europe house believes federal europe

Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.  None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1]  [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’


europe house believes federal europe

A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions  In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.


europe house believes federal europe

A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states  A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”. [1]  A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’


europe house believes federal europe

National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people.


europe house believes federal europe

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today.  The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.


europe house believes federal europe

Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy.  In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.” [1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.” [2]  [1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’  [2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’


europe house believes federal europe

A federal Europe will be a stronger international actor  A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs.  Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively.


europe house believes federal europe

The federal model has proved to be a success previously  The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world.  The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries.


europe house believes federal europe

This is all a matter of PR. Politicians and leaders need to work harder in order to present the benefits of an eventual federal Europe, which will also deal with some of the problems the EU has today. The public opinion is not a constant; it is rather variable and changeable.  Furthermore the EU is getting some bad evaluation at the moment due to the economic crisis, but this doesn’t mean the overall opinion toward it is negative.


europe house believes federal europe

Surely an ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe and forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go is a bad idea. However a federal Europe is the normal concurrence of the process of integration. And this is not against people’s will- “…He (Belgian ex-prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) said, “I don’t think people have said that they are against a United States of Europe”. The no votes in France and the Netherlands were, according to Verhofstadt, not “no votes against Europe, but were votes against a certain type of Europe… what people want is a strong Europe, a United States of Europe that can give an answer to their concerns”. [1]  [1] Eurealist.co.uk, ‘United States of Europe’


europe house believes federal europe

Existing contributive inequalities within the Union would be amplified by a formal federal system  There is a possibility that once a federation, Europe will adopt certain policies that might be harmful for a minority of the member states. In consequence, any economic downturn in those states could manifest itself on a larger scale in the United States of Europe as economies of the member states rely (more than ever) on each other.  Furthermore different states may not contribute equally. States, because inducements to cooperate or threats to punish may be low, fail to provide for the collective benefit, therefore essentially "passing the buck" to other states, and most frequently to the most economically powerful participants. Citizens of large states like France, Great Britain, and Germany frequently complain that smaller states are not paying their "fair share" of the costs of the European Union. Meanwhile, smaller states may complain that they are overlooked or even disregarded because of their economically weaker status. These issues will be exacerbated in a European federation.  Decentralization decreases economic progress. [1] European countries where regions have more powers and responsibilities in terms of taxation, legislation and education policies tend to do better economically than centralised ones. Centralism hammers development of countries at the cost of its citizens.  [1] EUObserver, ‘Centralised states bad for economy, study shows’


europe house believes federal europe

Subsidiarity will deal with regional identities’ problem  Federalism and subsidiarity, that things should be dealt with at the lowest, most local, level possible, [1] can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot. For example for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.  [1] Europa, ‘Subsidiarity’


europe house believes federal europe

The concept of federalism lacks political support  Euroscepticism is highest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary, with only 25%–32% viewing membership as a good thing. Belief that the citizen's country has benefited from EU membership is lowest (below 50%) in the UK, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. A significant minority (36%) do not tend to trust the European Parliament. The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people. [1]  [1] Directorate-General for Communication, ‘EUROBAROMETER 71 Public opinion in the European Union’


europe house believes federal europe

Moves toward federalism will endanger the stability of the EU  There are great dangers of forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go. An ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe could raise dormant nationalist feelings, promote the rise of populist politicians with xenophobic agendas and endanger the stability of the EU. A Gaullist “Europe of Nations” [1] preserves the current benefits of EU without the risks of further unwanted political integration.  “(...)Dominant groups have more to gain from the majoritarian principle which is indispensable for constitutional democracies. As such, minorities would be placed at an ever more disadvantaged position in a European state. Thus, the progression of the EU into a federal state is bound to have a more negative than it would a positive impact on European integration.” [2]  [1] Ross, ‘Chirac the Great or de Gaulle the Small?’  [2] Cocodia, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’


europe house believes federal europe

Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.


europe house believes federal europe

On the contrary a federal Europe will bring the countries a lot closer together. Matters of harmful policies will be a lot less than they are right now in the EU simply because separate states do exist now. However when there is just one state with all the nations in it – the harmful policies toward a certain state will be reduced to a minimum – after all the leaders will be managing one country and will be watching for the interests of all its people equally. Furthermore in a federal Europe the economic situation will even far better and faster than it is doing so now in the EU. As a matter of fact there are examples with the recently joined states, Bulgaria and Romania, which after 3 years still cannot catch up with the more advanced western states. In a federal Europe this particular problem will be sorted out, because everybody will be a part of one major and powerful country. Therefore in an economical aspect a federal Europe will manage a lot better than the European Union is right now.


imals international africa house would african government implement tougher

Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2]  [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species.  [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’


Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species.  [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’


Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail.  [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’


Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1]  [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’


There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction.  [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’


There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’


Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1]  [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”


europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty

The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2].  [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011


Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted.  The Lisbon Treaty significantly affects the workings of each member country. It gives the European Union a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements and member countries are now made subject to majority voting [1]. The Lisbon Treaty does not only affect international policies, criminal law and national justice systems, it also gives power over to the Commission and European Court. Such major changes must be put to popular vote, the citizens of each EU member state have a right to legitimise or reject these changes that push for a more centralized European superstate. Furthermore the will of the people needs to be trusted, if a reform is intentionally ambiguous and complicated, which was one of the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty [2], it is the job of the politician to explain the cause to the public. Voters should be included in the debate and key issues need to be highlighted not just ignored.  [1] European Commission, Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008).


Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election.


The decision not to hold a referendum directly ignores the wishes of the people and is therefore undemocratic.  The Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution have 96% of the same text. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who wrote the original EU Constitution, has publicly stated that the Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same as the proposed Constitution [1]. The decision from countries not to hold referendums in 2007 that they had previously agreed to is a flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people. Moreover the decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through national parliaments in France and the Netherlands where the 2004 Treaty was rejected in popular vote demonstrates that the decision not to hold referendums was in the fear that they would be rejected when put to the people. Any decision that is forced through parliament in the fear that it would fail when opened to the citizens of that country lacks legitimacy.  [1] Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution’, The Independent (30 October 2007), viewed on 13 June 2011


The decision not to hold a referendum was not one taken against the wishes of the people. Firstly, citizens of France and the Netherlands, who voted no to the Constitution in public vote, accepted the decision to not repeat a referendum in 2007. Furthermore, the accusation that the two texts are 96% identical is a crude one that ignores the fundamental difference in meaning that a few words can make [1] therefore the decision to not hold a referendum to ratify The Lisbon Treaty should not be seen in conjunction with the result of the Constitution referendum. This demonstrates that the decision not to hold a referendum was not against the people's wishes: it was largely accepted that accepting constitutional changes through the elected national parliament was democratically acceptable.  [1] 'The EU Reform Treaty


Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day  Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors


All politics is PR. If democracy was abandoned every time that the media held sway with the public, then government would soon become a dictatorship. It is a government's job to take up this PR war and to inform the public about the pros and cons of possible reform so that they can make an informed decision. It is not simply good enough to declare that referendums don't work


The lack of referendums in the making of past decisions is not reason enough to neglect democracy in the present. Decisions that were made by past governments should be made accountable by present governments, because voting has been denied in the past gives even more reason to now open up these important decisions to popular vote.


If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed.  The pure size and logistics of the European Union is such that if every member state had to hold a referendum on all EU Treaties, no EU Treaties would get enacted. It is too likely that one of the member states will vote against a motion. The EU should be able to vote on issues without consulting the citizens of all member states, in the UK legislation is voted on in parliament which is made of constituency representatives. The concept for government's voting in representation of their countries within the EU is the same. Furthermore the UK did not hold a referendum on the war with Iraq, so why should a referendum be held for issues of lesser importance.


Voters do not understand or care about EU reforms.  They would have found the legal jargon off-putting and a detailed knowledge of the existing EU Treaties is necessary to understand the amendments proposed 1. They have limited understanding of the current system and therefore cannot evaluate how reform treaties would benefit or harm the EU and their nation's interest. Due to this lack of understanding citizens are too likely to be swayed by media bias and anti Europe campaigners. All this is shown by the low turnout in European parliament elections. Elected representatives on the other hand, do understand the impact of the treaties and therefore can make an informed decision on the behalf of their people and in the nation's interest.  1 'An unloved Parliament', The Economist (7 May 2009), viewed on 13 June 2011 'Elections 2009', eu4journalists viewed on 13 June 2011


Referendums are more about PR than politics.  Referendum votes always end up being about something other than the issue on the ballot paper. In many referendum campaigns the real issue becomes one of confidence in the government of the day and its management of the economy, law and order, public scandals, etc. So when people vote they are expressing their unhappiness at their national government rather than making a considered judgment about the future of the EU. This is exactly what happened in the French and Dutch votes on the EU Constitution in 2005. When asked what influenced their decision, most voters said that they disliked aspects of EU enlargement, especially the arrival of Eastern European workers who might take local jobs, and the proposed entry negotiations with Turkey – but none of this was anything to do with the Constitution [1]. Furthermore a referendum would be pray to media distortion, which could have swayed the votes with biased coverage. Referendums are too often about government confidence rather than the issue at hand, people may have voted to express other grievances with their current government and not the future of the EU.  [1] The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity?’ House of Lords European Union Committee (23 November 2006) viewed on 13 June 2011  , p.10


Significant changes in the past have not been put to popular vote.  In the past treaties with more far reaching consequences have been ratified by ruling parliaments without ever going to popular vote. For example the 1986 Act establishing a Single Market and the 1996 Maastricht Treaty. These treaties gave the EU power in economic regulation, immigration and monetary policy and yet were not put to majority voting. It was understood that progress was important and popular voting could halt progress. If these changes were made it is nonsensical that treaties with less significance should use a referendum.


Voters do care about EU reforms, and they are owed the respect of being told in layman's terms what specific treaty changes would do in real terms. The Lisbon Treaty was unnecessarily complicated and full of jargon (Browne, 'Gobbledegook'). It is the role of the politicians to make sure that treaties are easy to understand and accessible to all the citizens of the countries that they will affect. If the public is apathetic it is because they know their vote will ultimately be ignored. Democracy is paramount and in order to remain democratic EU reform needs to be passed by a public vote and not just the elected: prolonged elite avoidance of the engaging the public will be more detrimental in the long run1  1 Lu, Chien-Yi Lu, 'Fallacies in Embracing a


There is a difference between holding a referendum for every decision and holding one for important constitutional changes that will affect a nation's future sovereignty. The logistics and the fear of rejection should not be a reason to not hold a referendum. If anything the current controversy surrounding the war on Iraq and its legality is proof that referendums are fundamental in important issues to ensure that the ruling government still reflects the will of the people.


africa global law human rights international law house believes

Most often, prosecutions that occur are not just with only the losing side being prosecuted for their crimes. The Nuremburg trials prosecuted Nazi’s for offences they committed, but none of the Allied forces were ever brought for trial; Curtis LeMay who commanded the US Air Force in fire bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese himself said “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”[1]  Prosecutions also focus on a small number of scapegoats, to the exclusion of the majority who showed sympathy for that regime, civilians that marched with the regime, or political supporters. An example of this is the prosecution of the military junta in Argentina in 1984-5 while Peronist supporters (the new government was peronist) were given amnesties under the ‘full stop’ program. It took another 20 years before more – 267 members of the military and police – were convicted.[2]  The third reason why these trials may be unjust is that the laws that get created – in order to ensure that no one slips through the cracks – are usually so broad and generalist that they are virtually indefensible and fail to take context of the crimes into account. As such, the laws themselves are often manifestly unjust.[3]  [1] ‘General Curtis E. LeMay, (1906-1990)’, PBS, accessed 24/2/2014,   [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012,   [3] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147


The only just method  Prosecuting offenders is the only way to get a just outcome when there have been horrific crimes committed. At a most principled level, those who commit a crime ought to be held accountable for their actions even if they are powerful or it damages the chances of peace because the powerful must be shown not to be above the law. Even where the law did not exist, or the leaders were in control of the law, international norms provide a standard for what actions merit prosecution, and judiciaries have been very good at convicting those who committed atrocities[1]. Having those who committed crimes convicted by law courts helps prevent those affected by atrocities holding grudges and put the past behind them so aiding the healing process [2].  [1] Moore, John J Jr ‘Problems With Forgiveness’ 43 Stanford Law Review 733, February 1991  [2] abc news, ‘Dallas Holocaust survivors welcome prosecution of former Nazi guard’, wfaa.com, 20 August 2010,


By using international courts, countries do not actually gain skills or dependence within their own systems, but may instead become reliant on that system.  However, such an international institution cannot handle all the cases and delays the process of justice; The ICTR have completely finished 47 cases in 20 years [1], a slow operation compared to the Rwandan local courts. The domestic Gacaca system has done much more trying nearly 2million suspects.[2] But this system has been reconciliatory in nature without forensic evidence and cross examination.  [1] Will, Ross, ‘Rwanda genocide: Did Bizimungu trial take too long?’, bbc.co.uk, 17 May 2011,   ‘Status of cases’, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, accessed 24/2/2014,   [2] Kimenyi, Felly, and Asiimwe, Bosco, ‘Legal experts hail Gacaca’, newtimes.co.rw, 18 June 2012,


Prosecutions are needed for victims  Prosecutions are the only way for victims to see those who caused pain against them brought to justice. The alternative of some kind of reconciliation often leaves those who perpetrated crimes able to retain power as has happened in countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Guatemala[1]. When this happens there is clearly a concern both that these individuals are not being held to account and that they could act in a similar way again if given the opportunity. Under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, victims have a right to see offenders prosecuted[2]. And it is only prosecution that will ensure that such acts cannot occur again so giving peace of mind to victims.  [1] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147   [2] Akhavan, Payam, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities' American Journal of International Law, 95(1), 2001, pp.7-31


Victims are often no better off by seeking prosecutions, especially because prosecutions are often hard to make stick in the first place. But moreover, the process often involves victims having to relive their story while being cross examined, which further harms the victim.  The continued trauma among genocide survivors in Rwanda is largely due to having to give testimonies in such cases [1].  [1] Redress and African rights, ‘Survivors and post genocide in Rwanda’, redress.org, November 2008,


Deterrence doesn’t work as people who commit these atrocities usually don’t believe they will be caught, or don’t care. Further, prosecutions can actually cause more offenses in the future, as supporters of those prosecuted seek revenge for the prosecution occurring. We have seen this in Sudan where President Bashir’s indictment by the ICC has done little to halt attacks on civilians in both Darfur and, more recently, South Kordofan [1].  [1] Jennifer, Christian and James, Bair, ‘ Why does the world allow Sudan’s Bashir to target civilians? ’, globalpost.com, 30 July 2012,


International prosecution encourages domestic justice  By introducing internationally based prosecution, the laws are able to effectively filter down into the domestic system. The international system takes care of powerful offenders who might otherwise not receive a fair trial or be brought to justice. This then allows domestic courts to prosecute those involved in the crimes at a lower level. This has worked in Ivory coast where the former leader was brought to face charges committed at home and also helped stabilize the situation in the country [1].  [1] Smith, David, ‘Laurent Gbagbo appears before international criminal court’, thegurdian.com, 5 December 2011,


Deters future offences  By prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes future leaders are dissuaded from committing such acts [1]. When criminals are held accountable, the belief in the reliability of the legal system is enhanced, society is strengthened by the experience that the legal system is able to defend itself and the sense of justice is upheld or rectified [2].  Since the Office of the Prosecutor announced its interest in Colombia in 2006, the government has taken a number of measures particularly the Peace and Justice Law to ensure domestic prosecution of those who could potentially be tried by the ICC. The threat of ICC prosecution appears to have concerned former President Pastrana. Vincente Castrano (AUC) a paramilitary leader was fearful of the possibility of ICC prosecution, a fear that reportedly directly contributed to his group’s demobilisation[3].  [1] Safferlin, Christoph J.M., ‘Can Criminal prosecution be the answer to massive Human Rights Violations?’, issafrica.org,   [2] Grono, Nick, ‘ The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders ’, globalpolicy.org, 5 October 2012,


It is the threat of prosecutions that cause leaders to fear committing crimes in the first place. The best way to stop leaders causing damage is for them to be deterred from doing so by being held accountable of their deeds.


This often leads to a scenario where leaders grant themselves immunity, or continue to commit atrocities, in the comfort of knowing that immunity is coming. Those in the CIA who committed what many consider to have been torture were granted immunity by the justice department claiming that it would be unfair to prosecute men and women working to protect America [1]. Such an immunity or amnesty can then be used to close discussions to find the truth and effectively shut of the healing process.  [1] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers’, thegurdian.com, 31 August 2012,


Prosecutions don't get to the real truth  Truth is the most important factor that supports the healing process. Individuals when being prosecuted have incentives to hide crimes and lie about the true motivations for offences occurring as they don’t want to go to prison for telling the truth. This means that the whole truth of matters never really come to light. TRC’s, such as that in South Africa, do a very good job of ensuring that the full record of human rights abuses come to light [1].The Rwandan Gacaca courts which encompasses three important features of relevance to broader experiments of reconciliatory justice serve as a lesson. Those who confess their crimes are rewarded with the halving of prison sentences and as a result, 60,238 prisoners have confessed to participating in the genocide [2]. Second, gacaca law highlights apologies welcomed by many as an important ingredient to promote reconciliation.  [1] Linfield, Susie, ‘Trading Truth for Justice? Reflections on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, bostonreview,net, 01 June 2000,   [2] Graybill, Lyn, and Lanegran , Kimberly, ‘Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and Cases’, ufl.edu, Fall 2004,


Fear of prosecutions cause leaders to do more damage  Instead of giving up fighting, leaders continue to fight, disrupting the ability of a country to move on, for fear of prosecution. Pol Pot, for example, rebuilt armies and continued to fight long after his regime was overthrown, killing thousands more people. Had an amnesty been offered, he might well have given up and allowed the country to heal with far less death. Joseph Kony also continues to plague Uganda from within bush land even though he has offered to surrender for amnesty, because the ICC refuses to grant him any indemnity for his crimes [1].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘LRA leader Joseph Kony 'in surrender talks' with CAR’, bbc.co.uk, 20 November 2013,


Peace more important than Justice  In practice, prosecutions often come at the expense of other forms of reconciliation. For instance before Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can work amnesties have to be given for people to be willing to tell their stories. In order for people to put down weapons, or agree to tell stories, prosecutions must be given up.  This is evident with the conflict is South Sudan; the opposition which had signed the ceasefire agreement to restore stability in the region, breached it and started fighting again when many of its members were indicted for the crimes they had committed [1]. In such case the most important thing is to prevent future atrocities as healing can only start when there is no conflict or atrocities going on.  [1] Deustche Welle, ‘South Sudan: Rebels Strike Oil Centre, Breaching Ceasefire’, allafrica.com, 18 February 2014,


Prosecutions allow an equal chance for both prosecution and defense to show the truth as they believe it with the result that far more facts are brought to life than a process that is reliant only on the individual being ‘truthful’. Moreover an amnesty may not be forever as it is against the norms of international justice so it is unlikely that they will tell the whole truth.[1] Argentina for example has seen the prosecution of those who were given amnesties two decades earlier [2].  [1] Ahmed, Anees and Quayle, Merryn, ‘Can genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be pardoned or amnestied?’, sas.ac.uk, 28 January 2008,   [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012,


ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies

Currently 3 in 4 youths work informally or within vulnerable employment - working without a formal written contract (Work4Youth, 2013). Although technology may create new markets it will not change the type of employment youths engage in. The use of technology will mean a majority of youths will continue to work informally - without access to social security, a valuable pension scheme, and social protection in the event of a crisis. Self-employment and having the flexibility to connect to different markets provides a temporary fix and income. Stability and security is not provided for youths.


Technology has driven youths to identify new markets  A key technology for youths are mobile phones and devices. Across West and East Africa the possession of mobile phones has enabled citizens to network and form solutions to social problems. By 2015, there are expected to be 1 billion mobile cellular subscriptions in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sambira, 2013). This is the first African generation directly accessing high-technology, although uncertainty remains in the amount of youths having access to technology. Through mobile phones new business opportunities, and flows of money, are being created. Furthermore, mobile phones are providing innovative solutions to health care treatment, ensuring better health for future entrepreneurs and youths.  SlimTrader is a positive example [1] . SlimTrader uses mobile phones to provide a range of vital services - from airplane and bus tickets to medicine. The innovative e-commerce provides a space to advertise skills, products, and opportunities - to, on the one hand, identify new consumer demands; and on another hand, create notices to exchange goods.  Mobile technology is making it faster, quicker, and simpler to tap into new markets [2] .  [1] See further readings: SlimTrader, 2013; Ummeli, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Nsehe, 2013. Inspite of challenges Patrick Ngowi has earned millions through the construction of Helvetic Solar Contractors.


Such platforms are known, and accessible, by a minority within Africa - limiting who benefits from the technology available. Rising entrepreneurs across Africa typically are able to access resources required and network their ideas, whilst a majority of youths remain out of the innovation loop.  As inequality disparities continue to increase in Africa, a similar trend is identifiable to youth technology and entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurs rising in Africa show the future of a ‘young millionaire’s club’. They hold the right connections, access to credit and electricity, and time to apply to their business model. The millionaire entrepreneurs continue to create new technologies - not vice-versa.


Technology has enabled Africa’s cultural industries to grow.  Technology has enabled the development of entrepreneurial ideas for business, but also within Africa’s cultural industry. Access to video recording mobile phones, the internet, and televised publications has created a new culture of expression for African youths. Cultural industries are raising critical questions for politics, and empowering youth to tell their stories. The use of journalism has become mobilised by youths - as seen in initiatives such as, African Slum Voices, of which are encouraging youths to pro-actively raise their opinions and voices on issues occurring within their communities.  Furthermore, the music and film industry in Africa has arisen as a result of access to new technologies at a lower-cost. Two key components responsible for the growth of Nollywood (Nigeria’s Film Industry) include access to digital technology and entrepreneurship. Youths have become vital within Nollywood, as actors, producers and editors. Today Nollywood’s low-budget films have inspired the growth of regional film industries across Africa and contributed to its status as the third largest film industry. Nollywood’s revenue stand’s at around $200mn a year [1] .  [1] See further readings: ABN, 2013.


Technology will lead job growth for youths.  The rate of unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa remains above the global average, at 7.55% in 2011, with 77% of the population in vulnerable employment [1] . Economic growth has not been inclusive and jobs are scarce. In particular, rates of youth unemployment, and underemployment, remain a concern [2] . On average, the underutilisation of youths in the labour market across Sub-Saharan Africa stood at 67% in 2012 (Work4Youth, 2013). Therefore 67% of youths are either unemployed, inactive, or in irregular employment. The rate of unemployment varies geographically and across gender [3] .  There remains a high percentage of youths within informal employment. Technology can introduce a new dynamic within the job market and access to safer employment.  Secure, high quality jobs, and more jobs, are essential for youths. Access to technology is the only way to meet such demands. Technology will enable youths to create new employment opportunities and markets; but also employment through managing, and selling, the technology available.  [1] ILO, 2013.  [2] Definitions: Unemployment is defined as the amount of people who are out of work despite being available, and seeking, work. Underemployment defines a situation whereby the productive capacity of an employed person is underutilised. Informal employment defines individuals working in waged and/or self employment informally (see further readings).  [3] Work4Youth (2013) show, on average, Madagascar has the lowest rate of unemployment (2.2%) while Tanzania has the highest (42%); and the average rate of female unemployment stands higher at 25.3%, in contrast to men (20.2%).


Recent evidence by the World Bank indicates unemployment is not only due to the limited availability of jobs. A high proportion of youths have been identified as ‘idle’ - not in school, training, or work, and not actively seeking employment. Although variations are found, in 2009 only ~2% of male youths, aged 15-24, and ~1% of female youths, who were not in school or employment in Tanzania, were actively looking for work [1] . Without motivation technology will not make a difference.  [1] WDR, 2013.


Cultural industries don’t always provide a positive role. If entrepreneurial youths today are using technology to create films on witchcraft in the public sphere, what effect will this have on future generations? Growth cant just rely on creative industries as there needs to be money created to drive demand for these films, and any money that might be made by the creative industries are undermined by piracy. Without a solution small time films are hardly the most secure of jobs.


Despite programs distributing technology into schools does the availability of technology provides future benefits? Having a tablet does not ensure teachers are well-trained to assist and guide the children. Without proper oversight it might prove more of a distraction. Technology in schools might also mean students having technology substituted for teachers. With programs still being implemented, and results variable, the causality between technology, education, and the rise of well educated, motivated, youths remains precarious.


Technology is building a platform for sharing ideas.  Entrepreneurialism can be encouraged through an awareness, and sharing, of new ideas. The technological revolution has provided a platform for personal expression, delivery of up-to-date news, and the vital sharing of local ideas and thoughts. In Nigeria the Co-Creation Hub has emerged, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit. Further, Umuntu and Mimiboards’ are connecting individual communities to the web by encouraging local content creation [1] .  Such platforms are enabling the transfer of knowledge and innovative ideas. Innovative solutions are being introduced to routine problems, such as ‘Mafuta Go’ an app to find the best price for petrol (Christine Ampaire).  [1] See further readings: Co-Creation Hub Nigeria, 2013


Changing education systems and democracy.  Technology has enabled access to e-books and resources for students and teachers [1] . Such changes have enabled improved efficiency in teaching, with the availability of up-to-date resources and awareness of relevant theories. Furthermore, the ease by which students are able to access multiple resources and buy books online is expanding their intellectual curiosity and library.  In addition to raising new students, technology can be seen as a tool for democracy. Technology provides a tool for government accountability, transparency in information, and for good governance. Organisations, such as Ushahidi (Crowdmapping) following Kenya’s 2007 post-election violence; and mySociety which updates citizens on parliamentary proceedings in South Africa, show how technology is feeding democratisation for youths [2] .  [1] See further readings: Turcano, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Treisman, 2013; Usahidi, 2013.


Technology is enhancing security, not threatening it. Measures are being implemented to ensure cyber-security and further technology is creating new, local, initiatives for security on the ground. Ushahidi Crowdmapping - an interactive, collective, mapping tool - was used to expose, and remember, political violence that occurred in Kenya’s 2007 presidential election [1] .  [1] See further readings: Ushahidi, 2013.


Credit is now becoming more accessible through technology. Mobile-banking schemes such as MPESA across East Africa and ZAAB in Somalia, use mobile phones to transfer money and payments. The mobile banking scheme is increasing the efficiency of borrowing money from social circles, enabling quick transactions to be carried out, and introducing users to a wealth of market opportunities.  Technology is integral to entrepreneurship.


The technological revolution has been hyped.  Debates may be raised as to whether the technological revolution is actually a reality across Africa [1] . Have expectations been too high; the benefits exclusive; and the reality over-exaggerated?  On the one hand, the type of technology raises significant questions. Although the population with access to a mobile phone has risen, the quality of the phones indicates a hyped-reality. Although technology has become easily accessible, the quality of such technologies puts constraints on what it can be used for. A vast majority of mobile phones are imported from China - at low-cost but also poor quality. Quality testing on imports, and locally produced products, is needed to approve market devices.  On another hand, the reality of internet connectivity is not high-speed, and therefore of limited use. Better connectivity emerges in certain geographical locations, to those who can afford higher prices, and within temporary fluxes.  [1] See further readings: BBC World Service, 2013.


Technology has only benefited private companies.  Ultimately, technology, its provision, distribution, and function, is based on a business model. Profits are sought and losers emerge. The technology hype has attracted global technology giants, ranging from IBM to Google – a key issue as to whether entrepreneurialism can emerge amongst youths and technology used sustainably. The monopolisation of technology markets by multinational companies puts constraints on the ability for small businesses to break through. Any profits created are not recirculated in their locality, or Africa, but return to the country of origin.  For entrepreneurialism to be gained, and youth jobs emerge, the technological giants investing in Africa’s rising future need to partner with communities and small businesses.


Technology remains insecure and a security risk.  The internet remains at risk. Cybersecurity is a key concern, and the prevalence of hacking events across Africa identifies the need to promote security for the new digital users. Cyber-crime costs the Kenyan government around Ksh.2 billion (Mutegi, 2013); and affects around 70% of South Africans. In order to encourage more users in technology their safety, against fraud, hacking, and identity theft, needs to be prioritised. Without security technology can’t help entrepreneurs as customer details, business plans etc can’t be kept private.


Technology will not result in entrepreneurialism without providing a foundational basis.  The key constraint for entrepreneurship is the lack of access to finance, credit, and basic infrastructure - whether a computer or technical skills on how to use different systems. Limited accessibility acts as an obstacle to entrepreneurialism.  In order to encourage an inclusive capability for youths to get involved in entrepreneurial ideas, technology training and equal start-up credit is required. Furthermore, dangers arise where credit has become easily accessible - putting individuals at risk of debt where a lack of protection and payment planning is provided.  Kenya’s Uwezo Fund provides a positive example, whereby action has been taken to provide youths with safe credit. The government collaboration is calling for youths to apply for grants and loans in a bid to encourage entrepreneurial activity for all. Loans are interest-free.


Several examples may be found on established partnerships between multinational technology firms and civil-society groups. Microsoft has become a key investor in South Africa to tackle youth unemployment.  Microsoft has established a Students to Business initiative in South Africa, aiming to build human capital and provide professional skills to students, thus assisting job opportunities. Multinational companies are investing in youths as they recognise the burden of high unemployment and the potential talents youth have. By providing young students with key skills and sharing knowledge, a new generation of technology developers, leaders, and entrepreneurs will arise.


The technological revolution across Africa is broad, ranging from mobile technology to internet connectivity. The availability of mobiles has broadened who can use technology - being more inclusive to multiple socio-economic groups.  Internet.org [1] has been established to resolve issues, making connectivity affordable. The initiative, which involves a collaborative partnership between Facebook and technological organisations, has a vision of ensuring access to the internet for the two-thirds who remain unconnected. Connectivity is a fundamental necessity to living in our ‘knowledge economy’. Their mission has centred on three aspects: affordability, improving efficiency, and innovative partnerships to expand the number of people connected. Intervention has therefore focused on removing barriers to accessing information by connecting people.  Furthermore in Kenya, mobile phones have been made accessible to a wider audience through the removal of the general sales tax in 2009.  [1] See further readings: Internet.org, 2013.


americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would

There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined. [1]  [1]  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.


Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU  Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.


There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks." [1]  [1]  ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005


Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population  The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.  Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.  [1]  The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009  [2]  ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011


The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.  Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.  [1]  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.  [2]  ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.


Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.


Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism  Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home." [1]  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004


Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join  Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union. [1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.  [1]  European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30th October 2010


Turkey has a large number of pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights [1] . Police use of torture is widespread against PKK members and sympathisers. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a separate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. Peaceful protestors, including (but not only) those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994 there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country [2] . There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press.  It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizou Case [3] . Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.  [1]  Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, 1st October 2009  [2]  United Nations Commission on Human Rights  [3]  Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, summary Loizuo and others v Turkey


Turkey is not a European country - 95% of the nation’s landmass is on the wrong side of the Hellespont, in Asia. If Turkey is allowed into the European Union, not only would the institution’s very name become nonsensical, but it would be impossible to place a limit upon its potential future expansion. If Gibraltar belonged to Morocco rather than Britain, would we have said yes to Morocco’s application to join the European Union? Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde in 2002 - "The day after you open negotiations with Turkey, you would have a Moroccan demand (for membership of the union)" [1] . One could of course then argue that Turkey should not be the only geographically non-European member of the European Union and that Morocco and Armenia would make excellent candidates. But if Morocco, why not Algeria? If Armenia, why not Azerbaijan?  French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in January 2007: "Turkey has no place inside the European Union. I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union. Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept." [2] If there is to be a limit then it makes sense that this limit should be at Europe’s geographical borders.  [1]  ‘Turkey not part of Europe’ by Randall Parker, 8th November 2002  [2]  15th January 2007


Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world  Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.  Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.  Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.  [1]  ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010  [2]  ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010


Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power  Turkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%) [1] , so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives.  [1]  European Union (EU-15) & Constituent Nation Population from 1950 & Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001


Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union  Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.  Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.


Turkey has a poor human rights record  Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts." [1]  The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned." [2]  Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004  [2]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004


Turkey is too big to be safely included within the EU. The Turkish population - estimated at 65.6 million in 2000 - is on current growth trends forecast to rise to 87.3 million by 2025, making it the largest single state in the EU [1] . As population size determines representation and voting strength in the Council of Ministers, and in the European Parliament, Turkey would be able to dominate EU decision-making and set its own agenda, to the disadvantage of existing members.  [1]  Population projections of countries and their coastal regions: Turkey


The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey  There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd". Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU.  Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country.


Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution [1] . Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem.  [1]  ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10th June 2010


Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997 [1] . The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism [2] .  Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement.  [1]  Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey  [2]  ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1st May 2007


europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland

An attempt at a plebiscite in 1921/22 under the specter of a war of independence and civil war would have been fraught with danger and even more open to intimidation than the House of Commons.  It would be undemocratic to relinquish Northern Ireland today, because recent polls have shown that the majority of people want to remain within the UK. *  *Moriarty, 2011,


The partition of Ireland was undemocratic  The people of Northern Ireland should have decided whether or not they wanted to be united with Northern Ireland, rather than it being battled out in the British Parliament and the country partitioned by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920* that created a separate parliament for the six counties of Northern Ireland.** It was because the vote was not put to the Irish that the Unionists could twist arms and manipulate British politicians into allowing the six counties to remain part of the UK. After partition, the Unionists fixed electoral boundaries so there would never be a Republican majority in an electorate. This was unjust and illegitimately prevented a pro-Republic vote passing in future.  * Government of Ireland Act, 1920,   ** Ferriter, ‘Ireland in the Twentieth Century’,


There is no evidence that the Catholic population today suffers a bias in the current political system, except for that which they make for themselves. As of 2010 the Catholic representation in the House of Commons is 5 Sinn Fein and 3 SDLP against 8 Democratic Unionists,* it is only the fact that the Sinn Fein members do not take up their seats that make things uneven. In the NI Assembly things are slightly more skewed. As of 2011 there are 55 Unionists and 43 Republicans.**  Attacks against Catholics are not based on religious lines. Unionist attacks are only focused on those Catholics that are Republicans. In general Catholics are perfectly safe in Northern Ireland.  Additionally in united Ireland, the Protestants would become the marginalized minority. Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland***, for example, which will inhibit the freedom of non- Catholics. Such laws are likely to stay because of the overwhelming Catholic majority.  *Parliament.uk, 2011,   **Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011,   ***Wikipedia,


Economic efficiency  A Unified Ireland would be better off economically. “Ireland is too small for two separate administrations….There is a draw towards the greater integration of services, structures and bodies on an all-Ireland basis in order to deliver quality services and economies of scale.” – Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland*  Having two electricity grids, two transport networks, two separate police and judiciary hamper economic growth and waste resources that could be better used in a unified system, as cost would lower as efficiency rises.  *McGuinness, 2010,


Britain is morally obliged to permit the secession of northern Ireland  The age of colonialism is over. We recognize that the dominance of one country over another is morally wrong. Ireland was already in the hands of the Irish people before English earls and kings invaded. The Irish had a right to the ownership of their land because they cultivated it and so put their labor into it. The use of force to seize that land from the people’s control is unjust because it denies them the right they had to their land. They had no choice to voluntarily hand over their land either.  To right this historical wrong, the British government should relinquish Northern Ireland, just as they have decolonized the rest of the world ending the British empire except for a few scattered outposts. Since Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 Northern Ireland is the only remaining colony with a significant population and independent identity.


The Unionists in Northern Ireland who wish to remain part of the UK should have the freedom to do so. To disown Northern Ireland would be a second involuntary decision made by an outsider.


If you were to adopt a federal system, which would best please Unionists, the systems would not integrate very much anyway as Northern Irish ‘states’ would want their own state constitution and have separate judiciary to the rest of Ireland, as is the practice in the US.


We are at peace now. The Good Friday Agreement has created stability, with the exception of occasional outbreaks but nothing like the horror of The Troubles. We do not need re-unification to have stability. In fact, the positive outcome that might happen is unsure and not a reason worth gambling on.  It is likely that there will be conflict in the beginning. Such a huge move will come to Unionists as a shock and without knowing how much power they will have, having to answer to Dublin, it is likely that paramilitary activities will flare up again. This will, of course, spark off IRA and other Republican attacks. If escalations get worse, the British may intervene as well as the Irish army and there may be an entire repeat of The Troubles.


It would be easier to protect the rights of religious minorities within a united Ireland  Unrest in Northern Ireland was started by the appalling treatment of the Catholic minority there. When there was a Northern Ireland Parliament there was some gerrymandering, while the discrimination in representation was slight very few nationalists were able to get senior jobs, in the civil service for example in 1927 fourteen of the 229 officers of staff officer rank or above, or 6 per cent, were Catholic, while in 1959 there were forty-six Catholics out of 740 in such ranks, or once again, 6 per cent.* Over the years reforms have been introduced but there is still huge stigma against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, who have little representation in politics, because it is dominated by Unionist rhetoric.  The best way to ensure equal treatment of the Catholics in Ireland is to unite majority Protestant Northern Ireland with Catholic majority Republic of Ireland, where they will be better represented in politics and not stigmatized by their neighbors.  *Whyte, 1983,


Uniting Ireland would bring about an end to sectarian violence  A united Ireland doesn’t have to marginalize the Protestant population. If they are included more in the political process there can be debate, discussion and an airing of grievances which can then be resolved.  There is little sense of attachment to the UK, and British institutions. Much like the Scottish and Welsh, the Northern Irish feel Northern Irish. This shows that the ties to Britain are not emotional, but political. It is clear that Unionists just want to have power over how they run their lives. If Unionists are included in the political process in a united Ireland they will have no grievances and there will finally be a lasting peace.


There are many ways to resolve some of these issues. Firstly, regarding political resentment, a system of federalism is likely to ensure some level of political autonomy on both sides. Secondly, such a huge project is likely to attract funds from the UN, EU, the IMF, from charities from private donors etc. So, the former Republic of Ireland will not be subsidizing the Northern Irish, nor will the Northerners be left without support. There will most likely to be international bodies and charities monitoring the transition too, so that any outburst of violence can be contained or reported.


Economic fortunes rise and fall all the time. Many in Northern Ireland looked up enviously during the Republic’s boom. There were even clamors from Northern Irish politicians to lower the corporate tax in Northern Ireland to match the Republic’s success. So, economic reasons for opposing unification don’t stand in the long run.


The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland do not support unification  The Good Friday agreement affirmed “That if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments [UK and Ireland] to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.* However as yet the Northern Irish do not wish to exercise this right. In a recent survey conducted by The Northern Ireland Life and Times it transpired that, “Overall, 73 per cent believe the long-term policy for the North should be maintaining the union, with 58 per cent supporting devolution and 15 per cent in favour of direct rule. Just 16 per cent want a united Ireland, with 3 per favoring an independent Northern Ireland.” This is not just amongst the Protestant population. The survey also showed that, “just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favoring a return to direct rule from Westminster.”**  *NIO, 1998,   **Moriarty, 2011,


Unification would reignite civil disorder and violent factionalism among Irish communities  As shown above, the Northern Irish don’t want to unite with the Republic. The Irish in the Republic will also resent the new drain on their economy. Either the Republican parties in Ireland will resent having to concede some power to new political entities or the Unionists will resent being marginalized. The recent reoccurrence of violence in Belfast is being attributed to the breakdown of protestant communities and low job prospects for young protestants. Both of these problems will be exacerbated in a majority Catholic Ireland. All of these examples illustrate how unrest is likely to breakout again in a united Ireland.


Unification would be damaging for the economies of both parts of Ireland  The Republic of Ireland is currently in a crisis. It is the I in P.I.G.S, the European Union countries whose economies are bust and require a bailout package. It would not be to the benefit of either Northern Ireland joining such a fragile economy, nor would it be good for the Republic of Ireland, having the cut back on public spending whilst trying to integrate Northern Irish transport/police systems etc.  Northern Ireland is a weak economy anyway and a lot of employment comes from the public sector, 30% compared to the UK average of 21%.* The region is £9billion in the red or £5,502 per person, three times the UK average.** These jobs will obviously no longer be an option under re-unification and so there is likely to be mass employment amongst the newly integrated Northern Irish. To counter this, money from Republican taxpayers will have to go to subsidize business/building projects etc in the way the Germans in the West still subsidize the Eastern parts of Germany, over 50 years since the wall came down.  *HM Treasury, 2011, p.9   **Fitzpatrick, 2011,


It is highly probable that opinion will shift. Current statistics reflect the fact that this generation has lived through The Troubles. The next generation is likely to see a nation divided, which appears to so obviously belong together. There is no evidence that current opinion will not change with time.


global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new

Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.


New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.