa remains uneven, with disparities found across the continent based on GDP, PPP, FDI, and social development. An open sky agreement may act as cumulative causation for out-migration of trained professionals and white-collar jobs to more developed countries. One very obvious brain drain as a result of air travel is that there have been eight hijackings of Ethiopian Airlines by pilots attempting to get asylum in the last 25 years (Nadeau, 2014). The reality would bring detrimental effects for some countries, and prosperity for others. The unequal geography of development in Africa will persist.


Alliances not open skies  The success of airlines such as Kenya Airways has emerged through alliances; not an ‘open sky’ agreement. The airline has created alliances with small airline carriers such as Precision Air to ensure more frequent coverage, competitive prices and provision of services to new destinations. Increased connectivity across Africa requires more alliances between individual airlines, not necessarily an open sky agreement. The alliances made ensure universal boundaries, rules, and regulations, are set through corporate ethics and responsibility. Alliances mean the corporate brand is at stake.  Alliances are a safer option when we consider who will set the rules with an ‘open sky’ agreement in Africa. Alliances can ensure safety measures remain central for airlines, and the private actors are held responsible. However, the definitions of, and decisions on, rules become blurred with an ‘open sky’. Who will have the last say? Whose decision will hold power? A regulatory board is required, which can be granted through alliances.


Environmental Impact  Development is shifting from just GDP growth towards promoting a sustainable approach to growth. The UN has created the Sustainable Development Goals for development post-2015, which emphasise developmental policy and practice today has to meet the needs of the present without jeopardising future populations. Therefore how can a new Open Skies agreement be justified on environmental or sustainability grounds? Encouraging more air traffic will act to increase the human burden on the environment. Key concerns are noise and atmospheric pollution, deforestation, and the use of space. Flights produce around 628,000,000 tonnes of CO2 annually adding to climate change (Clean Sky, 2014). With numbers rising the pressures will too.


Several points require countering. Firstly, the focus on the brain drain suggests air travel will continue to be dominated by an elite class, however, open-skies acts to enable a broader customer base. Secondly, migration brings a range of benefits – we cannot promote keeping people in their place as a developmental solution. Even if national development comes first people may still want to move. Finally, people will not be discouraged from moving if there is no open-skies agreement. Migration is historic in Africa, with multiple transport modes used. Migration will continue to operate with or without an open-skies agreement.  Therefore it is important to recognise the role open-skies can play for Pan-Africanism. An open sky will assist in dispersing access and availability to development opportunities. It will create new network hubs within Africa; and create new market opportunities by introducing frequent airlines to places previously inaccessible. The agreement would ensure capital is spread across Africa. Africa will begin to operate cohesively. The open-sky agreement sets the future agenda for Africa’s development – a step towards Pan-African cooperation.


We need to be cautious in falling into the ‘terror discourse’. Since 9/11 the cases of hijacking have not risen substantially. The discourse is a key concern among Western states. Terror is a risk, however Western states have implemented open-sky agreements – such as between the US-EU despite such threats. So why should the risk of terror stop Africa implementing open-skies when the Global North has done so? It returns to the relations of power in the global-political economy.  The global-political system is key in constructing a discourse of fear and using this to influence how we act, invest, and work. We need to deconstruct the terror discourse first, to understand what really are the risks and whether liberalising air networks will really make a difference either way. Once the specific risks have been analysed those that are concerns can be addressed including any concerns about terrorism.


Poverty may have something to do with countries becoming dictatorships but little. That it is about the efficiency of government is much more credible, this is partially why India, with a large native civil service at independence is one of the exceptions. In practice the reason here is that these nations were subject to being downtrodden through colonialism. There was little opportunity provided to create native institutions so any cobbled together rapidly at independence collapsed.  Many of the countries that were poor at independence are still poor now, yet the story of Africa is no longer one of constant violent dictatorship but increasingly one of stable democracies with reasonably fair elections. The number of democracies in Africa has increased from three in 1989 to 24 in 2008.(1) This transition then benefits the economy. An analysis by The Economist finds that over the ten years to 2010, six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies were in sub-Saharan Africa.(2)  The Arab Spring meanwhile demonstrates that the population in poor countries can be organised enough to oust authoritarian leaders through large scale protest. Since they are the ones who suffer from corruption there is no inherent reason why poorer peoples should be more likely to submit to a dictatorship.  (1) Freedom House, ‘Electoral Democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa’, African Election Database, accessed 22 November 2013,   (2) Graphic detail, ‘Africa's impressive growth’, The Economist, 6 January 2011,