Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.  Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012


ic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government

A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.  A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support.  [1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,


Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece  There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen:  The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find.  The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3]  These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4]  [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [3] ibid  [4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,


Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro.


In receiving financial support from the ECB and European Commission to prevent the escalation of a major banking collapse in Greece, the Greek Government would be expected to continue with reforms of the public sector. What’s more, defaulting would grant the Greek Government more time to implement such reforms, making them more likely to succeed and less painful on the Greek populous. The oppositions fears are, therefore, unfounded.


europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its

While many things may have eased up for a few years in the 2000s China has since hardened its policies in many areas rolling back progress. On the one child policy for example Zhang Feng, director of the provincial population and family planning commission, has said there would be "no major adjustments to the family planning policy within five years." [1] Meanwhile village elections have never gone further than the villages and the odd trial in townships and are still one party affairs. [2] When it comes to international affairs China is not using the veto any more than previously but its rise is no longer considered so peaceful after a string of clashes with its neighbors, particularly on its sea borders such as the South China Sea where Vietnamese vessels have been harassed inside Vietnamese waters. [3] China is obviously not following a straight line towards peaceful coexistence and democracy. The EU should keep the arms ban to pressure China into continuing progress.  [1] AFP, ‘China province cools hopes of ‘one-child’ policy easing’, 2011.   [2] Brown, Kerry, ‘Chinese democracy: the neglected story’, 2011.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Vietnam Eyes Foreign Help’, 2011 .


China has changed a lot since Tiananmen  China has changed over the past two decades, becoming more open to the world and more open domestically. For example it is experimenting with democratic elections at village level and since 1998 begun extending these to townships. [1] It has also effectively scrapped the repressive one-child policy. Internationally China is a responsible member of the international community, as befits a permanent member of the UN Security Council. At the United Nations, although it occasionally abstains from votes, it very rarely threatens to use its veto power in the Security Council, it has only used the veto six times since 1971 when the PRC joined the UN [2] - unlike the USA, for example. Its "peaceful rise" can also be seen in its hosting of the six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear programme. And China is increasingly willing to operate within regional diplomatic frameworks covering East Asia, SE Asia and Central Asia.  [1] Horsley, Jamie P., ‘Village Elections: Training Ground for Democratization’, 2001   [2] Sun, Yun, ‘China’s Acquiescence on UN SCR 1973: No Big Deal’, 2011.


Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ]  [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005.   [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010.


A code of conduct is needed not a ban  The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003) [1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective. [2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998. [3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused.  [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5.   [3] Ibid, p21


China can’t be ignored  Europe has a developing strategic partnership with China. China is Europe’s largest trading partner with EU exports in goods of €113.1billiion and imports of €281.9billion and in services of €20.2billion and €16.3billion respectively, [1] and as China's rapid growth continues it is playing an increasingly important part in the global economy and in international affairs. Clearly it is in the EU's interests to work together with this emerging superpower. Ma Zhaoxu a Foreign Ministry spokesman called it ‘the obstacle to the sound growth of the China-EU relationship,’ [2] after more than fifteen years, it is time to lift it. China has repeatedly said that it will never enjoy a normal trading relationship with the EU until the ban is lifted. Europe’s first responsibility is to its own citizens economic wellbeing which would benefit from greater trade ties between China and the European Union.  [1] European Commission, ‘China’, 2011   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010


The idea of a "strategic partnership" with China is both vague and cause for concern. It is unclear what such a partnership would involve and questionable whether it is desirable. On one hand, by lifting the arms ban the EU will be showing that it favours stability over democracy and profit over principle. Other repressive regimes and would-be tyrants will surely take note. On the other hand it is unclear what actual harm there is to Europe from keeping the ban in place. Despite Chinese rhetoric about it damaging their trading relationship with the EU, it is not clear how European states are disadvantaged compared to other countries, as mentioned China is the EU’s largest trade partner already. As a WTO member China is committed to further market opening anyway, [1] and as a member of the UN Security Council it is in its own interests to cooperate with others for mutual benefit.  [1] Kim, Ki Hee, ‘China’s Entry Into WTO And Its Impact ON EU’, 2004


A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights." [1]  [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011.


Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights. [1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference.  [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15.


China will simply get similar products elsewhere  In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel [1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China. [2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development, [3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse.  [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004.   [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010.   [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1.


Cooperation is the best way to gain influence  Cooperating with China is the best way to gain influence with the regime in order to promote democracy and human rights, engage it internationally, etc. The Chinese respond very badly to being publicly lectured or threatened, [1] but they will listen to those friendly nations who have earned their trust in ways like these. China for example often follows Russia, since the beginning of the 1990s its biggest arms supplier, when it comes to voting in the United Nations Security Council. Thus both vetoed sanctions against Syria in 2011 and shortly after Russia shifted its position to urging Assad to carry out reforms China followed. [2] The influence of the United States over other East Asian states in encouraging their democratization also shows that friends can apply influence on issues such as human rights as well as where interests coincide; The United States played a key role in sheparding Philippine dictator Marcos out of office and then encouraged Korean President Chun Doo Hwan to stick to a single term of office and not to use force against the opposition in 1988. [3] Lifting the ban is an investment in the future of the Europe-China relationship, and could be of benefit to the whole world, not just the EU.  [1] Byrnes, Sholto, ‘David Cameron’s China visit’, 2010.   [2] Chulov, Martin, ‘China urges Syria regime to deliver on promised reforms’, 2011.   [3] Oberdorfer, Don, The Two Koreas, 2001, pp.163-4, 170.


China is making progress towards resolving many of its territorial disputes. It has resolved it long disputed border with Russia and has also been resolving territorial disputes with its Central Asian neighbors on terms favorable to the Central Asian powers, for example Tajikistan ceded only 1,000km2 of the 28,000 that China claimed. [1] There are good reasons to believe that even if Beijing is pulling its weight on the regional and world stage it is not a threat to peace and stability. China’s booming economy relies on trade, both when importing the necessary raw materials and exporting the finished products around the world. China’s trade was 44.2% of GDP in 2009. [2] Any regional conflict even against a much weaker neighbor would prevent this trade as there are many choke points such as the straits of Malacca and cause immense damage to the Chinese economy.  [1] Ramachandran, Sudha, ‘China plays long game on border disputes’, 2011.   [2] The World Bank, ‘Merchandise trade (% of GDP)’, 2011.


The arms ban is an anachronism - only China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are singled out by the EU in this way from all the regimes in the world. [1] China is therefore right to call this policy as showing a “political prejudice against China” [2] as many other nations have perpetrated similar human rights violations. This is pointlessly offensive to the Chinese government and people, who see it as political discrimination against them, and it should be lifted. The new code of conduct should be sufficient to prevent worries that European weaponry will be used to repress demonstrations as it prohibits exports where there is a “Risk that export would be used for internal repression or where the recipient country has engaged in serious violations of human rights”. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘EU China arms ban ’to be lifted’’, 2005.   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010.   [3] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p21.


Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military  The arms ban is very effective in preventing the Chinese military gaining access to the best modern technologies. A convincing code of conduct has yet to be drawn up, but even if it looks very tight, it has a major flaw. Individual EU member states will be able to judge for themselves whether a proposed arms sale breaks the code. Past experience suggests that when exports are at stake, perhaps with the risk of job losses in an election year, then politicians interpret codes like this very loosely, so for example despite this code UK arms exports may have been used in the conflict against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. [1] This will be made worse by the thought of an EU state that if it refuses a particular military sale to China, then another member state will be more flexible. This means that each individual member will make decisions based upon what is best for it individually and not think of what is best for the Union as a whole – such as providing high tech weapons that bring in export dollars but helps undermine security.  [1] Prince, Rosa, ‘UK arms used against civilians in Sri Lanka and Gaza’, 2009.


Lifting the ban will damage relations with the U.S.  Even if it was in Europe's interest to sell arms to China, the damage from upsetting the United States by lifting the arms ban would be much greater. This is partly because America takes the human rights situation in China more seriously, but mostly because the USA has a major commitment to the freedom of Taiwan. If China did attack the island, America would almost certainly intervene. As the US State Department has said in relation to lifting the ban, "We don't want to see a situation where American forces face European technologies." [1] Congress has already threatened to restrict technology transfers to Europe if the ban is removed. [2] For fear of this, BAE Systems, one of Europe's largest defence firms, has said that it would not sell to China even if the ban was lifted. [3]  [1] Brinkley, Joel, ‘Rice Sounds a Theme in Visit to Beijing Protestant Church’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p34-5.   [3] Evans, Michael et al., ‘British arms firms will spurn China if embargo ends’, 2005.


There is no reason to strengthen China militarily  Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc. [1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes. [2]  [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16.   [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010.


China is a threat to regional stability  China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict.  [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010.   [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010.   [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005.   [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000.


Lifting the ban may briefly result in condemnation from the United States but it is unlikely to damage relations over the long term. The United States and Europe are strong allies in NATO and both accept that from time to time one partner will do things the other does not like.


The arms ban is still necessary  The European Union should stick to its principles. The arms ban was imposed for a reason - the massacre of students demonstrating for democracy and openness in 1989. Nothing China has done since shows it regrets its savage actions in Tiananmen Square - indeed many of the demonstrators are still in prison today. [1] If the ban is lifted, the EU will be implying that it should never have placed the ban on arms sales in the first place, and signalling that China can do what it likes to its own people without fear of EU objections. Indeed if there is an end to the arms ban, the next time that peaceful demonstrators are attacked by the armed forces in China, they may be able to do it with European weapons. Overall, China's human rights record is still very bad. It still hasn't ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is regularly criticised by Amnesty International [2] and Human Rights Watch [3] for imprisoning political and religious activists without trial. This is not a state that should be rewarded with EU favours.  [1] Jiang, Shao, ‘List of “June Fourth Tiananmen Prisoners” still held in custody and their backgrounds’, 2010.   [2] Amnesty International, ‘Annual Report 2011 China’, 2011.   [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘China’


Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons". [1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes.  [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005.


China is increasingly able to develop its own high tech weapons so by continuing to have a ban in place will make very little difference to China’s capacity to build high tech weapons. This is shown by China’s unveiling of a prototype stealth fighter the J-20. [1] Even if the code of conduct is not watertight neither is the current arms ban as some weapons are still sold in spite of the ban.  [1] Foster, Peter, ‘China stealth fighter a ‘masterpiece’ of homegrown technology’, 2011.


global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression

It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]  [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011,


It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights  Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),   [2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,   [3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar,  p.54


The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.  [1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011,


Advancing national interests  A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]  [1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998,   [2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2,  p.318  [3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3,  p.515


There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.


As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed [1] as a result of the collapse of the state.  [1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013,


It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters  What matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]  [1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012,


It is legitimate to enable freedom  Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.  [1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012,


If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching.


Proclamations that there can be no interference in another state are simply attempts by elites to cling on to power by preventing any help reaching those campaigning for democracy. These declarations, even the UN Charter, are negotiated, written, and signed by the leaders of governments not their people so favour those who are already in power. Something cannot be considered illegitimate just because it is supported by the status quo.


Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens  What censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.  [1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013,


Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.


This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive  Unless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1]  [1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013,


The international system is based on equality and non-interference  Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945,   [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),   [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151


The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.  [1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88.


Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?


e international africa house would provide access microfinance unbanked

One of the key benefits highlighted about Oxfam’s Saving for Change Initiative is the empowerment provided for women. Women are argued to be more independent, able to organise within communities, and provided with a voice of power. However, are women empowered?  In the cases of microfinance in Cameroon, Mayoux (2001) highlights the inequalities operating within community groups. The message is we cannot rely on communities, and social capital, for empowerment as women within such communities have different relations to power. The ability for women to use savings and credit for self-empowerment is limited by wider, traditional, gender inequalities. Microfinance may act to reinforce unequal power relations and positions within society.  Furthermore, women’s empowerment needs to be understood as complex. [1] Real, and strategic, empowerment for women goes beyond increased access to economic resources. So how can microfinance ensure true empowerment?  [1] See further readings: Sutton-Brown, 2013.


Can we rely on business to solve social problems? Ultimately the model proposed through microfinance schemes is the creation of a consumer market where risks are already high. This has shown to be one of the key factors of microfinance failing in South Africa (Bateman, 2013). The microcredit provided across South Africa, post-apartheid, aimed to solve social problems - however, it has acted to support risky consumption not investment. With a lack of secure incomes, due to high levels of unemployment, underemployment, and informal employment, the rate of repayment is low. Households have been forced into severe poverty by being provided with credit which they can’t pay back. Even among those who do invest how many of their business ideas will succeed?


The provision of microfinance within livelihoods is based on a positive view of social capital [1] and cohesion. The idea relies upon a perception whereby social networks within the community are able to positively organise funds and remain democratic in how they manage poverty. It fails to acknowledge negative aspects of social capital - such as how networks can act to exclude and restrict who becomes a part of the scheme. Civil society is not without internal politics, with competing interests, and can be uncooperative.  [1] Social capital represents the relationships and linkages between people and/or groups, of which are formulated with rules and norms. See further readings:


Loans provided are embedded with conditions, which can constrain what an individual can do with the money. A microfinance loan is still a loan, it needs to be paid back, if someone is in poor health for a long period they will run into difficulty. Can saving schemes enable social protection in the long term when the amount saved is just enough to cover one sick person? We need to realistically evaluate what the loan enables, provides, and how long for. To provide real health security a much more comprehensive finance system is needed, such as insurance


There is a need to reinvigorate Africa’s agricultural system; however, the ability for microfinance to do this is debatable. The distribution of loans is not necessarily adequate or responsive to the need. The loans provided need to be able to provide security and protection in the face of environmental crisis. There are some things microfinance can’t solve; more variable rains and desertification for example. Loans can only be provided if the risks are known and the risks are getting higher so too will be the costs of loans.  Additionally, multiple factors are responsible for Africa’s agrarian crisis. The lack of an agriculture marketing board for farmers to control price, insufficient infrastructure, and the legacies of structural adjustment, all act to constrain the agricultural system.


Africa’s microfinance schemes can be different, and are fundamentally different. Across Africa there is a history of informal lending. Microfinance is not new, but rather embedded in traditional practices. This means communities are aware of the obligations, rules, and practice of microfinance.  Additionally, the path taken by microfinance lenders shows stricter controls are being taken to ensure that the loans are not subprime. In a bid to ensure the safety of the poor the Bank of Ghana has set up minimum capital requirements for the borrower and new regulations to ensure money-lent is repayable.


All policies have barriers and potential disadvantages and for a scheme to be rolled out the advantages must outweigh the costs. In the case of microfinance advantages are higher. Microfinance has a low cost for implementation, and can therefore be distributed nationwide. Rolling out microfinance schemes means a majority of the population will become able to access vital services through a flexible loan.  Microfinance not being able to reach everyone is not a reason to enable it for those it can reach. If bad governance prevents sustainability then something needs to be done about governance – it does not invalidate microfinance as a concept. And all those involved in supply do have close enough objectives to run the scheme there simply needs to be compromises to ensure they remain the same.


Microfinance does not have to be short term financing. Because it is a community based loan that is based on trust if those wanting the loan can explain why they want a loan over the longer term then it is possible to get longer loans. Moreover long term investment should not be something those who are struggling day to day have to think about; such investments as education should be made by the government not relying on individuals to realise their long term interests. No one would argue that microfinance is the solution to a poor education system.


europe middle east politics house supports admission turkey eu

Turkey today only has 3% of its total territory located on the European continent making it dubious that it counts as European geographically [1] . The core of Turkey is located geographically in Asia Minor. Turkish culture has little connection with the cultures of the other members of the European Union. This is a result of its culture deriving from a tradition as an Islamic state whereas the members of the European Union all have histories as Christian states meaning there are less shared values between Turkey and EU members than EU members have between themselves.  [1] Geography of Turkey. Wikipedia.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.


Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.  Geographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’ [1] . Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia. [2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law. [3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one.  [1] The EU: A Community of Values. EU Focus.  Accessed on September 3, 2010.  [2] Anderson, M.S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618, Longman London, 1998, p.57  [3] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster London, 1996, pp.144-145


False, the EU values are present in Greece for more than three decades, but problems related with their traditional way of life are persisting more and more, knowing the fact that Greece and Turkey are sharing more or less the same cultural values. Not even to mention the cases of Bulgaria and Romania which have not changed in any way, surprisingly they are getting even worse than before. By citing the examples of how the European values will attain as far as Iran, Iraq and Syria, the argument is clearly saying that Turkey is indeed not an European country by bordering those three countries and the big question is how an actual European country as Turkey-as the case is willing to promote, ‘’has to get European values’’?


The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.  Turkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world [1] . Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15 [2] while in the EU only 15.44% is. [3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035 [4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year. [5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union.  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [3] ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [4] Europa, ‘Population projections 2008-2060 From 2015, deaths projected to outnumber births in the EU27’, STAT/08/119, 26 August 2008,   [5] Carone, Giuseppe, et al., ‘The economic impact of aging populations in the EU 25 Member States’, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, n.. 236, December 2005,  p.15


Turkey may have a growing economy, but this does not make it a good candidate for EU membership. Despite its growth there is still a lot of poverty in Turkey. Its GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU. [1] When looking at Turkey, everyone thinks of Istanbul, forgetting the other ‘’invisible’’ Turkey, where there are major economic problems, such as unemployment, low wages, bad infrastructure and high immigration rates. [2]  [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,  ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [2] Daily News. Economy. Number of poor people increasing in Turkey.  Accessed on September 3, 2012.


Strategic position and energy benefits  There would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of. [1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on.  Turkey is therefore vital for Europe’s energy security. According to the EU energy minister “Turkey comes first in these countries for cooperation” on energy issues because of its location. [2] This is because Turkey is an important transit point for Oil coming through the Bosporus from the Caspian Sea and Russia and also for gas. Turkey acts as a bridge both to the Caspian and the Gulf and creates a second option for importing gas into Europe through pipelines that Europe needs as shown by the cut offs caused by Russian disputes with Belarus and Ukraine. Having gas pipelines through Turkey to the EU, such as the Nabucco pipeline, would shatter Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe. [3]  [1] Solana, Javier, ‘Why Turkey must join the European Union’, CNN World, 13 June 2011,   [2] Kurtaran, Gökhan, ‘Turkey vital for energy, EU commissioner says’, Daily News, 10 February 2012,   [3] Tekin, Ali, and Williams, Paul A., ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy and Turkey’s Accession Process’, Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #170, 2009,


The issue of Cyprus will eventually be resolved; one small member state cannot hold the destiny of 550 million people hostage indefinitely. [1] Europe made a mistake by not forcing Cyprus to resolve its problems with Northern Cuprus and Turkey before joining the EU [2] however Europe once again has leverage as it is in negotiations to bailout the country. [3]  [1] Lake, Michael, ‘Turkey: Tilting from U.S. to EU?’, Atlantic Council at 50,   [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011,   [3] Kambas, Michele, ‘Cyprus hopes for deal with Troika in October’, Reuters, 5 September 2012,


Turkey has a booming economy. Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies of the world Turkey is therefore rapidly catching up with Europe and this will therefore become less and less of an issue; at the same time Europe will need Turkey more while Turkey will need the EU less. [1] While many Turks may wish to move to the EU to try to find work it is unclear either that they would do so, Europe’s average unemployment rate is currently higher than Turkey’s, or that Europe would let them, there would likely be transitional rules such as those imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. [2]  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] EURES, ‘Free Movement : Romania’, European Commission,


Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.  Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,


Turkey must recognize Cyprus.  The biggest problem facing Turkey that will prevent its entry to the European Union is that it does not recognize Cyprus, a state that is already an EU member. It is clear that Cyprus and relations with it are the main sticking point as the EU President Van Rompuy has admitted “Were it not for some challenges from one of the members of the European Union, Cyprus, we would have made more progress when it comes to Turkey, I acknowledge that negotiations on enlargement are stalled for the time being because one of the members of the club has problems with the process.” [1] Negotiations towards reunification of the island have stalled since the EU backed UN peace plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in 2004 just before they joined the EU. Neither Cyprus nor Turkey are willing to take any possible steps that would help build confidence and break down the barriers to agreement such as reopening ports and airports. [2]  [1] Neuger, James G., ‘Turkey’s EU Bid Is ‘Stalled,’ Cyprus to Blame, Van Rompuy Says’, Bloomberg, 5 September 2012,   [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011,


Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.  Turkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU [1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union.  The effect of this economic disparity is likely to lead to a massive influx of immigrants from Turkey to the rest of the EU, because they will take advantage of free movement of people in the European Union and these immigrants. This immigration is likely to have the effect of forcing down the wages of workers in the existing EU nations as the Turks will be willing to work for less. [2]  [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,  ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [2] Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU. The Guardian. August 6 2009.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.


Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,


europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy

Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front.


The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.  While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.  1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’,


The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1  1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11


The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.  The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development.  1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11


The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.


The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1  1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11


The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.  The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1.  1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11


The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.  The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.  1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11


The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.  1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11


One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Enlargement Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign and security policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo.


The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.  Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.


There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.  The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1  1.  ">


The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.  While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.


Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.


sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes

More casual sex with barrier contraception is preferable to the current amount without contraception. The amount of consensual sex is not going to change no matter what the church teaches. As long as the use of barrier contraception was promoted along with this promotion of casual sex, it would be a huge net reduction in the cases of contraction of HIV. Therefore, condoning the use of barrier contraception would be the more responsible stand to take on the part of the Catholic Church.


Going back on this rule would promote casual sex  Condoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering "the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.


AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.


Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.  It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.


Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.  Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010


The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church.


This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.


The commandment given is to 'go forth and multiply', not to multiply as much as possible with no thought for sustainability. Contraception can help monogamous couples control the amount of children they have and when so that they can ensure they don't have more children than they can sustainably provide for. The idea that any limitation of procreation is against God is a single interpretation of a very ambiguous passage. The Catholic Church has the freedom to choose the interpretation that is best for humanity.


In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.  The Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift." The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." 1995.


The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.  Catholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.


This would not protect wives. In these situations the wife would be expected to have unprotected sex, so that the couple could conceive a child, even if the Church condoned the use of contraception. If a husband contracts HIV, the Catholic Church condoning or forbidding the use of condoms makes absolutely no difference to the fact that his wife is very likely to contract it also. The only action by the Church that would affect this would be to try and highlight the fact that sex outside of marriage is also forbidden to a greater degree and allowing the use of contraception would only weaken this message.


The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The opposition makes no mention of the huge numbers of Catholics who actually support the Church's decision to forbid barrier contraception. There is by no means a clear majority either way. Even if there was a clear majority of Catholics in favour of barrier contraception, the Church is under no obligation to change its official stances or any part of the way it works based on the opinions of members of the Church. The Church is founded on the basis that it is doing God's bidding and changing its working based on the demand of the people would undermine that.


In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.  Many Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report.


Birth control within monogamous relationships.  Contraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.  Contraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.  Since, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.  1. Insley 2011


Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn.  Organised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one.  1.Wynne-Jones 2010


Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV.  There are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified.


The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.


Opposed by much of the Church  In spite of the Catholic Church's ruling, a huge number of people who identify as Catholic do not adhere to the Church's teachings on contraception. Additionally, many Catholic priests and nuns openly support non-abortive forms of contraception, including barrier contraception. In 2003 a poll found 43% of catholic priests in England and wales were against the church's stance and a further 19% were unsure1. The Church should listen to the requests and opinions of those who are part of it 2. 1 Day, Elizabeth. "Most Catholic priests 'do not support Rome over contraception'." The Telegraph, 6 April 2003, 2 Short, Claire. "HIV/AIDS


Radical changes risk stability of the Catholic Church. As outlined in the main proposition case, rather than making the Catholic Church seem as if it can move with the times, suddenly changing its stance on barrier contraception would make the Church seem weak and would lose a lot of its support. Since their stance on barrier contraception is something that the Catholic Church has stood by for a huge number of years suddenly moving on it would throw their conviction on everything into question and would have a severe negative effect on the stability of the Church.


The Catholic Church also forbids sex outside of marriage. The opposition has tried to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church actually does not allow sex outside of marriage either. It is not a case of the Church saying it is acceptable to have casual sex as long as contraception is not used but saying that neither is acceptable. If abstinence were practised, there would be no HIV epidemic. Since the Church preaches abstinence outside of marriage it cannot be held accountable for the HIV epidemic.


political philosophy politics government society house believes socialism dead

It seems odd to quote the wife of an investment banker commenting about the abuse of other people’s money. What is becoming increasingly clear in critiques both from the left and the right is that we can actually afford a welfare state just fine but not at the same time as allowing a bunch of Wall Street wideboys to play fast and loose with the nation’s money.  In terms of twentieth century ideologies, certainly there have been changes on both sides of the political fence – the rise of moralising neo-cons and a growing far right is nothing for Conservatives to write home about – but the idea that Capitalism now reigns supreme rather than having the guts of it corpulent excesses scattered across the capitals of Europe is simply laughable.  As the high priests of Capital write themselves yet another cheque, an increasing number of people are objecting to the idea that public services should be closed so that the very rich can have their taxes reduced simply won’t wash.


Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better  The world has moved on; it is inconceivable that the protests of the seventies and eighties could be refought again. This issue was settled at the end of the eighties. It wasn’t just the collapse of the Soviet Union, although that no doubt played a major role in shaping the future of socialism in Europe.  In a globalised world the traditional ideas about class and the nature of the labour market have moved on and politics moved on with it.  Socialists may have won many of the arguments over social issues, but arguments on the advantages of free trade, deregulation, the role of the state, the relationship between government and industry all line up firmly in the Capitalist column.  There were some remnants of dogmatic, “classical” socialism left in continental Europe, especially amongst its union movements, which are now collapsing. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “The problem with Socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money.” [i]  [i] Quoted in: James Turk. “Will Sovereign Debt Defaults Bring The End Of Socialism?” Free Gold Money Report. 19 December 2009.


Remembering that those states that dashed after the illusory prize of low taxes and deregulated banking are currently only being propped up by the ratings agencies should give politicians around the world- both radical and conventional- something to think about. However, even the most casual wander around the blogosphere makes clear that the principles of market economics are a long way from being universally agreed.  The intellectual recovery from the assault posed by Thatcherism and Reaganomics has taken time but is certainly taking place and it is increasingly the Right that appears intellectually bankrupt.  Organisations like the New Economics Foundation are approaching old problems in new ways alongside a whole range of popular movements – environmental, youth led, immigrant led and others. The fact that modern socialism has as much to do with the industrial struggles of the seventies as it does with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties should really come as no surprise.


Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology  There is clearly a difference between the general malaise of those protesting the result of the financial crisis and any form of coherent ideology or manifesto for government. The only people pretending that protesters in Athens or Rome – or the Occupy movement worldwide – are in some meaningful way Socialists are aging class warriors from the seventies.  The Occupy movement may well count many social liberals [i] among its members, and these individuals are almost certainly unhappy about many aspects of modern Capitalism but that doesn’t make Occupy, or the Athens street protestors Socialist.  [i] Occupy Wall Street Website. “Forum Post Liberalism is Not Socialism”. 12 November 2011.


Socialism has frequently been defined by its opponents and as Capitalism has changed so have the political responses made to it. The fact that this iteration of socialism is different should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of Socialism. That earlier generations of Socialists would not have recognised a blog or a Twitter account doesn’t change the fact that they recognise the flaws of Capitalism and reject the widely accepted views of the last twenty years or so that if everything is left to the market then everything will come out just fine.


Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles  Even the leaders of those European political parties that still call themselves socialist tend to avoid the word. Broadly speaking even the leaders of the left- outside Cuba and Colombia- accept the basic principles of Market economics and recognise that high-tax, high-spend economics simply does not work.  Like it or not borders are now open and the idea that the state can control the flow of capital is a thing of the past. As a result people generally are richer and the idea that there a solid class block is simply no longer relevant to their lives.


As has so often been the case in the history of Socialism, the moment one form is comprehensively beaten, its adherents announce, “Oh that wasn’t really Socialism”. The reality is that Socialism fell with the Berlin Wall it just took a few years for the impact of that to ripple all the way across Europe.  The last stage of that process is now taking place as the economies that continued to believe that social systems would pay for themselves realize that not only is that fantasy not the case, it never was.  It may have taken a crisis in Capitalism to demonstrate that Socialism is a luxury Europe cannot afford but the result is the same anyway.


Trying to pretend that absolutely anyone who disagrees in some way with the architects of the banking bubble can be described as a Socialist is simply taking things too far.  Many people are suffering as a result of austerity measures and it is interesting that in countries with left wing governments the protests support the right and vice versa. This has nothing to do with the emergence of Socialism for the 21st century – however desperately the Socialists of the 20th century may wish it.  The closest even the most ardent supporters of the current protests can get is that ‘things should be different’ other than that it tends to be a round of decidedly nineteenth century solutions to nineteenth century problems


The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt  In the model of Blair and Clinton, it didn’t matter if the rich got a lot richer, as long as the poor got a bit richer. That model has now been shown not to work and the rather timid new leaders of the left are starting to return to concepts of fairness and equality rather than the rather bland concepts of ‘opportunity’ and ‘choice’.  Europe is increasingly governed by unelected technocrats who seem to think that the opinions of a handful of international bankers are somehow more important than the jobs and livelihoods of millions. This may always have been the case but it tends not to show during times of plenty. Now these latent inequalities are becoming apparent and people are angry.  It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that one of the aspirations of early nineteenth century Socialists- nationalising the banks- required Capitalists to actually achieve it.


It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy  A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way. This is a virtually impossible task.  The world contains trillions of different resources: my labour, iron ore, Hong Kong harbour, pine trees, satellites, car factories – etc. The number of different ways to use, combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast.  And almost all of them are useless. For example, it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery.  Centralised planning cannot possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage. Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights. [1]  [1] Boudreaux, Donald J, ‘Information and Prices’.


Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement  Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents who channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. This is being shown by the speculative attacks on Eurozone countries where the markets are showing they can force governments to implement tough austerity or even force changes in government without an election as has happened in Greece and Italy where technocrats have taken over as Heads of Government. [1]  These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable.  [1] Frankel, Jeffrey, ‘Let European technocrats weave their magic’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2011,