id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-economy-epsihbdns-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rural life is miserable and has higher mortality rates than cities This planet does not find worse living standards anywhere than in the rural areas of developing countries. These are the areas where famine, child mortality and diseases (such as AIDS) plague the people. [1] China’s Hukou system has condemned millions of people to premature death by locking them in areas that never will develop. [2] While the cities enjoy the benefits of 12% growth, the villages are as poor and deprived as ever. [3] It is a poorly concealed policy aimed at maintaining a gaping social cleavage and allowing the rich to remain rich. [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1. [2] Dikötter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine. London : Walker & Company, 2010. 0802777686. [3] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005. | economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should
This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-epsihbdns-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those. [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948, | economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should
Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement. [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’ |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Dictatorships assure low cost political stability Due to the lack of rotation in office, a dictatorship allows for a more stable government with more ability to plan for the long term, which is crucial for attracting foreign investment. Given that a democracy requires regular elections, each election can change the economic environment of a country. A change in government may lead to a switch in policies, partisan appointments to government bodies, and a medium term focus always set on the next election. Close elections can lead to disorder as votes are recounted and appeals lodged in the courts. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, tight results lead to popular unrest and mass protests calling for a recount. The president elect had to deal with a large legislative faction that did not recognise him, and his opponent refused to concede defeat. [1] Without a stable framework, the lack of foreign confidence may impede development. The countries that have developed rapidly have tended to be those that have managed to attract this foreign direct investment thus in 2012 China managed to get $243 billion of FDI (18% of the total) against only $175 billion for the United States which is still a much bigger economy. [2] Additionally the resources needed to operate a democratic society and run elections are a large expense for the state and society as a whole; the US presidential election costs $6bn, [3] money which would be much better spent investing in building infrastructure or businesses. [1] See for example the case of Mexico’s 2006 elections. ‘Mass protest over Mexico election’, BBC News, 9 July 2006, ‘Fracas mars Mexico inauguration’, BBC News, 2 December 2006, [2] OECD, ‘FDI in Figures’, April 2013, [3] Hebblethwaite, Cordelia, ‘US election: How can it cost $6bn?’, BBC News, 2 August 2012, | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution. There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections [1] . An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work. Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors. [1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007 |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment. Dictatorships are superior to democracies in that they can make decisions and implement policies quicker. They can easily modify institutional and legal frameworks towards development goals, as there is no need for a political consensus behind their actions. This also insulates government from special interests that must be reconciled with in democracies. This allows dictatorships to create a pro-investment legal, economic and institutional framework such as low taxes, exchange rate manipulations and import tariffs, without facing political opposition. For example, fracking, a technique used to extract hard to obtain gas, has generated widespread opposition in the West, leading to it being banned in France [1] . An autocratic government would find it easier to allow cheap access to this energy, boosting industry, as it could disregard this opposition. Dictatorships can also control resources to allow for better health and education services, by determining curricula, salaries and supplies. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with more doctors per capita than much of the Western world [2] , and in 2009 Shanghai came first in the PISA test [3] . [1] Castelvecchi, Davide, ‘France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking’, Scientific American, 30 June 2011, [2] The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013, [3] Brouwer, Steve, ‘The Cuban Revolutionary Doctor: The Ultimate Weapon of Solidarity’, Monthly Review, Vol.60 No.8, January 2009, | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption. Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used "a primitive manual vacuum" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.” [1] [1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Dictatorships can prevent social unrest Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable. Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies. Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment. [1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358 [2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64 | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government. If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions. According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government” [1] . [1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546 |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Development is about more than economic growth Amartya Sen has argued that “the removal of substantial unfreedoms […] is constitutive of development [in so far as give people] the opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency [1] ”. In a broader sense, democracy is necessary for a developed society because a precondition of a developed society is for that society to be able to decide for itself what its objectives are. It is society as a whole that needs to define what it considers to be development. The Myanmar under the junta may have considered its goals to be a strong military showing that Burma was developed. But without the citizenry agreeing this would not make Burma a strong state. Quite the opposite the lack of freedoms would show the country is not actually developed. Development means more than economic growth, it has to include other indicators as in the Human Development Index, but also things that are not even captured by that measurement such as freedom of speech. Economic growth and GDP are even worse at demonstrating which countries are developed. Development only occurs when the wealth, and the choices it brings, reaches the people which is why Equatorial Guinea is not a developed nation despite its high income. Even in the economic realm therefore it is not just the absolute growth that matters but how it is distributed. Przeworski and Limongi show that from 1951-1990 dictatorships had higher growth rates than democracies (4.42% against 3.95%) yet the growth rate in GDP per capita was higher in democracies (2.46% against 2%). [2] [1] Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxfor University Press. p. xii [2] Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi, 1997a; in M. ANTIĆ: “Democracy versus Dictatorship: The Influence of Political Regime on GDP Per Capita Growth”. EKONOMSKI PREGLED, 55 (9-10) pp. 773-803 (2004) | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
Certain economic standards have to be met to genuinely satisfy individual autonomy and freedom. If economic growth is a necessity for democracy, dictatorships are better at gaining the required growth. If dictatorships grow faster while not redistributing wealth then at least there will be more wealth to redistribute when the state does eventually start to do so. It might therefore be considered once again that it is the autocratic state that sets the conditions for democracies to take over and increase development in the non-economic areas. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] . Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour. It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely. [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press, [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books. | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies [1] . These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions. [1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Political regime has a limited impact on development It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1] Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership. [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-bepighbdb-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Democracy acts in the interest of the general population, which is good for development It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1] Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership. [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best
Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood. The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own. [1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation. [2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”. [3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.” [4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007. [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993. [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian state created through Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders arguably, would do. Moreover, it is possible for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, as it has offered to do in the past, while keeping some strategically essential land. This would allow for Palestinian self-determination whilst falling short of falling back totally to the 1967 borders. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Israel has no right to the occupied territories. Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people. [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004. [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005. [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict. [1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century. [2] Why are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory. [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Returning to the 1967 borders would bring peace to Israel. If Israel were to withdraw to its 1967 borders, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise Israel as legitimate within its remaining territories and end the conflict. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour... Any formulation [presented to us] – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders ” added Rabbo. [1] Even Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the more extreme Hamas organisation, has said Hamas will accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and will offer Israel a “long term truce” if it withdraws accordingly. [2] Significant international support for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders also exists, even from states with a history of hostility with Israel such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have made such a withdrawal a precondition of peace and recognition talks with Israel. [3] [4] Even then-Israeli Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert acknowledged in 2008 that “almost all” of the territory seized during the Six-Day War in 1967 will have to be given back to the Palestinians return for peace. [5] Therefore Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders as this would bring peace and security to Israel by ending the conflict with the Palestinians and neighbouring states. [1] Haaretz. “PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 13 October 2010. [2] Amira Hass News Agencies, Haaretz. “willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 9 November 2008. [3] Al-Quds. “Ahmadinezhad and the Implications of the Two-State Solution”. Pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 29 April 2009 [4] UPI.com. “Saudi to Israel: Return to 1967 borders”. UPI.com. 5 November 2010. [5] MacIntyre, Donald. “Israel will have to reinstate pre-1967 border for peace deal, Olmert admits”. The Independent. 30 Septemebr 2008. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
Simply withdrawing to its 1967 borders would not end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians long pre-dates the 1967 war. The 1967 war itself was caused by the fact that even an Israel within its 1967 borders was hated by neighbouring states for existing. [1] Palestinian support for two-state solution, even one where Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements. [2] Regarding Hamas, the reason it speaks only of “long term truces” with Israel and not peace is because it only wishes to make a deal allowing it to grow strong enough to eventually destroy the Israeli state, not to make permanent peace. [3] It is also naïve to think that an Israeli state existing within its 1967 borders would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and any form of Israeli state is a threat to this. Iran has a history of supporting violent Islamist terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. [4] The political futures of Syria and Egypt are also uncertain, due to the unrest of the 2011 'Arab Spring', and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that both could come under the sway of Islamist groups seek Israel's total destruction. [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. [2] The Reut Institute. “The Trend of Palestinian and Arab Inversion towards the Two State Solution”. The Reut Institute.1 May 2008. [3] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009. [4] Los Angeles Times. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. 7 May 2009 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009: “A return to the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, would bring the conflict into Israel's borders. Establishing a Palestinian state will not bring an end to the conflict.” [1] This is why the American ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1967 war pointed out that “Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure”, and American President Lyndon Johnson, shortly after the war, declared that Israel's return to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Johnson advocated new 'recognized boundaries' that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war.” [2] An Israel that withdrew completely to the 1967 borders would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centres and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. This would hurt Israel's ability to deter future attacks and thus make conflict in the region even more likely. This ability of Israel to deter aggressors is particularly important not only due to the region's history of aggression against Israel, but also due to the unpredictable future events in the highly volatile Middle East. There is no way, for example, to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria), nor that a Jordan's Palestinian majority might seize power in the state (leaving Israel to defend itself against a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya), nor that in the future, militant Islamic elements will not succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime. [3] Given its narrow geographical dimensions, a future attack launched from the pre-1967 borders against Israel's nine-mile-wide waist could easily split the country in two. Especially seeing as Islamic militants throughout the Middle East are unlikely to be reconciled to Israel even by a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, such a withdrawal therefore would actually make peace in the region less likely and encourage war against Israel. [4] [1] Lazaroff, Tovah. “Lieberman warns against '67 borders”. Jerusalem Post. 27 November 2009. [2] Levin, Kenneth. “Peace Now: A 30-Year Fraud”. FrontPageMag.com. 5 September 2008. [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005. [4] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
The Middle East, and the world more generally, is a far different place than it was in 1967. There is a significantly smaller risk that Arab states will gang up in a conventional war against Israel. This owes significantly to the fact that Israel is much more powerful militarily, Arab states are less powerful relatively, and the military alliances and dynamics in the region tend to favour Israel more. All of this means that maintaining a buffer in Israel, with the post-1967 borders, for the sake of defending against a collective Arab assault is highly unreasonable. Israel does not need this buffer. It can return to its pre-1967 borders. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Many Israelis now live in the occupied territories. Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories. [1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land. [2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders. [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009. [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehbisrip1b-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security Israel has been the victim of multiple major illegal wars of aggression on the part of the Arab world, most notably in 1948 and 1967. These wars invalidate any special claim made by Arabs and Palestinians to pre-1967 territory, and justify Israel in keeping as much territory as is necessary to secure itself against these hostile states. Israel could have gone much further and taken more territory than it did in 1967 (as it was easily winning the war), but instead it restricted itself to only taking the territory that was necessary for it to create security buffer. [1] When peace deals have allowed Israel to improve its security through giving up land historically, it has done so, for example when it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1982 in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, or when Israel returned the small swath of Jordanian territory it held when King Hussain of Jordan wanted to make peace. To date, Israel has withdrawn from approximately 93 percent of the territories it captured. In return for peace with Syria and an end to Palestinian terror, it is prepared to withdraw from most of the remaining 7% in dispute, although not all. Israel remains committed to trading land for peace, and never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip because it expected to return part of these territories in negotiations. When the Palestinians finally declared that they would recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, Israel agreed to begin to withdraw. Since 1993, Israel has turned over approximately 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, Israel's objection is not so much against returning any of the land captured in 1967, but against returning absolutely all of it and going back completely to the 1967 borders, as this would mean giving up territories vital for Israel's security. The minimal slivers of territory that Israel it seeks to maintain through a peace settlement (after returning 90% of the pre-1967 territory), is very important to its national security as it offers a buffer against future Arab wars of aggression. This why Ehud Olmert stressed that only most of the occupied territory could be returned. He still argued that some had to be kept for security reasons: “We can never totally return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, ... We simply cannot afford to make Israel [9 miles] wide again at its center. We can't allow the Palestinians to be a couple [miles] from [Tel Aviv's] Ben Gurion Airport in the age of shoulder-fire missiles with the capacity to shoot down jumbo jets.” [2] Moreover, Israel is in an anomalous situation: It is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was nothing less than Israel's eradication. The Israel Defense Forces could not afford to miscalculate. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied, and nonetheless have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel, in contrast, cannot depend on obtaining a second chance. Miscalculation on its part could have had devastating consequences and, thus, its situation is unique. [3] For this critical purpose of national survival, therefore, the annexed land serves a legally legitimate purpose, especially considering that the Arab wars of aggression were what caused the annexation of the land in the first place. In such circumstances, a nation that won a defensive war has a right to set terms to ensure against future wars of aggression. [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987. [2] Thinkexist.com. “Ehud Olmert Quotes”. Thinkexist.com [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005. | global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders
Israel won the 1967 war, demonstrating that despite a major coordinated Arab attack on Israel, it could defend its pre-1967 borders adequately. [1] This puts the lie to the central argument that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. They defended them before under extremely hostile conditions; they can defend them again now under less conventionally threatening conditions, with a greater conventional military capacity to wage a defence, and with the unwavering support of the United States. [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Migration is 'developmental'. Recent reports by the HDR (2009) and WDR (2009) have shown migration is a means of development – free movement has the power to alleviate poverty, enable markets, and connectivity. Taking recent evidence concerning worldwide remittance flows, the developmental nature of free movement is shown. In 2013, it is estimated, through international migration, $414bn were remitted back to developing countries [1] . Remittance flows into Africa (from within and internationally) accounted for $40bn in 2010, accounting for an increasing percentage of GDP (AfDB, 2013; IFAD, 2013). Northern Africa articulated the largest total of remittances received. Remittances remain beneficial for supporting livelihoods. The influx of remittances to households provides security, an additional income for support, enables household consumption, and investment in alternative assets, such as education and land, of which present crucial benefits in reducing poverty. Although the geography of remittances remains uneven, and currently barriers remain to sending and receiving money, the developmental potential of remittances from African diasporas (both outside and within Africa) is now recognised [2] . [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013. [2] For additional information on the debate of migration, remittances and social development see further readings: De Haas, 2010. | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
Migration results from poverty; poverty will not be solved through migration. Migration is a survival strategy - therefore development initiatives are required first for poverty to be reduced. Three points need to be raised. First, patterns of migration showcase the prevalence of a 'brain drain' [1] across Africa, and inputting a free labour market will continue to attract skilled migrants to desired locations. Research by Docquier and Marfouk (2004) indicates Eastern and Western Africa accounted for some of the highest rates of brain drain; with rates increasing over the past decade . Rather than promoting free movement African nations need to invest in infrastructure, health and education, to keep hold of skilled professionals. Second, the extent to which remittances are ‘developmental’ are debatable. Questions emerge when we consider who can access the money transferred (gender relations are key) and therefore decide how it is used; the cost, and security, of transfer. Lastly, migration is not simply ‘developmental’ when we consider social complexities. Research has identified how increased mobility presents risks for health, particularly with regards to the HIV/AIDS epidemic [2] . Therefore migrating for jobs may put the migrant, or their partner, at risk of HIV/AIDS. Migration cannot resolve poverty disparities across Africa. Poverty disparities, both spatial and social, reflect the unequal, growing, gap between the rich and the poor. Neither economic growth, or migration, will reduce poverty in the face of inequality. [1] ‘Brain drain’ is defined as the loss of high-skilled, and trained, professionals in the process of migration. [2] See further readings: Deane et al, 2012. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The freedom to move is a human right. Mobility is a human right - which needs to be enabled across national spaces and Africa. Obstacles need to be removed. Mobility enables access to interconnected rights - such as ensuring women their right to move enables empowerment in the political, social and economic spheres. Taking the case of migration of young people, the process reflects a right of passage, a means of exploring opportunities and identity.For example the Mourides of Senegal have established a dense network sustaining informal trading across multiple scales based on a foundation of ‘Brotherhood’ youths leaving rural areas become integrated into dynamic social networks and educated within the Mouride culture. As research in Tanzania shows although migration is not a priority for all youths, many identify the opportunity as a time to prove yourself and establish your transition into adulthood. The process empowers human identity and rights. | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
The reality of achieving free labour movement is not as simple as it may seem in practice. Contradictions have emerged in the laws implemented by national governments, such as Uganda, and the desired EAC regional laws. In addition, the recent eviction and detainee of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi, from Tanzania, indicate political tensions are at the heart of ensuring 'free' movement. Labour and migrant workers rights cannot be guaranteed until the duty, and responsibility, is taken on at multiple scales - from local, national, and regional authorities. Finally, in order for mobility to be seen as a right, labourers and migrants need to be granted the right to organise. Currently, labour unions operate at a national scale - for mobility to be accepted as a right and migrant rights to be recognised labour unions are required across COMESA, EAC, and ECOWAS. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Free movement will provide benefits for productivity. A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets. Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] . [1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU. | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
The benefits of a free labour market are merely based on an idealistic reality. The CMP has only existed for three years so it is impossible to draw any conclusions. When looking at whether migration enhances productivity questions need to be raised. First, what jobs are provided in the new destination? Are the jobs safe and secure, or within informal employment? Second, where is productivity actually encouraged? Is the distribution occurring across an even geography; and assisting the poor? As yet there are no answers. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Policies towards a free labour market will create unity. National borders are a result of Africa’s colonial history. The boundaries constructed do not reflect meaning or unite ethnic groups across the continent. The border between Togo and Ghana alone divides the Dagomba, Akposso, Konkomba and Ewe peoples. [1] Therefore encouraging freedom of movement across Africa will erase a vital component of Africa’s colonial history. The erasing of boundaries, for labour markets, will have significant impacts for rebuilding a sense of unity, and reducing xenophobic fears, of which have been politically constructed. A sense of unity will motivate citizens to reduce disparities and inequalities of poverty. [1] Cogneau, 2012, pp.5-6 | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
A unified labour market will not be achieve if root issues remain unresolved. Within East Africa, the construction of an East African Community has been met with political tensions. The recent evictions of nearly 7,000 Rwandan refugees from Tanzania indicate the idea of free movement does not provide a sufficient basis for unity [1] . Despite regional agreements for free movement, political tensions, the construction of ethnicity and illegality meant forced deportation was carried out by Tanzanian officials. Political hostilities amongst heads of government is continuing to divide the nations within East Africa. Further, cases of xenophobia remain prevalent across Southern Africa. Frequently reported cases of xenophobic attacks on foreign nationals - including nationals from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi [2] - indicate the inherent tensions of migration when jobs remain scarce and poverty high. Dangers occur in advocating a free labour market when the perception of migration is misunderstood, and/or politically altered. [1] See further readings: BBC News, 2013. [2] See further readings: IRINa. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Implementing a free labour market will enable effective management of migration. Even without the implementation of a free labour market, migration will continue informally; therefore policies introducing free movement and providing appropriate travel documents provides a method to manage migration. In the case of Southern Africa, the lack of a regional framework enabling migration is articulated through the informal nature of movement and strategic bilateral ties between nation-states. Several benefits arise from managing migration. First, speeding up the emigration process will provide health benefits. Evidence shows slow, and inefficient, border controls have led to a rise in HIV/AIDs; as truck drivers wait in delays sex is offered [1] . Second, a free labour market can provide national governments with data and information. The provision of travel documentation provides migrants with an identity, and as movement is monitored, the big picture of migration can be provided. Information, evidence, and data, will enable effective policies to be constructed for places of origin and destination, and to enable trade efficiency. Lastly, today, undocumented migrants are unable to claim their right to health care. In Africa, availability does not equate to accessibility for new migrants. In South Africa, migrants fear deportation and harassment, meaning formal health treatment and advice is not sought (Human Rights Watch, 2009). Therefore documentation and formal approval of movement ensures health is recognised as an equal right. [1] See further readings: Lucas, 2012. | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
Promoting a free labour market across Africa will exacerbate difficulties for planning. The geography of migration is uneven; and spatial disparities in the proportion of migrants presents challenges for urban and rural planning, which needs to be considered. First, where will migrants be housed? The housing crisis, and prevalence of slums, across Africa show an influx of new workers will overburden a scarce resource. In addition, the complex, and insecure, nature of land tenure across Africa raises further questions for housing and productivity - will new migrants be able to buy into land markets to enhance their capabilities? Second, are road infrastructures safe enough to promote the frequent movement of labour? Will implementing a free labour market ensure the safety of those migrants? We need to ensure planners and policy can establish fundamental rights to a home, land, and personal safety, before promoting free movement. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Urbanisation without industrialisation, the dangerous livelihoods of migrants. Across Africa a reality of ‘urbanisation without industrialisation’ is found (Potts, 2012). Economic growth, and activity, have not matched the urban phenomena across Sub-Saharan Africa. The sombre picture of urban economics questions - what do new migrants do as opportunities are not found? More than 50% of Youth in Africa are unemployed or idle. [1] With migrants entering urban environments presented with a lack of safe and secure jobs unhealthy sexual politics are found, and precarious methods are used to make a living. The scarcity of formal jobs, means a majority of migrants are forced to work in informal employment. Informal employment will continue to rise creating its own problems such as being barrier to imposing minimum wages and employment security. [1] Zuehlke, 2009 | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Who is left behind? In promoting a free labour market, we need to ask: who is left behind? To understand the developmental nature of migration investigation is needed into who doesn’t migrate - the non-migrant’s lifestyles raise key concerns. Data from the EAC indicates the EAC labour market remains popular among over 65's and in favour of men; and further, a majority of employment occurs within agriculture [1] . The labour market remains inadequate in providing jobs for women and youths. Women and youths reflect disproportionate numbers of those forced to adapt, and create, new livelihoods following migration. Further, migrants are returning home, retiring, and therefore with limited effect on productivity. The impact of migration is distributed unequally. In a previous study by Brown (1983) the detrimental effect of male out-migration from rural areas in Botswana was indicated. Family units were altered, changing to being predominantly female-headed households, the lack of human capital resulted in sustaining the agrarian crisis, and women were forced to cope with the burden of care. Little assurance was found as to whether the men would return, or remit resources. [1] EAC, 2012. | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
Positives arise from a predominantly male out-migration. Women are provided with a means of strategic, and practical, empowerment - as power is redistributed within the household. Women are placed in a position whereby capital assets and time can be controlled personally [1] . [1] For more on the debate see: Chant (2009); Datta and McIlwaine (2000). |
arguana-qrel-test-international-miasimyhw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Migration reasonings and exploitation. A free labour market perceives migration in a predominantly neoclassical light - people migrate due to pull factors, to balance the imbalance of jobs, people move due to economic laws. However, such a perspective fails to include the complex factors enticing migration and lack of choice in the decision. Promoting a labour market, whereby movement is free and trade enabled, makes it easier to move but does not take into account the fact migration is not only purely economical. By focusing on a free labour market as being economically valuable, we neglect a bigger picture of what the reasons for migration are. Without effective management a free labour market raises the potential of forced migration and trafficking. Within the COMESA region trafficking has been identified as a growing issue with the 40,000 identified cases in 2012 being the tip of the iceberg (Musinguzi, 2013). A free labour market may mean victims of trafficking will remain undetected. Moving for ‘work’, how can distinctions be made to identify trafficked migrants; and clandestine migration be managed? A free labour market, across Africa, justifies cheap and flexible labour to build emerging economies - however, remains unjust. Promoting free labour movement needs to be matched with a question on ‘what kind of labour movement’? | ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would
The prevalence of trafficking across Africa today is not new so it is likely a free labour market will make little difference. Further, uncertainty remains as to whether or not the extent of human trafficking is actually rising. With the exact number of cases unknown [1] - are concerns sensationalised hype or a growing reality? [1] See further readings: IRINb, 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces. [1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013. [2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments. If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked. [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’ [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
Not all nations are equal. In an area where high technology is essential rich nations may be able to monitor all cyber intrusions but there will be many countries without the necessary systems. This treaty would therefore in effect be making poor countries without cyber defences into fair game. In theory they would be protected by the treaty, in practice with no monitoring there would be nothing they could do. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter. In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other. [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010, [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997, [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
While there are bans on certain weapons these are because such weapons are considered beyond the pale. This is either because they are horrifying as in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or indiscriminate as with land mines. This does not apply to cyber warfare. Other regulations similarly do not provide a good parallel as the Geneva conventions seek to limit the effects of armed conflict a similar treaty is clearly not necessary for cyber-conflict because the effects will already be limited by the type of conflict. Ultimately cyber-attacks are much more akin to espionage and are not regulated because they are small scale, localised, and have limited effects as well as being difficult to trace. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force Ever since the state rose to ascendancy over powerful internal actors, such as the nobility in a feudal system, the state has had a monopoly on the use of force. The state quickly became the only institution with the resources to maintain military forces and has become the only legitimate wielder of force. The internet however changes this. Cyber-attacks are often by individuals or groups who can carry out a cross border attack without the aid of their home country. In 2011 CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress “when it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I've often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack.” [1] If cyber-attacks are so important it stands to reason that the groups who are able to engage in such activities should be as limited as possible. While it is not always possible states try to make sure that the weapons of war for the most part remain in the hands of responsible actors. This should apply as much in cyberspace as elsewhere. While terrorist groups do exist – and are occasionally armed by states – for the most part they are seen by every government as being illegitimate. [1] Serrano, Richard A., ‘U.S. intelligence officials concerned about cyber attack’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2011, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power. [1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses. [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘ Sovereignty@Bay : Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A cyber treaty benefits everyone A treaty that bans, or sharply curtails cyber-attacks would benefit every state. Even those who may currently benefit from cyber espionage would be better off signing up to the treaty. First most cyber-attacks are not carried out by the state even in countries like China where the state is using the internet as an offensive tool. In its annual report to congress the Department of Defence stated some cyber-attacks “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military” but this does not sound like a majority. [1] Secondly no state wants a risk of conflict as a result of an unregulated new field of potential conflict. Or even to risk relations with other nations; cyber-attacks in large part go on because they are cost free. And finally all nations are the victims of cyber-attacks. The United States has repeatedly condemned cyber-attacks against it but China also claims that it is the victim of cyber-attacks. China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan says “China is one of the primary victims of hacker attacks in the world.” [2] Having a treaty against cyber attacks would not only make business easier for all countries but it would build up trust between nations where it is currently being eroded. [1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, ‘Annual; Report to Congress Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013’, Department of Defense, p.36 [2] Brook, Tom Vanden, ‘Cyber attack? What cyber attack?’, USA Today, 19 August 2013, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
It is unlikely that all states would see this as beneficial to them. There will always be some states that benefit more from engaging in cyber-attacks than others – usually the underdog in other areas. If cyber-attacks are an area being used to redress the balance then why should they be willing to restrict their freedom of action? This is why Russia is unwilling to engage in deep cuts in the number of nuclear weapons it has – they are the main area of armaments in which they have an advantage over their potential adversaries. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A treaty would benefit larger powers over the small Any treaty that seeks to ban cyber-attacks would simply be an attempt to cement the position of the most powerful countries at the expense of weaker ones. This is because cyber-attacks are, like terrorism, weapons that can be used by anyone to attack a much bigger target. To launch a cyber-attack there is little need for training, only a small amount of comparatively cheap equipment (to military hardware at any rate), and an internet connection. [1] And it is difficult to defend against. This makes it ideal for poor nations to maintain cyber warfare as a credible threat to their bigger neighbours while their neighbours threaten them conventionally with their bigger militaries. We have seen before arms treaties that are fundamentally biased in favour of a small group of powerful states. Most notable is the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty where there are five recognised nuclear weapons states who are allowed the horrific weapons and everyone else is banned from having them. This discrimination was accepted as a result of the agreement that the nuclear weapons states would eventually disarm. It has not happened so leaving a troubled treaty system that appears to be regularly flouted. [2] [1] Phillips, Andrew T., ‘Now Hear This – The Asymmetric Nature of Cyber Warfare’, U.S. Naval Institute, Vol.138/10/1316, October 2012, [2] Miller, Steven E., ‘Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform & the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime’, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2012, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states. [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way Warfare needs to be closely regulated because of the numbers of people who can be killed and the devastation that can result. This is not something that is a concern with cyber-attacks. So far cyber-attacks have not been very effective. ‘Stuxnet’ was a computer worm targeted an important control system in the Iranian nuclear program sabotaging gas centrifuges by making them run out of control. It was created by US and Israeli intelligence yet was not particularly effective, and certainly did not kill anyone. [1] Other major attacks have infected a large number of machines, such as ‘Shamoon’ that attacked the Saudi state oil company ARAMCO which affected 30,000 computers, but again this is simply destruction of property. [2] No matter how indiscriminate cyber-attacks may be that they don’t cause large numbers of deaths means there is little need to ban such attacks – it simply does not matter if attackers don’t follow a set of conventions like the Geneva conventions. [1] Barzashka, Ivanka, ‘Are Cyber-Weapons Effective? Assessing Stuxnet’s Impact on the Iranian Enrichment Programme’, RUSI Journal, Vol.158, Issue 2, 28 April 2013, [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability. [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghwcitca-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It would never work There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2] Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban. [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013, [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013, [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013, | global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks
There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security. [1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue. As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.” [2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks. [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013, [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is in the national interest for democracies to support those seeking to oust dictators Democracies should support moderate groups seeking to oust dictators because the result will hopefully be a moderate, democratic state. This would then be a reliable partner for the future that would be more willing to help engage and resolve the region's problems. But this is not all about being high minded and wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East, arms need to be provided in order to ensure future influence in Syria. We already know that there are jihadis operating in Syria so it is plain that this is a conflict that will eventually have wider implications for the west. If we want to have influence in Syria after Assad is overthrown then we need to begin helping opposition groups. It is in our interest to build up the moderate groups so as to deny support to the extremists; once this is over we would be in a much better position if we have grateful friends on the ground rather than groups who are resentful that we provided fine words but no real help. We don't want to find ourselves having to root out terrorists from the air using UAVs. [1] [1] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
The west has historically not been good at picking the winner in the Middle East; take its backing of Saddam in the 1980, the Shah in the 1970s, or the mujahideen in Afghanistan. All have either lost power or turned on those who supported them. If we back the wrong group in Syria then we end upon a worse position than backing none at all; the west is already perceived as being pro Sunni and is seen as being partisan rather than attempting to build a broad inclusive democracy for all communities. [1] So backing any group simply undermines longer term western aims to create a democracy. [1] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Diplomacy is not going anywhere The best solution would be a ceasefire between the two sides in the Syrian civil war and a negotiated settlement, but it is clear we are long past the point where this approach stood a chance of success. The United Nations peace effort under Kofi Annan failed in the middle of last year [1] and there has been no progress since. Similarly all attempts to bring pressure to bear throughout the security council have failed as a result of Russia supporting Assad's regime. This leaves the unilateral initiatives to help the rebels. No state wants full intervention as France did in Mali [2] so the only alternative is simply to help the Free Syrian Army. To do so means providing what they need to win the conflict; primarily arms that can defeat the Syrian army. This need not be considered to be exclusive with diplomacy; the intervening state should continue to try to find a diplomatic solution just as before the Dayton accords NATO helped the Croats militarily while at the same time looking to diplomacy to provide an overall solution to the conflict. [3] [1] Plett, Barbara, ‘Syria crisis: Kofi Annan quits as UN-Arab League envoy’, BBC News, 2 August 2012 [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes France is right to intervene in Mali ’. [3] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
Simply because there is stalemate in diplomacy and on the ground does not make arming the rebels the option that should now be taken, indeed it does not mean that outside powers need to take any action at all. Those with Syria's best interests at heart would remain on the sidelines, provide humanitarian assistance, and encourage new diplomatic initiatives. The response should not be to turn Syria into a rerun of the proxy wars of the Cold War with the west arming be side and Russia the other. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Syria clearly meets the standards for intervention The Assad regime has clearly lost its legitimacy and has precipitated a humanitarian crisis in Syria. The February estimate of 70000 killed [1] is up from an estimate of 60000 only a month before, [2] so clearly the violence is escalating. The conflict is also affecting neighbours; refugees have flooded into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, and Israel is already believed to have attacked a convoy or research facility involved in chemical and biological weapons development. [3] Clearly the presence of these weapons show how much worse the situation could get if Assad is not overthrown. Not intervening risks the whole region being slowly destabilised and drawn in to the conflict. [4] [1] Nichols, Michelle, ‘Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief’, Reuters, 12 Feb 2012 [2] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013 [3] ‘Q&A: Israeli ‘strike’ on Syria’, BBC News, 3 February 2013 [4] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
The if the rebels are armed and the regime gets close to losing surely it will simply increase the bloodshed and have greater motive to use its chemical and biological weapons. Therefore arming either side simply increases the potential for killing. A balance of death is not what anyone should be looking for in Syria. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Free Syrian Army is outgunned The Syrian army is one of the biggest armies in the world; it is nothing like the poorly equipped Libyan army that was beaten by western backed rebels in 2011. The government has aircraft, and helicopters that are used to bomb the rebels, and heavy Russian built tanks that are impervious to most of the small arms the free Syrian army has. Providing arms would quickly even the odds; light anti-tank weapons would be effective against Syrian armoured vehicles repeating the success with which Hezbollah employed them when they knocked out sixty Israeli armoured vehicles in 2006, [1] while man portable air defence systems would quickly make the skies too dangerous for the Syrian airforce so protecting free Syrian controlled areas from the threat of attack from the air. [2] [1] Cordesman, Anthony H., ‘Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17 August 2006, P.18 [2] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
And what happens to these weapons afterwards? Air defensive systems that can destroy Syrian jets could pose an equal risk to Israeli or western warplanes. While Israel was surprised by Hezbollah's use of anti tank systems that did not stop the Israeli army from ultimately prevailing in the conflict so there is little reason to believe that 'evening the odds' will really alter the outcome of the conflict. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Would balance the support for Syrian government Syria's government has been receiving outside support from a variety of sources; Russia and Iran being the most prominent. Iran has been training the Jaysh al- Shabi, a Syrian government-controlled force modelled on Iran's Basij militia. Far from just providing weapons, both Iran and Hezbollah from Lebanon have been sending fighters to support the Syrian government. [1] The rebels have received some support for Qatar and Saudi Arabia but not to the extent the Syrian government has. Anyone with an interest in the free Syrian cause should realise that they cannot do so simply by sitting on their hands expecting a victory when those doing the fighting are only provided diplomatic support. [1] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
Balance in this case would not be a good thing as this would simply mean a much longer continuation of a bloody civil war. The longer the conflict continues the more difficult it is to put Syria back together again when peace finally does arrive. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Arming the rebels would be unpopular Ten years after the Iraq war interventions in the Middle East are no more popular than they were back in 2003. Getting involved in Syria would not be popular no matter how small the commitment. In the United States voters oppose the idea of supplying arms to Syrian rebels by 45% against to only 16% in favour, in the United Kingdom opinion is even more opposed; while there are still 16% in favour there are 57% opposed. [1] Clearly arming the rebels would not be popular with voters - there can therefore be no domestic reason for this policy. [1] Clark, Tom, ‘US and UK public reject stronger military support for Syrian rebels’, guardian.co.uk, 22 March 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
Public opinion is not the decider of what is right and wrong in foreign policy; people are rarely in favour of any kind of action in a volatile international situation. Had public opinion been the decider the allies would have rolled over and let Poland be taken in World War II. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Would it work? The most fundamental question for any policy is whether it would actually work if implemented? In this case it seems to be doubtful that in practice arming the rebels would be enough to allow them to prevail. It will simply be helping to even the odds; providing enough arms to prevail over a fully equipped army that is supplied by Iran and Russia would require a truly colossal effort. No one is seriously going to consider providing M1 Abrams tanks to overcome Syrian armour when there are even concerns about providing anti-aircraft missiles. Even supporters of arming the rebels such as Senator John McCain say "this alone will not be decisive". All arming the rebels does then is make the government appear to be doing something (in a bad way since it is an unpopular policy), and stick a toe in the water (also bad as that may lead to escalating commitments), and another decision point six months down the line. [1] [1] Lynch, Marc, ‘Shopping Option C for Syria’, Foreign Policy, 14 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
We cannot know whether this policy will work until it is tried. The Free Syrian Army has been remarkably successful so far capturing large swathes of the country and taking the fight to the regime in the capital Damascus. [1] With more sophisticated weaponry to naturalise the tanks, warplanes, helicopters of the regime the Free Syrians may well be able to finish the job. [1] BBC News, ‘Syria: Mapping the insurgency’, 4 December 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Possibility of being drawn into a long drawn out conflict Even just providing the rebels with arms risks drawing the powers that supply those arms into the conflict. [1] This is because it gives the intervening power a stake in the conflict. Once weapons have been supplied allowing the Syrian government to reassert control would be a large foreign policy reversal and would damage relations with the Syrian government for years to come. We need only look at the Vietnam conflict to know that what starts out as a very small commitment can rapidly escalate when the government decides it cannot afford to back down. What starts as just arming the rebels could quickly lead to troops on the ground. Indeed it might require men on the ground right from the start as if we were to be providing heavy weapons the rebels would need training in how to use those weapons if they are to seriously be considered an equaliser. [1] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
The strategic situation in Syria is nothing like that which meant the US felt it could not withdraw from Vietnam. There is no line of 'dominos' that could be knocked over in a row as a result of a victory by the Syrian government. Far from it, some of Syria's neighbours like Jordan may be strengthened by a government victory as it would halt the momentum of protest against rulers in the region. There is also no large scale outside power that would take advantage of Syrian government victory as was the case with the USSR in the Cold War. In this case such a result would mean a return to the status quo, not something the west would desire, but hardly a strategic disaster so cutting losses if the policy does not work would be comparatively easy. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Unforeseeable consequences We do not know where arming the rebels will lead. The most obvious parallel has to be Afghanistan in the 1980s where the United States armed the mujahideen and succeeded in their objective of damaging the USSR through a war of attrition much as the US had suffered in Vietnam. Afghanistan became an albatross around the Soviet Union’s neck. [1] But the US did not win the peace, Afghanistan descended into civil conflict which had a Taliban victory that sheltered Osama bin Laden; US arms in Afghanistan unintentionally lead more than a decade later to September 11. In this case we would be arming a movement that has many jihadi elements that could end up with the weaponry. Other countries such as Turkey are also worried about where powerful weapons such as anti aircraft missiles could end up if provided to the rebels. They fear they could easily find their way across the border to militant Kurds. [2] Other paths that this could lead to are just as bad; for example helping the Libyan rebels lead to the conflict in Mali. [3] In this case the short term consequences could be just as bad. Arming the Sunnis could provoke retaliation from either Iran or Hezbollah who could feel undermined by the move, in the worst case scenario they could even attack western assets in the area. [4] [1] Hoffman, David E., The Dead Hand: Reagan, Gorbachev and the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race, Icon Books Ltd, 2011, p.211 [2] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 [3] Jones, Owen, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success, now here we are engaging with the blowback in Mali’, The Independent, 13 January 2013 [4] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
This is a pointless argument; the consequences of inaction are just unknowable. Doing nothing could lead to exactly the same consequences. Alternatively arming the moderates could speed the end to the civil war and the creation of a democratic state. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gmehwasr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Sovereignty and non intervention in internal affairs It is a clear international rule that nations are sovereign and other states are simply not allowed to be making interventions into another country’s domestic affairs. 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] This is to prevent the bigger and richer powers from doing exactly this sort of thing to obtain the result they want inside another country. This is why Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated "International law does not permit the supply of arms to non-governmental actors and our point of view is that it is a violation of international law," in response to suggestions that the UK would arm the Syrian rebels. [3] [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] Abbas, Mohammed, ‘Russia says arming Syrian opposition would be illegal’, Reuters, 13 March 2013 | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels
This makes the assumption that the Assad government is considered the legitimate authority within Syria, the Russians accept this, but other countries are less sure. Both the US and UK now recognise the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people [1] which would mean arming them would be legal in the same way that the Russians consider arming Assad to be internationally legal. [1] Malas, Nour, and Solomon, Jay, ‘U.S. Formally Recognizes Syria’s Main Rebel Group’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reparations would be a step towards closing colonial scars. It is difficult for former colonies to feel as if they can move on and develop a wholly independent identity when their ties to the past, and to their former colonisers, have not been definitively ended. For example, while it is important to remember those who suffered under slavery, the overwhelming memory of it [1] overpowers the history of those countries and innately links them back to former colonial powers. Furthermore, many of the problems now faced by former colonies can be traced back to the actions of colonial-era masters, for example the birth of ethnic tensions between minorities in Rwanda [2] and Burundi [3] . In order to move on from that damaging legacy, and to conclusively prove that such prejudices are always wrong, it is necessary for former colonial powers to show a tangible move towards closing that colonial chapter of their history. In this way they can begin to move towards a fresh, equal and co-operative relationship with the developing countries which were their former colonies, without the background of history which currently warps such relationships. Italy’s payment of reparations to Libya [4] allowed Libya to ‘mend fences with the West’ [5] and to improve international relationships. This is a step to recognise developing countries as a nation, rather than an economic opportunity. In this way, reparations would be an effective way of demonstrating a global community and spirit. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11. [4] Time. ‘Italy Pays Reparations to Libya’. Published 02/09/2008. Accessed from on 12/09/11. [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
This proposition line does not lead to a situation where developing countries forgive their colonisers and forget the suffering of the past; rather, it will lead to a situation where they identify those colonial forces as the source of their suffering, but also as the power which tried to undermine their human integrity by paying them off. Such developing countries will always view reparations as ‘insufficient compensation’ [1] , because there is no lump sum on money which can atone for the acts and atrocities committed against human life. This motion is not only ineffective but will exacerbate the current situation by portraying the West as a place where money has a higher value than the human lives of developing countries; as such, there is no reason for former colonies to believe that their have gained any status other then an ‘opportunity’ for the West. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reparations demonstrate a true concern for the developing world. Even alongside the colonial justifications for providing reparations, there are also many other strong reasons why former colonial powers should grant reparations. Former colonial powers tend to be economically developed, like America, Britain and France. The developed world should recognise the dire poverty and social challenges fed by the developing world today. Giving aid as an act of charity can sometimes be seen as derogatory [1] , and is even rejected by the potential recipients [2] [3] [4] . However, reparations allows a transfer of wealth between these countries in a way which is sensitive to the history between them, and which also demonstrates a desire to improve their relationship. It allows aid to be given to the developing world in a means which is dignified but not spurious. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
Disguising the purely economic balance illustrated here as a demonstration of heartfelt regret undermines the principles outlined by previous proposition arguments. This is, in fact, a hollow gesture – one that is disguised as a reparation to overcome a country’s right (though we may not agree with it) to reject the aid which is offered to them. The rejection of aid is a demonstrative action in itself; it sends a message that the recipient country does not wish to associate themselves with the donor country. By trying to use reparations as a loophole, this concept simultaneously criticised the recipient country’s right to choose whether they receive aid or not, and undermines the value of reparations elsewhere as a genuine gesture. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: What happened during the colonial era was morally wrong. The entire basis for colonisation was predicated on an innate ‘understanding’ and judgment of one superior culture and race [1] . This ethnocentric approach idolised western traditions while simultaneously undermining the traditions of the countries which were colonised. For example, during the colonisation of America, colonists imposed a Westernised school system on Native American children. This denied their right to wear traditional clothing [2] or to speak their native language [3] , and the children were often subject to physical and sexual abuse and forced labour [4] . The cause of this was simply ignorance of culture differences on behalf of the colonists, which was idyllically labelled and disguised as ‘The White Man’s Burden’ [5] . Colonial powers undermined the social and property rights [6] of the colonies, using military force to rule if civilians should rebel against colonisation in countries such as India [7] . After Indian fighters rebelled against British colonial force in the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 [8] , the British struck back with terrible force, and forced the rebels to ‘lick up part of the blood’ from the floors of the houses [9] . The actions which occurred during colonisation are considered completely inappropriate and undesirable behaviour in a modern world, and in terms of indigenous rights to culture and to property, as well as human rights more generally. Reparations would be a meaningful act of apology for the wrongs which were committed during the past. [1] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [7] Accessed from on 11/09/11. [8] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [9] Accessed from on 11/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
This is a very one-sided assertion of past events. It was not only the colonists who acted in an unacceptable manner; for example, during the Indian Mutiny, a party of sepoys ‘execute[d] the 210 women and children’ with guns and knives [1] . Some, though horribly wounded, remained alive until morning [2] . History is very complex; while there were certainly atrocious events, it is unfair and untrue to apportion blame to only one party – namely, the colonists. In any case, in the face of such atrocities, it is completely superficial to imagine that mere money could wipe the slate clean. Reparations are used to correct a past wrong [3] ; it would be derogatory to assume that we can pay people off for acts such as these, and that they require no more hindsight or consideration. [1] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 11/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 11/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states. In the past, dominating global powers have paid reparations and compensation for historical wrongs. For example, Germany pays an annual amount of money to Israel to recognise wrongs committed against Jews during the Holocaust, and to recognise the theft of Jewish property at this time [1] . These reparations have helped Israeli infrastructure enormously, providing ‘railways and telephones, dock installations and irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture’ [2] and contributing to Israeli economic security. Japan also paid reparations to Korea after World War II as the Koreans were ‘deprived of their nation and their identity’ [4] . Britain has paid compensation to the New Zealand Maoris for the damage done during colonial times and the seizure of their land [5] , and Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during the invasion and occupation of 1990-91 [6] . There is little reason why other nations should not be paid for the grievances caused to them by domination countries. There is support for the notion that colonial powers should pay for free universal education in Africa [7] ; this would be an entirely appropriate and desirable measure. [1] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014, [2] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014, [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [7] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
These reparations have done little to satisfy the recipient countries. For example, Israel asked Germany to improve the reparations agreement [1] , which resulted in Germany withdrawing reparations entirely [2] and only served to increase tensions between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel has become reliant on German reparation money [3] , suggesting that reparations do not in fact allow the recipient country to develop their whole national identity without ties to former dominating countries. Moreover, despite the payment of reparations from Italy to Libya, Libya still believes that it was ‘insufficient compensation for colonial damages’ [4] . Just because reparations have been made in the past does not, by any means, show that they were successful or indeed that they are the best option available in the present day. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11. [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reparations would effectively right the economic imbalance caused by colonialism. Given that much of the motive for colonisation was economic, many former colonies have suffered damage to their natural resources [1] or human resources, [2] which has left them less able to sustain a healthy economy. Colonists targeted countries with rich natural resources and little ability to defend themselves from invasion and manipulation. By this method, they could supply their own markets with the natural resources which they had already exploited at home [3] , and find cheap (or free) human labour for their markets [4] . Given that powerful countries such as Britain [5] and France [6] gained their own economic prosperity through the exploitation of the economic potential of the colonies, it is entirely appropriate and logical that they should pay reparations as compensation. In this way, the economic disparity between former colonies and colonists would be equalised. [1] Accessed from on12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] ‘The Haitian Revolution and its Effects’. Patrick E. Bryan. Accessed from on 12/09/11. | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
Most of the Western world is currently undergoing a financial crisis [1] . However prosperous these former colonies might have been, in the modern world they simply do not have the money to provide reparations to these countries on any scale which might come close to closing the economic gap between them. America’s enormous debt almost caused a complete economic collapse in August [2] ; Britain was struggling under £2252.9 billion of debt as on July 2011 [3] . The proposition’s naive balancing argument fails to take into account the realities of the economy and debt in raising this motion – it would be impossible to achieve. [1] The Telegraph. ‘Double-dip fears across West as confidence crumbles’. Published on 30/09/2011. Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] BBC. ‘IMF calls for US to raise debt ceiling and cut spending’. Published 25/07/2011. Accessed at on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Such reparations would do little to actually improve the developing countries. Reparations are an incredibly short-term economic measure. To have any substantial impact, long-term systems would need to be put in place to truly benefit such countries, and it would be far better to encourage sustainable growth [1] than a one-off bumper payment. Developed countries should look towards improving their long-term relationship with former colonies and establishing measures such as fairer trade rules or debt relief as an efficient measure. This would allow the aid to be focused in the places where these countries need it most. The symbolism of reparations is also potentially dangerous. Firstly, paying reparations may bring the belief that former colonial powers have ‘paid their debt’ and no longer have to seek to improve their own conduct of foreign policy. Secondly, this measure would allow dictators such as Robert Mugabe to feel justified in their declarations that colonial powers are independently responsible for all the problems affecting their countries [2] [3] [4] . In this way, Mugabe tries to hide his own shortcomings and place blame entirely on the West, which has negative impacts on the potential for international relations. In the case of Italy’s reparations to Libya, this could be seen as strengthening the Gaddafi dictatorship at the expense of the Libyan people and the West, particularly as Gaddafi is prone to blaming the West [5] or indeed anybody else he can [6] . [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [6] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
It is entirely possible that reparations could be paid in smaller instalments over a much longer term as Germany has done [1] , thereby providing a longer-term solution rather than one lump sum. Furthermore, it is likely that if former colonial powers offer reparations as a genuine attempt to accept and apologise for the wrongs previously committed, the longer-term relationship between the two countries would be eased. Finally, it is at least more likely that citizens in countries such as Zimbabwe and Libya might re-think their opinion of the West if reparations and help were offered, rather than blankly refused. While the dictators may continue to denounce the West, it will be harder for them to do so if former colonial powers show every attempt to help and communicate with the people they have wronged. [1] Rising, David, 'Germany increases reparations for Holocaust survivors', Times of Israel, 16 November 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The very payment of reparations exerts a neo-colonial power over former colonies. The recognition that many former colonies are in desperate economic need only adds to the sense that former colonial powers desire to hold sway over them. Giving reparations induces dependency and can weaken the appearance of government in the former colonies, and may allow the donor government to exert influence over policy areas within the recipient country [1] . Far from giving the recipient country the means to develop itself as an independent nation, this motion simply recalls the old power structure which existed during colonisation. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
There is a fundamental difference here between colonisation and the modern day; whereas colonial powers were formerly damaging infrastructure [1] and natural resources [2] , in the modern day under reparations they would be helping to preserve such resources and finance the development of a sound infrastructure. Nor would the former colonial powers be exerting military strength [3] [4] [5] . There is an obvious difference between the relations of a colonial power and its colony, and a developed nation offering reparations to a less developed nation. One notable change is that the flow of money has changed direction – instead of exploiting the economic potential of the colony, the developed country is actually giving money to the former colony. This opposition point simply does not stand [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reparations unfairly target the taxpayers of former colonial powers who had nothing to do with the deeds committed under colonisation. It is unclear who exactly is being punished under this mechanism. Ordering reparations rather than, for example, a public apology from a monarch or government, only serves to harm tax-paying citizens whose money would be used to pay such reparations. There is a huge disconnection between the people who actually committed wrongs and the people who are now forced to literally pay for them. This is likely to lead to an increase in hostility from the taxpayers who do not understand why they are being punished, towards the people of former colonies. It is no longer a case where reparations could ever be paid from the direct profits of exploitation as any profit from that must have been spent long ago. It is wrong to impose undue guilt and obligation of payment on to people who are entirely disconnected from that history. | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
Taxpayers already fund the foreign aid which is distributed habitually [1] [2] ; they are not to blame for a famine in Somalia, for example, but they continue to pay for it [3] . There is frequently a disconnection between the people who pay for aid and the people who receive it. However, we recognise that the need is great enough in such countries to make it not only legitimate, but a moral duty. Most citizens of former colonial powers can recognise that some of the acts committed during colonial times was wrong and deserves repairing. Given that this is a productive means of doing so, and already has the precedent of foreign aid more generally, it is entirely appropriate. [1] The Daily Mail. ‘Foreign aid budget to cost every family £500’. Published 22/10/2010. Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [3] BBC. ‘Somalia famine: UK insists aid is “getting through”’. Published 18/08/2011. Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghbfcpspr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Time has removed the opportunity to truly make reparations to those who may have deserved it. Reparations are used to make ‘amends for wrong or injury done’ [1] ; it is impossible to truly achieve this when the victims of wrongdoing are long since dead. Moreover, reparations which may have been made immediately after colonisation could have had a specific purpose – for example, to rebuild property which was destroyed, or to restore items which were wrongfully taken. However, the development of both countries has led to a very different state of affairs in both, and there may no longer be an obvious end for the money from reparations. There is also no precedent for giving reparations to countries after so long a period of time. For example, Germany began paying reparations to Israel in 1952 [2] , only 7 years after World War II ended in 1945. Time also makes it very difficult to judge who the ‘victims’ are now. The descendants of original victims may well be independently wealthy now – would it be right to financially cripple of Western country and their people, already suffering from economic depression, to pay people who may not need it now? In any case, it would take a very long to even work out how we could pay reparations, let alone whether we should. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from on 12/09/11 | africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations
Given that many former colonies remain poor (even after so many years), it is very unlikely that these people would have no need for such money. The difference in timescale is irrelevant; what is relevant is that such former colonies have a demonstrated need for this money, and that atrocities occurred during the colonial era. If it became to hard to track down specific people, it would also be easily possible to give money to the government as Italy did to Libya [1] , in which case the potential for improved infrastructure and basic living conditions could have a nation-wide benefit. Just because it may be difficult does not overrule the many powerful arguments that we should do this. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Georgian rule in South Ossetia is historically illegitimate and oppressive Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. [1] Georgia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Even the USSR recognised S. Ossetia as distinct from Georgia, with the Kremlin stating in 1920 that “we consider that Ossetia should have the power it prefers. Georgian intrusion into affairs of Ossetia would be an unjustified intervention into foreign internal affairs”. [2] S. Ossetia was an autonomous region within the USSR. It was not considered part of the same region that is now Georgia, and thus during its years under the USSR, S. Ossetia built up a significant degree of autonomy and independence in its internal functioning. Therefore, Georgia's only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union. This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia, but moreover Georgia's historical claim on South Ossetia is quite weak even in isolation. This is because S. Ossetia has its own distinct language and history to that of Georgia. Ossetian or Ossetic is a member of the Northeastern Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. About 500,000 people speak Ossetian in Ossetia. [3] , [4] That Ossetia has this distinct language is an important fact in favour of its status as a nation-state and in favor of its independence. Georgia, however, has been accused of committing genocide against the South Ossetians in 1920, 1993, and 2008, with tens of thousands of S. Ossetians dying over the course of these conflicts. [5] The Georgian government has also attempted to suppress S. Ossetian culture and identity, for example banning the use of the Ossetian language in official documents and abolishing S. Ossetian autonomy within Georgia. [6] Georgian rule in S. Ossetia is therefore both ahistorical, due to S. Ossetia's long and recognised history of independence and cultural and linguistic distinctness, and illegitimate, as the Georgian government has waged war upon the very lives and identity of the S. Ossetian people. [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. [2] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007. [3] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. [4] Omniglot. “Ossetian”. Omniglot. [5] Portyakova, Natalya and Sysoyev, Gennady. “Measuring South Ossetia by Kosovo”. Kommersant. 15 November 2006. [6] Makarkin, Alexei. “How is South Ossetia different from Kosovo?”. RIA Novosti. 9 March 2006. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
Georgia's government is democratic and modern in its institutions. It is fully capable and intent on governing S. Ossetia democratically and honestly. Moreover, if the aim of the S. Osseitans' is to join with Russia, upon seceding from Georgia (as seems likely), then the many arguments it is putting forward in support of its national identity and right to self-determination do not apply in the same way, as they would be simply exchanging minority status in one state for minority status in another, and not truly seeking their own homeland where Ossets would be a majority, as they claim. This means that arguments about Ossetian being its own language and the Ossets having a long history of self-rule are not in fact arguments for secession, as secession would simply result in a transfer to Russia and not a truly Ossetian state. Therefore, the real question is: does Georgia or Russia have a greater claim to S. Ossetia as part of its territory? The historical arguments made by proposition clearly should Georgia to have a greater claim here. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: South Ossetia has a right to self-determination The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [1] By this measure, South Ossetia has the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. In 2006, South Ossetia held a referendum that found over 99% of its population of over 100,000 desire independence from Georgia. 95% of the population turned out to vote. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers. [2] These facts are the core of the case for South Ossetian independence. It demonstrates that South Ossetians are entirely unified and enthusiastic in their desire for independence. The strength and unity of these calls for independence are almost unprecedented and cannot be ignored by the international community. And, certainly, the percentage of a population that desires independence is of relevance to assessing the legitimacy of the call and a country's right to self-determination. By this standard, South Ossetia's right to self-determination is highly legitimate. [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993. [2] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination (for example, viability as an independent state and an authentic internal drive for independence), and S. Ossetia arguably does not meet many of these criteria. Therefore S. Ossetia possesses no absolute right to self-determination, and its calls for independence must be evaluated in the context of what the consequences of independence would be. Furthermore, no countries recognized South Ossetia's 2006 referendum and vote for independence at the time it was carried out, and few do now. Without such approval, the referendum should be considered illegitimate. The European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, denounced the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [1] [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: South Ossetian independence will help prevent future conflict The status quo in the region is one of militarized clashes and tensions. It is important to recognize that South Ossetia has been de facto independent for some time. If it does not achieve independence, the proposed alternative is that it re-integrate into Georgia. Yet, of South Ossetians have made it clear that they will not accept this. The only possible course of action, therefore, would be to force over 100,000 South Ossetians to live under the tyranny of the majority of the Georgian state. This would not only be a clear violation of self-determination and basic democratic principles, but it would also risk a protracted war or insurgency in S. Ossetia against any re-assertion of Georgian authority. S. Ossetia and Georgia have been battling each other for over a century. Georgia has been accused of ethnic cleansing there, and of launching a 'war of aggression' which killed a large number of S. Ossetian civilians in 2008. [1] This war, as the culmination of Georgian aggression against S. Osstia, has made finally made any sort of reconciliation between the two impossible, and hardened S. Ossetian desires for independence. Keeping S. Ossetia within Georgia will simply prolong this ethic struggle, which has demonstrated itself to be irreconcilable in the foreseeable future. This conflict could easily draw in other powers (such as Russia) and cause a wider war once again. Granting S. Ossetian independence, therefore, would help avoid future conflicts and their awful humanitarian consequences. [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
If S. Ossetians renounce violence, no future conflicts will occur. S. Ossetian militant separatists argue that, if S. Ossetia is not given independence, that future violence and chaos will result. Yet, this is only the case if S. Ossetian separatists continue to resist Georgia's sovereignty violently. If S. Ossetians renounce the use of force and their separatism, there will be no future conflicts. This is an equally valid solution as independence. Furthermore, the US State Department rejected the 2006 independence referendum and warned that it would “only serve to exacerbate tensions and divert attention from the need to peacefully resolve the conflict.” [1] [1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A South Ossetian state is unviable There are many factors that make South Ossetia unviable as a state. South Ossetia is very small with a very small population. It is also a landlocked state and very poor. These facts make it unlikely that South Ossetia could act effectively as an independent state. The result is that it would become dependent on other states. [1] This can already be seen from the fact that S. Ossetia has only been able to secure its current de facto independence with substantial military and foreign aid from Russia. [2] S. Ossetia is economically unviable as an independent state. It is landlocked and only has meaningful road access to the sea through Georgia. S. Ossetian GDP was estimated at US$ 15 million (US$ 250 per capita) in a work published in 2002. S. Ossetia is arguably lacking in the basic economic necessities for autonomy. Indeed, a $15 million GDP would make South Ossetia one of the poorest nations in the world. Particularly following a war with Georgia in the 1990s, South Ossetia has struggled economically. Employment and supplies are scarce. The majority of the population survives on subsistence farming. Virtually the only significant economic asset that South Ossetia possesses is control of the Roki Tunnel that links Russia and Georgia, from which the South Ossetian government reportedly obtains as much as a third of its budget by levying customs duties on freight traffic. The separatist officials admitted that Tskhinvali received more than 60 percent of its 2006 budget revenue directly from the Russian government. [3] [4] Finally, S. Ossetia has a population of roughly 70,000. [5] This would make it one of the smallest states in the world. This fact, combined with its high level of poverty, makes it a poor candidate for independence, and shows that its “independence” would compel it to become even more dependent on Russia, or else risk disintegrating as an unviable state. [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. [2] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006. [3] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006. [4] Vaisman, Daria. “No recognition for breakaway South Ossetia's vote”. The Christian Science Monitor. 10 November 2006. [5] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
S. Ossetia has an effective democratic government which carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. It has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc. [1] (4) All this clearly points to the viability of an independent S. Ossetian state -a fact which already exists on the ground. Or, if it wants, after independence S. Ossetia is morally within its rights to re-join with its kith-and-kin in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Of course, it would have to first separate from Georgia, whereupon it will have the capacity to then decide to join Russia. Moreover, few states n the world are truly self-sufficient, and there are plenty of poor landlocked countries, so in this sense S. Ossetia would not be unique. Furthermore, poverty from continual conflict is an argument to end the conflict, not against independence. [1] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Georgia has a right to territorial integrity Georgia has a legitimate sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity as well as the social contract accompanying it. Georgia has the right to take action to secure the integrity of these things, unless blocked by a higher international authority. Internationally, S. Ossetia's independence is recognised by only five nations (including Russia), demonstrating that the international community is not convinced that S. Ossetia's claim to self-determination trumps Georgia's claim to territorial integrity. [1] In order to obtain independence, it is important that a country be recognized diplomatically by a significant number of the members of the United Nations. This is important in large part because it ensures that a state will have viable diplomatic relations internationally if it becomes independent. It also demonstrates that the international system supports a certain action being taken internationally. Thus Georgia's claim should continue to stand until the international community changes its mind, and at the moment the international community has legitimate concerns regarding the regional instability and conflict that an independent S. Ossetia might foster. Moreover, as shown above the S. Ossetian state is entirely dependent on Russian support, and so it can be accurately stated that the issue of S. Ossetian independence, and its threat to Georgian territorial integrity, has arisen only because of Russian interference within Georgia. Even those who argue that any region has the right to self-determination would probably reject the idea that nations have the right to foster and encourage parts of other nations to secede from their current state and join another. The S. Ossetian independence movement can thus be correctly seen simply as Russian aggression against Georgia for its own advantage, not an issue of self-determination. [1] RIA Novosti. “Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. RIA Novosti. 4 September 2008. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia. [1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpsmhbsosb-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Illegitimacy of the 2006 referendum South Ossetia was wrong to hold elections under conflict conditions. In 2006, South Ossetia can be said to have been in 8 conflicts with Georgia when it held its 2006 referendum on independence. Holding referendums under such conflict conditions is generally illegitimate because the results of the elections are skewed by the conflict, threats, and the various risks for the voters involved. This caused David Bakradze, the chairman of a Georgian parliamentary European Integration Committee, to comment, “Under conflict conditions, you cannot speak about legitimate elections.” [1] This mirrors European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe’s, denunciation of the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [2] Furthermore Russia's involvement in the 2006 referendum arguably corrupted its validity, as many of the authorities in S. Ossetia were installed there by the Russian government. [3] [1] Radio Free Europe. “Overwhelming Support For South Ossetia Independence”. Radio Free Europe. The Journal of the Turkish Weekly. 13 November 2006. [2] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006. [3] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006. | global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be
Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a “free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia].” [1] (10)Similarly, Luis Tascón, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, stated during visit to S. Ossetia that “Those people who wish to be free will be free. And the free peoples will help South Ossetia with it.” [2] (13) Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum (whose flaws have not been proved to have been so severe as to discredit it entirely) is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self-determination. [1] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006. [2] Enotes. “South Ossetian independence referendum, 2006”. Enotes. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Progress in ending conflict in Africa Conflict in Africa is slowly being ended. In 1992 there were 18 conflicts in Africa; by 2009 this had been halved to 9. [1] But a decline in the number of conflicts is not the only positive trend in African conflicts: there has also been a decline in the size of wars. They have changed from wars between two organised armies to being small scale insurgencies. In 1984 the conflicts were on average causing more than 20,000 battle deaths per year, but by 2008 only around 1,000. Even the number of incidents of genocide and mass killing has been going down from 9 in the 1980s to five in the 2000s. [2] Ending war might therefore be considered to be ambitious but it is not against the trend and not inconceivable. [1] Straus, 2012, pp.183-184 [2] Straus, 2012, pp.189-191 | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
At that rate, war in Africa is not going to be ended by 2020. Moreover, progress in the past does not mean that the progress will continue into the future. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Solemn Declaration The Solemn Declaration did not just highlight the goal but also that it would be achieved through three techniques: by 1, addressing the causes of conflicts – economic and social disparities, strengthening judicial systems to ensure accountability, and reaffirming collective responsibility, 2, preventing emerging sources of conflict such as piracy getting a foothold, and 3, engaging in conflict prevention. [1] Africa has been building the African Peace and Security Architecture to address these causes of conflict. It has created the Peace and Security Council that facilitates the AU’s response to crises; it can engage in actions from humanitarian assistance to military intervention if there are particularly grave circumstances such as genocide. [2] When it does authorise action, this action is coordinated by the AU commission. When it comes to peaceful resolution of conflict, the AU has a ‘Panel of the Wise’ made up of former presidents and others with lots of influence and moral authority who use preventative diplomacy to try to resolve conflicts. [3] [1] African Union, 2013, p.5 [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, , p.7 [3] Ibid, p.12 | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
Having a system is useless if it is not sufficiently funded to fulfil its objectives, at the moment the AU does not provide sufficient funding for peacekeeping. [1] Moreover, reaction does not prevent war - just shortens it and reduces the intensity. The Panel of the Wise is one method of attempting to stop conflict before it becomes really violent but external mediators can only do so much in preventing conflict; most needs to come from the parties in conflict. [1] Williams, 2011, p.12 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The increasing effectiveness of the African Union The African Union has been taking a much more active stance in preventing and resolving conflict. Since 2003 responsibility for peace in Africa has been with the Peace and Security Council. This body has authorised AU interventions in Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, and the Central African Republic. [1] The African Union is not the only organisation engaged in peacekeeping; the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also been actively engaged in peacekeeping, having been deployed in numerous conflicts since the 1990s, most recently in Mali where they took part alongside French forces in defeating an Islamist insurgency. [2] The AU is also boosting its collective capacity to respond to crises creating the African Standby Force made up of five regional brigades of 4000 soldiers. This force, when complete, will enable rapid deployment anywhere in Africa so helping to prevent crises becoming full scale wars. [3] [1] ‘Peace and Security Council’, peaceau.org, 23 July 2013, [2] News24, ‘Ecowas urges members to send troops to Mail’, 23 October 2013, [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘The African Standby Force An update on progress’, Institute of Strategic Studies, March 2008, | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
Increasing the number of peacekeeping missions does not always mean that the result will be peace; clearly if there is a need for peacekeeping or even more so combat troops then peace has broken down. The United Nations has almost 70,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa ,yet new conflicts and crises keep erupting; in 2013 there were new conflicts in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. In the case of Southern Sudan this is despite there being 7500 UN peacekeepers in the country. [1] [1] Raghavan, Sudarsan, ‘Record number of U.N. peacekeepers fails to stop African wars’, Washington Post, 4 January 2014, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Not all conflict is war What is War? The AU’s declaration does not define it. Ending all conflict is ambitious, ending only inter state war in Africa on the other hand is not. The vast majority of conflicts in Africa have been internal. The only true inter state conflicts have been the wars between Israel and Egypt, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, the Uganda-Tunisia war, and the Second Congo War. [1] None of these are ongoing. The only conflicts that might count as inter-state that might be considered ongoing are the situation in Western Sahara and border clashes between the Sudans. Western Sahara might be considered to be frozen with very few deaths as a result of it and the Sudan conflict is in large part a result of the border being new. [1] Wikipedia, ‘List of conflicts in Africa’, accessed 10 January 2014, | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
Fiddling around with what is considered to be a war is not resolving the problem of conflict in Africa. The most devastating conflicts have been internal conflicts – if we want to end war in Africa we need to prevent these conflicts from occurring too. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Africa is the most warlike continent In 2012 Africa had the most distinct conflicts of any region with 13 ongoing conflicts. [1] While Africa and Asia have throughout most of the last fifty years had roughly similar numbers of conflicts – approximately 10 per year [2] - Africa has had many more non state conflicts and the number has not declined since 2004 when there were 20 non-state conflicts; in 2011 there were 22. [3] All in all there is little hope of managing to end all these conflicts by 2020. [1] ‘Armed Conflicts 2012’, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2013, [2] ‘Armed Conflict by Region’, UCDP, 2013, [3] ‘Non-state Conflicts by Region, 1989-2011’, UCDP, 2012, | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
Africa is not the most warlike continent in terms of the frequency or duration of conflicts. Asia had 1.88 wars per country from 1960 to 2008 compared to 1.65 per country in Africa. [1] Moreover many more of these armed conflicts are internal and are smaller. [1] Straus, 2012, p.186 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed. [1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders. [2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice. [1] African Union, 2013, p.1 [2] Williams, 2011, p.9 | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
While the AU cannot completely prevent conflicts from breaking out it is establishing a Continental Early Warning System. This will use publically available information and involve organisations at all levels from international to local to enable the AU, and any threatened states, to take preventive action in the common good. This is linked to regional organisations such as ECOWAS which has its own conflict prevention mechanisms and has the authority to react with peacekeeping, mediation of disputes or other peace building mechanisms. [1] The AU can also ensure any conflicts that do break out are ended quickly. The creation of the African Standby Force should give the AU the strength to react to crises and prevent conflicts escalating. [1] Cilliers, 2005, pp.1, 10 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Gains may be reversed; events can’t be foreseen Africa still has many fragile states. The Institute of Strategic Studies Africa identified 26 ‘fragile’ states (meaning they have weak governance, conflict and violence, inequality and poverty) including DR Congo and Ethiopia and forecasts that there will still be 11 fragile states by 2050. [1] This rather implies that war will not be ended by 2050, let alone 2020. Even in countries that are considered stable events can quickly spiral into conflict. Mali was considered to be democratic and reasonably stable before a coup in 2012: there were multiparty elections in 1992, it held regular elections that passed international inspections, its first president Konaré willingly stood down, there was comparatively good freedom of speech and media. [2] Yet after a coup in 2012 it went downhill to the point of requiring intervention by French troops in early 2013. [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, and Sick, Timothy D., ‘Prospects for Africa’s 26 fragile countries’, ISS Africa, p.7, [2] Whitehouse, Bruce, ‘What went wrong in Mali?’, London Review of Books, Vol.34, No.16, 20 August 2012, , p.17 | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
While events cannot be foreseen, fixing fragile states to make conflict less likely is possible. Eradicating poverty is already an international goal and improving governance is a regular concern among donors. The AU recognises that development, democracy and good governance are necessary to ensure stability and peace. [1] [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Towards a Continental Early Warning System for Africa’, ISS Africa, paper 102, April 2005, , p.2 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-apwhbaucmip-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: War is in human nature War and conflict between groups is in human nature. As Hobbes famously wrote “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short… Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another”. [1] Although the motives have changed, conflict has been a constant throughout human history. The first militaries were created around 2700 BC but conflict between societies almost certainly occurred before this. [2] Pledging to end all war is high minded, but it is unlikely to actually succeed in overturning human nature. [1] Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Chapter XIII of the Natural Condition of Mankind as concerning their felicity and misery’, Leviathan, [2] Gabriel, Richard A., and Metz, Karen S., A Short History of War, 1992, | africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge
While we know that so long as there has been recorded history there has been war, we do not know that war is a part of human nature. Indeed there is some evidence that it is not. Research by Abo Academy University has found that primitive societies – tribes that don’t rely on agriculture or domesticated animals – don’t have group conflicts; violence is almost exclusively between individuals. As these societies are a good analogue for society before what we term civilisation arose it is likely that war is a result of civilisation not human nature. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Primitive human society ‘not driven by war’’, 18 July 2013, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Only an international treaty can create penalties for non-compliance A non-binding agreement will not have any penalties for any countries that do not comply with it, this sets the agreement up for failure. Without a binding agreement a government will find it difficult to bind its successors who may back track in the decades that follow. Some states are backtracking even before the agreement is finalised; the UK has been abandoning its green policies – cutting subsidies for renewables, cancelling carbon capture and storage, reducing funding for domestic energy efficiency, and selling the green investment bank. [1] If governments will take such measures before the agreement is even finished then what hope does it have in the future if there is nothing to persuade sovereign governments to comply with their pledges? [1] Monbiot, George, ‘On climate change this government is indifferent to life, in love with death’, The Guardian, 2 December 2015, | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
While there are sure to be some countries that won’t live up to their pledges this is also the case with binding agreements even if they have built in penalties. This has been shown by the European Union where Germany and France both flouted budget rules that allowed a maximum deficit of 3% at the start of the millennium despite the threat of fines. [1] [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘France and Germany to flout budget rules until 2006’, The Guardian, 30 October 2003, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The hard part is the cutting of emissions The problem with a non-binding agreement, even one where the targets have been submitted by the governments themselves is exactly that it is non-binding. If governments are not bound to cut emissions then there is a good chance that many of them wont. [1] The British government, which has binding targets, has been on course to miss its 2025 targets with reductions of only 23% against targets of 31% due to a decision to reduce subsidies for housing insulation. [2] If countries which have set targets for themselves in the past are missing them what hope do we have for these voluntary targets? [1] Taylor, Lenore, ‘Paris climate talks: the real test is whether countries will keep their word’, The Guardian, 30 November 2015, [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘UK on track to miss carbon targets, climate change advisers warn’, The Guardian, 15 July 2014, | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
Each government has put in targets that they believe are realistic and that they are willing to try to reach. The countries involved are therefore much more likely to want to meet the target than if they had been imposed on them by a binding international treaty. Europe has found that binding refugee quotas are almost impossible to agree and equally difficult to implement. [1] Instead it has generally been accepted that only voluntary systems will work when it comes to taking in the majority of refugees with Hungary willing to take legal action to prevent mandatory quotas. [2] The same is the case on greenhouse gas emissions. [1] Euractive, ‘Commission ready to drop mandatory quotas for refugees’, 17 September 2015, [2] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Hungary challenges EU quota plan in court’, 3 December 2015, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is too late for half measures Two degrees Celsius has generally been regarded as that safe level which agreements should be aiming for. This agreement does not go so far with it expected to keep the temperature increase to around 2.7 degrees if everyone sticks to their commitments and makes deeper ones after 2030. [1] Unfortunately however the world will still most likely be heading towards a 3.5 degrees rise if no further cuts are made later. [2] Now is the time to be much more ambitious and part of that means binding cuts to prevent backsliding or those agreeing carrying on as usual. [1] Nuttall, Nick, ‘Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit’, UNFCCC Press Office, 30 October 2015, [2] Romm, Joe, ‘Misleading U.N. Report Confuses Media on Paris Climate Talks’, thinkprogress.org, 3 November 2015, | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
Voluntary measures have got much further than previous attempts to get a binding agreement – at least there is going to be a good working agreement to build on in future this time. The changes that could mean countries ultimately targeting 2C or even 1.5C are technological; if solar becomes the cheapest form of electricity generation, if electric cars become competitive with petrol, and biofuels taken up for aviation fuel. [1] [1] Mathiesen, Karl, ‘Should we be aiming to keep global warming to 1.5C, not 2C?’, The Guardian,. 2 December 2015, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Only a non-binding agreement would get the targets necessary Fully binding treaties with mechanisms for compliance are the gold standard for agreements between nations. But because they are onerous they are the most difficult kind of treaties to get agreed to start with. If the aim were such an agreement it would unfortunately never happen. This has been demonstrated by the years of successive failures in crafting climate agreements. COP 15 is the most notable; expectations were immensely high for a binding international treaty but there was a failure to deliver, largely because governments did not want a binding international solution which is what was being negotiated at Copenhagen. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?’, 22 December 2009, | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
There is little reason why countries can’t voluntarily come up with their quotas and then be bound to them by treaty. Being willing to be bound by a treaty would show that the targets submitted are really the targets that countries are setting for themselves rather than a public relations exercise. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A more informal agreement avoids the US congress The United States Congress is a potential hurdle for any climate agreement. While President Barack Obama is keen to make tackling climate change a legacy of his Presidency the Republican dominated Congress is both likely to try to block the President for that very reason and is sceptical of climate change. It is therefore a major benefit to have an agreement that will not need to be submitted to Congress for approval as any treaty needs to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State Kerry argues that it is “definitely not going to be a treaty,” and “not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto”. It won’t need to be passed to the Senate because the President already has the power to implement the agreement through existing law. [1] [1] Mufson, Steven, and Demirjian, Karoun, ‘Trick or treaty? The legal question hanging over the Paris climate change conference’, Washington Post, 30 November 2015, | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
The United States Senate would be a potential sticking point for any treaty however it would be unlikely that the United States would hold out against the rest of the world. At the worst case it would simply sign next time the democrats gain a majority. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iighbopcc-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Sovereign states should be allowed to set their own targets and be trusted to meet them States are sovereign entities meaning that only they have power within their borders and climate change should not be a cause for groups of countries meddling in the business of others. Each state making its own commitment and then doing its own monitoring and enforcement is the right way to go about preventing climate change. By doing it this way no countries will feel unduly burdened or persecuted. | imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference
Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: On issues such as gay marriage, human rights activists have taken the line that the right to marry is nobody else’s business. That principle of privacy should work both ways. Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them. [1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories. If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable. If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news. [1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10th August 2012, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out. Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Broadcasters almost never show scenes of torture or torment because they know this will cause offence, the same principle should apply here. Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives [1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement [2] . Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership. [3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs. [4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, [4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid. Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.” [1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook, [2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit. [1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91. [2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Where there is a clear objection to discussing a certain subject, insisting on doing so is not news, it’s propaganda. Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide [1] . As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels. [2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”. [3] [1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World. [2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate, [3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation. In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1] [1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, accessed 14 August 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Citizens deserve the right to know what is happening in their name. It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia. [1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify. The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”. [2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news. [1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012, [2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries. [1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested. [1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute p.11 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Journalism should report the experiences of the vulnerable and oppressed just as much as those of the elite and powerful. The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”. [1] [1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
A liberal bias among the journalistic elite in the West is hardly reason for changing the editorial policies of news outlets in nations that do not share those values. The first duty of the journalist must be their role as the eyes and ears of those for whom they do their reporting – the readers and viewers who both directly and indirectly pay their salaries. As a result, there is a duty on journalists not only to report those issues of interest to that group but to avoid those issues which their customers consider either irrelevant or distasteful. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bldimehbn-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened. It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news. News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues. [1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006. [2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars, | bate living difference international middle east house believes news
It is routine to make determinations on the basis of the race or religion of those affected in a story as to whether it is newsworthy or not. Sixty people of another nationality die in an accident, it may be barely reported, if two people of the news outlet’s home nationality dies in such a tragedy then it is a major story. The interests and prejudices of the consumers of news are reflected all the time in what editors consider to be important. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void. Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict. The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure. It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists. In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves. The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted. If the US and Israel do have issues where military officials have broken the international criminal law, they can be dealt with by the existing Courts-Martial of their respective militaries. Both Israel and the US are states that obey the rule of law. The ICC was unnecessary when the US military convicted William Calley for the My Lai massacre, or the Mahmudiyah case. The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it. The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals. In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries. An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
It took nearly two years for the ICC to launch an investigation into atrocities in the Central African Republic. This has helped defeat the argument that it would be faster than the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Tribunal for Rwanda were. So far being indicted by the ICC has had little impact; for example it failed to prevent the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, who is currently facing trial by the ICC for crimes against humanity, as President of Kenya. The ICC is also hamstrung by its inability to capture defendants itself. It can only do so with the co-operation of its member states. The US and Israel have nothing to gain from membership, and everything to lose in terms of being on the receiving end of politically motivated and abusive prosecutions. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The American people support ICC membership. In a democracy the voice of the people should carry weight in determining how the country acts internationally. According to a 2005 poll carried out by the Chicago Council on foreign relations 69% of the US population are in favour of US participation in the ICC. This clearly shows that the US people are unconvinced by the arguments on the theorized drawbacks of the International Criminal Court and are happy for it to be ratified. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
Just because there is widespread public support for a thing or measure does not mean that it should automatically be the case. The issue should be debated on its own merits, rather than resting on a potentially ill-informed public. Ratification of treaties is left to congress and the Knesset to ensure that their consequences are properly considered. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Risk of “lawfare” against Israel The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends. A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts. Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
If Israeli nationals have not committed any criminal offences against international law, they have nothing to fear from joining the International Criminal Court system. While some may agitate for action to be brought against Israel for political reasons, the International Criminal Court has an independent prosecutor and complex procedures that will act as an adequate filter to stop it being hijacked as a tool for “lawfare” No state should have immunity from the international law, whatever their circumstances or potentials for mischievous uses of the legal system. In addition, Israeli membership of the ICC would be useful part of the bargaining in the peace process, to allow any criminal cases against Israel to be handled by an impartial international court obeying full rules of law. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations. There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world. While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International. While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The rest of the world is better off with the US out The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction. When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution. This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
The only effect on US freedom of action would be prohibition of clear and significant violations of international law. If the US stays within the international criminal law, they will not be affected by the ICC. It would be harmful for any state to have special treatment – if the US were to be granted such special treatment to the United States other large states could request the same due to their self-perceived international roles. Such exceptions and opt outs would mean that the International Criminal Court would be granting impunity to large states, whatever gargantuan violations of the international law are committed, and only investigate smaller ones. This would clearly be an unfair system of international justice. If a country engages in more military engagements, and is larger and more powerful, it is all the more necessary that they are held to the same standards as smaller powers. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-amehbuaisji-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself. | americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international
It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined. While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises. Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved. Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough. [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line. “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2 On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly. 1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22 2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward: 3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress: 4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony. A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
A UN standing army would not solve 'the problem of American military hegemony', even if there is such a problem. It is perhaps unlikely that the US would fund such an army. Nor would other major military spenders like the United Kingdom be likely to since they already send troops to NATO, possibly in the near future to an EU army, and having its own army it would be significantly overstretched. This United Nations could not raise sufficient funds to create such a force. To establish military parity with the US would require a large nuclear arsenal and an enormous military infrastructure. States will not ever finance such a force at the expense of building up their own forces. The army would have to be willing to be pitched against the interests of the US or other permanent members of the Security Council, yet any U.N. standing army would require the blessing of that Security Council, where those members have a veto. Therefore making this not possible, as only the UNSC can be responsible for security. American military hegemony will not be challenged by a force that is under its own direction. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves. A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN standing army is simply impossible to form. A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice. 1. U.N. Charter, (1945) | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN standing army is unnecessary A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices. 1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86 2, Ibid |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population. Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1. 1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787 | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates. 1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare. If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-gpdwhwcusa-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A UN standing army would not be cost-effective. The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. State armed forces have the advantage of preparing for specific battles with specific enemies. Any UN standing force would be forced by its very nature to prepare for every enemy, in every environment. Such a scope is neither desirable nor easy to overcome without great expense and large numbers. At present, the UN model is preferable; it can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation. | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army
A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: UN ignores or enables human rights abuses. Despite the development of the concept of human rights in the post-war world, the UN has totally failed to protect the rights of citizens, ethnic minorities, women and children. It has stood by during episodes of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Yugoslavia among many others [1] , tolerates some of the world’s worst dictatorships as members, and does nothing to improve the situation of women in developing nations. Indeed, where UN peacekeepers have been sent into war-torn countries, they have sometimes been guilty of the most horrendous human rights abuses themselves. [2] As of 2011, the UN’s Human Rights Council itself is comprised of members such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. [3] [1] “UN admits Rwanda genocide failure”. BBC website, 15th April 2000. [2] MacFarquhar, Neil. “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On-Screen and Off”. New York Times, 7th September 2011. [3] “Membership of the Human Rights Council”. United Nations website, 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
As argued below (Opposition argument 2), the UN has in fact been instrumental in developing the modern concept of human rights, which prior to its foundation essentially did not exist as an idea, and certainly not as a body of coherent international law. And the UN has acted to prevent and condemn human rights abuses all over the world. Where the UN has failed to prevent genocide or human rights violations, it has generally been due to the failure of the international community rather than the UN itself. For example, the bloodshed in Rwanda went unstopped not because the UN was unconcerned, but because those nations that might have intervened, such as the US, France or neighbouring African countries, were unable or unwilling to do so - not a failure that can fairly be laid at the door of the UN. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework. The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1] [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports. [1] In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body. [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: : Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved. The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully. In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War. [1] [1] Harrison, Mark & Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
It is unfair to say that the United Nations has failed just because conflict has not been eradicated from the world. The causes that drive nations to war with one another often cannot be resolved by diplomatic means; to set global peace as the test for the UN’s efficiency is clearly unfair. Nonetheless the UN has served as an effective forum for behind the scenes diplomacy in many international crises. It has come to the aid of countries when attacked, as in the examples of [South] Korea and Kuwait in 1950 and 1990 respectively; it has also kept the peace in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and East Timor. The fact that armed conflicts around the world have become less common since 1990 is, arguably, at least partly down to the good offices of the United Nations. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient. The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1] [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website. | global house believes united nations has failed
Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them! |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised. As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1] There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state. [3] [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011. [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005. [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
The United Nations is no more corrupt than any large organisation, much less national governments, and far more transparent than many comparable institutions. It is true that the Human Rights Council contains some nations with bad records on civil liberties but it is surely better to engage with such regimes and shame them into slowly improving their human rights standards, than simply excluding them from UN organs and losing any influence over how they treat their citizens. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights. When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1] [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”. | global house believes united nations has failed
The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model. It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important. In a globalised economy nations depend on each other as never before, and the costs of war and conflict grow ever higher. So it is more important than ever than countries have a forum for resolving their disputes and simply talking to each other. Regional bodies such as the EU or ASEAN can perform some of these functions, and specialised bodies such as the WTO some others; but there can never be a substitute for the global forum provided by the UN. If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. [1] [1] Hammarskjold, Dag. “Do We Need The United Nations?”. Address to the Students’ Association, Copenhagen, 2nd May 1959. www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/docs/needun.pdf | global house believes united nations has failed
It is arguable that the era of globalisation makes the United Nations less important, not more. Trade disputes are settled bilaterally or through the WTO; economic crises through the offices of the World Bank and IMF; security problems, as often as not, through the mediation of the US or other interested powers. All too often, the UN is a forum not for dispute resolution but the airing of grievances against other nations. For example, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War, both the United States and its detractors, such as France, used the UN to publicise and justify their position on military action, not to discuss it in any meaningful way. If a United Nations did not exist, and we were obliged to invent one, we would hopefully do a better job next time! |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures. It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. [1] [1] London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007. | global house believes united nations has failed
This debate is about whether or not the UN has failed. It may well be that the response to a failing organisation is not abolition but wholesale reform, as the opposition argue here, but that would not change the fact that the UN has not achieved what it was designed to do. And while reform has been promised for many decades, nothing has ever been done to resolve the systemic flaws of this organisation. So promises of reform are an unsatisfactory answer to the charges against the UN. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world. The United Nations is far more than simply a debating forum; it does a massive amount of vital work around the world through its other organs. Examples of these are the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, UNICEF, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) among many others. [1] Even if the slow speed of diplomacy at the UN General Assembly can sometimes be frustrating, the idea that the United Nations as a whole has “failed” simply does not take account of all these very important bodies. Furthermore, the UN remains one of the most respected of international organisations among ordinary citizens. [1] “United Nations: Structure and Organisation”. United Nations, 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
It is obviously true that some UN agencies and organs carry out valuable and useful work. However, there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that UN work often duplicates programs and programs carried out by NGOs, national governments and charities. Its work is useful, but by no means indispensable. The second way of approaching this question is to ask whether these are core functions of the UN – in other words, whether preserving world heritage or co-ordinating vaccination programmes is what the UN is really “for”. We can admit that some UN agencies do good work but still believe that as a body; overall the United Nations has failed. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ghbunhf-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping. It is clearly unrealistic to imagine that the United Nations could prevent all wars, but nonetheless it has been successful at negotiating peaceful resolutions to international disputes. It has also authorised military force to defend countries from unprovoked attacks; Kuwait and South Korea, to name just two, owe their freedom to UN action. Finally, UN peacekeepers do vital work all over the world from Cyprus to Korea. [1] [1] “What is Peacekeeping?”. United Nations, 2011. | global house believes united nations has failed
No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence. As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.