id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship Myanmar has taken significant steps towards democratisation in the last three years. The new constitution and the elections that resulted in the current civilian government being appointed represent a marked shift in its governance structure. Though there may be scope for improvement in its democratic framework, institutions for democratic functioning have been created and this is a huge step forward. Aung San Suu Kyi has also been released from house arrest, and the tone of the statements made by the new government has been a reconciliatory one. A new human rights commission has also been established. While the pace of reform may not match the supposed expectations of the US and the EU, Myanmar’s choice to change gradually and engage with them on its own terms must be respected. The fundamental circumstances under which a policy of limited engagement was adopted with Myanmar have changed, and this calls for reassessment. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
Despite the change in nominal governmental structure, the real holders of power have remained the same. The president Thein Sein was handpicked by the outgoing military leader Than Shwe. The top posts in government and one-fourth of parliament is reserved was the military. Arbitrary laws prevented leaders of the NLD, including Aung San Suu Kyi, from participating in the elections. Elections do not equal democracy. Other than the sugar-coated words of the new government, there has been no real movement towards democratic reform. The international community has long called for an impartial investigation into the systematic human rights violations to bring its perpetrators to justice. None of this has been promised, or is likely to be achieved under a military-controlled government, the main aim of which is to hoodwink the international community and provide security to the guilty leaders of the military junta.1 1 Ellgee, ‘Myanmar hides behind ‘democracy’’, Aljazeera, 27 January 2011. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Regional factors favour re-engagement Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
Though countries in South Asia have displayed ambivalence in their attitude towards Myanmar, it is not a reason for the US and the EU to change their stance. Regional players have sometimes tended to support the pro-democracy movement in their rhetoric, but have not adopted policies that are aligned with it. Therefore, they have not been able to cause any real democratic reform. If there is a united international community that does not actively seek to isolate Myanmar, but to the contrary engages with it, the force that can drive such reform will become even weaker. The risk of harm from long-existent differences in attitudes between regional players and those who seek to disengage is very low, and nothing has occurred since 1990 to suggest otherwise. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: States should not be isolated on political grounds The isolation of Myanmar by some of the developed Western powers is arbitrary and marked by hypocrisy. The real reasons for the stance taken by these countries are political. There is little consistency in the attitude taken towards other governments and dictatorships across the world that also have questionable human rights records (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name a few), but either offer other strategic and economic benefits, or are much more influential in international affairs than Myanmar. Myanmar is only part of a group of countries (also including Cuba and North Korea) whose economic and political policies have remained relatively opaque to arm-twisting by the US and the EU. It is unfair to impose sanctions on and isolate Myanmar on this basis, especially in an emerging multi-polar international environment. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1 1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change. 1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011. 2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy) | asia global house would re engage myanmar
Since the government is still controlled by the military and there is no evidence to that corruption levels will go down in the new regime, engaging in trade with Myanmar will only strengthen the ruling elite. There is little accountability for developmental aid actually reaching its desired goals.1 Trading with Myanmar means trading with organisations controlled by the state/military in a nationalised economy. Common people are exploited and kept in poverty while the profits are reaped by a few. This has been the experience of international trade with Myanmar involving countries other than US and EU, and there is no reason that this will change. Further, there is no necessary link between business activity and development of the rule of law, as the experience of many African countries has shown. Opportunistic business entities are more likely to be involved in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that benefit them, instead of causing social change. 1 BBC News, ‘UN frustrated at Burma response’, 13 May 2008. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region The policy of disengagement has not resulted in any meaningful change in Myanmar, politically or economically. Since Myanmar has not been dependent on the US or the EU, sanctions and arms embargoes have not had any effect on the government. The changes in 2010-2011 have been due to the influence of the NLD, and certain regional players (like Thailand and China) which have sought to directly engage with Myanmar. Further, the sections of the population that are most affected by the sanctions are those not in the top tier of the political and economic class, but smaller manufacturers and the working class. Restrictions on exports and developmental aid from the US and the EU prevent local manufacturers and consumers from having access to them. On the other hand, restrictions on imports from Myanmar weaken the market for its exporters. These factors only further impoverish and alienate the local population, increasing economic disparity, and consequently the power of the ruling elite in the national context as well. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
While the policy of disengagement may not have achieved all its goals, it has brought to the forefront a moral standard by which the government can be judged. This has helped frame global opinion and influenced regional players’ attitudes to Myanmar as well to some extent. More harm is done by continuing to engage with Myanmar since that option offers no incentive or pressure for democratic reform. Trading with Myanmar will only add to the economic and political clout of the ruling elite, as the ‘trickle down’ to the population as a whole is minimal. A policy of disengagement, at the very least, prevents the military (which is sensitive to international opinion) from becoming even stronger. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The international community and political legitimacy The military-controlled government in Myanmar clearly does not have popular domestic support - otherwise the artificial election process would not have been necessary. Therefore, it derives its strength from the fact that many international players other than the US and the EU have continued to recognise it, while there is historic precedent for concerted international opinion having influenced illegitimate regimes (Haiti and South Africa, for instance). Having a nationalised economy increases the control the military has over trade and investment, while a majority of the country finds itself in poverty. The choice for the international community is between continuing to strengthen the military by engaging with it, or by disengaging (like the EU and the US) until the ruling elite runs out of resources and options. The former option does not give hope to any real democratic reform, while the latter option would take away the legitimacy of the government in the international arena. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Vested international interest are harming Myanmar Certain members of the international community, especially regional players like China and India, have tended to ignore questions of legitimacy of the regime for economic and political benefits. While this may be beneficial to them in the short term, it is very harmful for Myanmar as a democracy in the future. Politically, a blind eye is being turned to a culture of violating human rights. If and when Myanmar becomes a real democracy, it is unlikely that it will magically transform into a model democratic state, unless enough emphasis is provided to fundamental principles of good governance at the outset. Economically, investment is being provided in a highly monopolistic and imperfect environment, without addressing problems of corruption and inadequacy of legal processes. In the long run, even if a democratic constitutional framework exists, the country is likely to continue to have high economic disparity and corrupt markets due to these reasons (in a manner comparable to how Russian markets have evolved since the 1990s). Reengagement should not be setting the stage for a shift from a military-controlled government to a poor democracy, which would also be harmful for stability in the region as a whole. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
Regional players like China and India are interested in border security and internal stability for Myanmar. There is no basis to say that their political and commercial relationship with Myanmar must necessarily be for short-term benefit. It is unfair to compare Myanmar with Western standards of preserving human rights or with ‘a model democratic state’, though there may not be any countries in the world that fit the description. It is sufficient if it is at a stage where its standard of governance is comparable with other countries in South Asia that do not face international isolation or censure. There is also evidence to show that exposure to more sophisticated markets does have a positive influence on the development of internal legal systems. Though Russia may not be a model economy, its economic growth has been accompanied by gradual changes to attitudes and institutions internally. Reengagement would make it easier for these changes to take place, while a policy of disengagement would, in effect, be a policy of apathy. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1 1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
Reengagement will send a message to the Myanmar government that the steps it has taken have not gone unnoticed by the international community, and may lead to more substantive change over time. It will project the US and the EU as constructive actors in the process of reform. Reengagement is a way of gaining political and economic influence in Myanmar and in the region. It may lead to negotiations at some stage, and reengagement now would allow them to have a greater say at that time. By not engaging, the US and the EU are not actually able to increase the influence of the opponents of the current government either. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aghwrem-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes The new civilian government in Myanmar is as illegitimate as the rule of the military junta which led to its creation. The military junta itself was guilty of overruling the democratic verdict in 1990 that gave power to the NLD. Under the new constitution, 25% of all seats in parliament and the most influential governmental posts are reserved for the military, and more than 75% majority is required for amending the constitution. Political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) were not permitted to participate in the elections. Further, the election process itself has been described as a sham, involving violence and intimidation of democratic activists. The current government is only a tool for the preceding military junta to consolidate its power and provide a safety valve for its leaders through apparently legitimate means. It attempts to use the false democratic process as a veil to resist international criticism. Widespread human rights violations, ethnic violence, and undemocratic curtailment of the freedom of speech have characterised the period of rule of the military junta. By engaging with it at the political or economic level, other countries provide it with a false sense of legitimacy. This is morally at odds with established standards in of human rights and international relations, especially where other illegitimate governments (Syria, Iraq, and North Korea for instance) across the world continually face censure and isolation. | asia global house would re engage myanmar
This argument assumes that democracy, and that too a particular kind of democracy, is the only legitimate form of government possible. The kind of democracy that is followed in the West may not be appropriate for Myanmar, in any case not at this stage. There are economic and political inequalities in Myanmar and its democracy is not perfect. However, if everyone was allowed to participate in elections, the country is likely to slip into a situation of civil war, since the elected individuals may not wield real power. Attempts at imposing a particular style of democracy in countries that may not be ready for it can be counter-productive (as in East Timor, for instance). Further, not every country in the world has claimed itself to be a champion of democracy across the world. Such countries have no obligation to denounce a foreign regime, and have a right to decide what their policies should be. An apparently democratic government may not be a good one (for instance, Zimbabwe), and an undemocratic government may not necessarily be a bad one (for instance, China and Venezuela). There is no basis to say that any uniformity has been achieved in accepted international standards for the legitimacy of governments. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Blind obedience to authority One of the major factors that exacerbated genocide ideology was the “AKAZU” controlled media which made most of the Hutu population wrongfully obey authority and government propaganda of divisionism[1]. This was achieved by proclaiming that the Tutsi are snakes and cockroaches in newspapers, and directing the Hutu extremists to where killings were to be conducted on radio RTLM. Meanwhile they also refused to broadcast speeches calling out for unity among people helping to lead to the assassination of the then Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who opposed government restrictions. There was no space to question policies and ideas that were encouraging genocide by manipulating people to believe it was right path for Rwanda. The genocide should therefore serve as an example that restricting freedoms of speech and press can cause severe damage. This is especially harmful to a healing and reconciling country like Rwanda that needs the freedom to debate the past and analyse how far it has come openly. Rwanda should learn from the past that freedom of speech is necessary to prevent conflict while having only one side potentially exacerbates it. [1] Chalk, Prof. Frank ‘Radio propaganda and genocide’, Concordia.ca, November 1999 | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
Divisionism in Rwanda did not spark as a result of the controlled media and government propaganda in 1994, there were killings reported in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s[1] even before the media was part of society. This came as a result of long standing grudges and misunderstandings between the Tutsi and Hutu groups in the country. That the media bears responsibility for spreading hate speech and broadcasting where the other could be killed moreover does not absolve the individuals involved. Each individual had the choice whether they acted on what the media was telling them. In a completely free media there would be some of the same hate speech and it would still be up to the individual to decide whether to follow that message. Far better to ensure that message cannot be aired in the first place. [1] History world, ‘History of Rwanda’, historyworld.net |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Authoritarian leadership President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1]. Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress. The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3] [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014 [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011 [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013 | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights. Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future. Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws. Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people. [1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: International concern Rwanda, though a progressing country is still aid dependent which has been a backbone for its achievements today[1]. Spoiling Rwanda’s relations with the international community would therefor be destabilising Rwanda’s focus and growth. This has been evident when some countries cut aid to Rwanda recently following allegations of the government supporting insecurity in Congo [2]. Most donor governments are strong backers of human rights and freedom. Continued restrictions to freedom of speech may provoke international reaction through cutting aid and trade ties a move that may hinder the success of Rwanda’s goals. Aid has been cut on other human rights issues for example donor countries have recently acted to cut aid to Uganda as a result of their criminalisation of homosexuality.[3] [1] DFID Rwanda, ‘Growth and Poverty reduction grant to the government of Rwanda (2012/2013-2014/2015), gov.uk, July 2012 [2] BBC news, ‘UK stops £21m aid payment to Rwanda’ bbc.co.uk, 30 November 2012 [3] Plaut, Martin, ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, theguardian.com, 25 February 2014 | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech. [1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013 [2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Setting Rwanda's priorities Rwanda is an emerging democracy healing from the wounds of the horrific past. To achieve the set vision, there should be a priority which in this case is economic development[1]. A large number of Rwandans believe that the government should focus on transforming the nation economically although it may mean restricting free speech, which has prompted a huge participation in government development programs like Ubudehe[2]. Freedom of speech and press needs to be restricted if the government wants to engage in unlimited development; there is no time to engage in long debates over whether a particular project is being implemented the correct way. Having freedom of speech and press would hinder the government’s ability to manage the resources of the state and to encourage investors who don’t want to have protests to their building factories, or have labour complaining about not being paid enough. Whether a country puts rights or the economy first is up to the individual country, Rwanda has chosen. [1] Horand, Knaup, ‘Kagame's Priorities for Rwanda: First Prosperity, then Freedom of Expression’, Spiegel.de, 12 August 2010 [2] NS world, ‘Rwanda Engages Citizens in Community-Level development’, nsworld.org | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
While the government of Rwanda has chosen the economy this does not mean the people agree – simply that the government controls the narrative so giving the impression, or persuading them that they agree. Restricting free speech and press has increased critics from the Rwandan diaspora evidence that inside the country, citizens have no way of putting forward their say[1]. Economic growth is not the only kind of progress. In order to drive forward the economy Rwanda is stunting the progress of individual rights. [1] Keung, Nicholas, ‘Paul Kagame: Rwanda’s saviour or strongman?’, thestar.com, 26 September 2013 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is accountability without a free press Freedom of speech and the Press is not the only way of creating accountability in a country – especially a comparatively small one such as Rwanda. Rwanda has been ranked a transparent and is the least corrupt state in East Africa [1] where everyone is accountable and equal before the law. How can this be without an aggressive free press? Annually, all government officials are cross examined by locals publicly in a forum called national dialogue “Umushyikirano”, to ensure that they meet the needs of citizens and assess their performance[2]. This has given Rwandans courage to express their desires and feel much valued in the process of policy making and engagement. It puts ministers and even the Prime Minister on the spot on individual issues. Restricted press and speech is therefore rendered irrelevant by such programs as people can question authorities and demand justification directly rather than relying on the press. In Africa, most countries lack transparent government systems and institutions, a factor responsible for continued corruption, poor governance and crime which in turn destroy progress in societies [3], but this is not the case with regard to Rwanda. [1] Zegabi East Africa news, ‘Transparency International Ranks Rwanda the Least Corrupt Country in East Africa’, 5 December 2013, zegabi.com [2] Hunt, Swanee ‘Rebuilding Rwanda: Access and Accountability’, inclusivesecurity.org, 30 December 2013 [3] Jones Lang Lasale, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: A region with opportunities amid transparency challenges’, joneslanglasale.eu | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
It is a wrong assertion that Rwandans are valued in the process of policy making when their genuine opinions are limited to a certain level. The national dialogue is a three day event and cannot cover the concerns of more than 11 million Rwandans. Moreover when people still fear to say the truth as they go through in daily life [1], how can one expect such people to raise the right issues on a public platform with the most powerful people in the country? [1] Amnesty International, 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-bmaggiahbl-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Focused leadership Progress in Africa has been hindered by factors like corruption, conflicts and poor infrastructure, all of which are linked to the incompetent or greedy leaders. Rwanda is a different case, ranked among the best countries with a strong and focused leadership in Africa, the country has set up clear policies like EDPRS [Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy] which aims to change Rwanda from an agriculture based economy to knowledge and service economy [1]. It is well known for zero tolerance to corruption, improved infrastructure and technology all of which are core factors in achieving development. In Africa, Rwanda tops list of easiest countries to do business a move that has encouraged more investors into the country[2]. Limited freedom of speech and press does not hinder economic development. What matters is that the government is trusted to fulfil all its commitments. After all, nothing has stopped China progressing despite human rights violations and censorship of both free speech and the press. [1] The world bank, ‘Rwanda overview’, worldbank.org [2] International finance corporation, ‘Rwanda top business reformer’, ifc.org | bate media and good government international africa house believes limited
Restricted press and speech also limits political debate and engagement which are crucially needed in adopting fruitful policies[1]. The best policies are those that are rigorously debated and analysed. The current leadership may have acted to check corruption but without institutionalised freedom of the press to encourage whistleblowing there is no guarantee that corruption won’t return in the future. Rwanda’s progress is therefore dependent on individuals, fine in the short term but development takes decades. In the long term for a state to progress there has to be balancing mechanisms so as to prevent misrule and importantly persuade investors there will be stability. Moreover Rwanda is trying to create a knowledge economy. It is not like China’s creation of a manufacturing based economy, instead it relies upon critical thinking, ideas and analysis – all things that benefit from freedom of speech. [1] UNESCO, ‘Press freedom and development: an analysis of correlations between freedom of the press and the different dimensions of development, poverty, governance and peace’, unesco.org |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa The reason why Moshoeshoe, the leader of Lesotho, wished to become a British protectorate was because of the Boers of the Orange Free State was trying to take their land. In 1966, when the Kingdom of Lesotho gained its independence from Britain, it remained separate from SA as it had been a separate colony. Lesotho was under direct rule while South Africa was a dominion. There was no incentive to change at the point of independence because SA was ruled by the apartheid regime. Lesotho was a strong public opponent of the regime and granted a number of SA refugees’ political asylum. The African National Congress, the ruling party in SA since 1994, was founded in Lesotho. Moreover, during the struggle against apartheid, the ANC’s armed wing organized its guerilla units from the enclave. [1] We can firmly say that Lesotho vas a very important actor in a post-apartheid SA, but the times have changed. The ANC is now in power in South Africa and SA and Lesotho are closer together than ever before. [1] Smith, 2010, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents. [1] [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services For the Basotho in a landlocked country the free movement of their people is a right that is in large part dependent on the South African (SA) government rather their own national one. Its importance is shown by 40% of border crossings into South Africa being from Lesotho. Acknowledging the fact that Lesotho is an enclave state surrounded by SA, the ability of people to move freely depends on whether they are allowed to enter SA or not. There is corruption at border posts and the number of crossings results in long queues and slow service; 63% of border crossers experience problems. [1] This is sometimes made even more difficult by SA government actions as before the World Cup in 2010 when border restrictions were tightened making it almost impossible for Basotho to leave their country. [2] This happened due to the detention of several Lesotho nationals after a spate of criminal activities along the border. The same situation applies to trade. Lesotho is dependent on the trade with South Africa, even for goods that come from beyond South Africa as Lesotho has no port of its own most goods will have to be transported through South Africa. This dependency is rising. In 1980, Lesotho produced 80% of the cereals it consumed. Now it imports 70%. [3] Annexation would eliminate these borders boosting trade between the countries, helping to make both richer. In the best interest of Basotho is to be able to control and be listened to by the entity that is metaphorically and literally feeding them. [1] Crush, Jonathan, ‘The border within: The future of the Lesotho-South African international boundary’, Migration Policy Series No.26, [2] Patel, Khadija, Lesotho and South Africa: ‘Good fences make good neighbours’, 19 April 2013, [3] Smith, Alex Duval, ‘Lesotho's people plead with South Africa to annex their troubled country’, theguardian.com, 6 June 2010 | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
While the ability of Basotho people to travel abroad is something that we should take into consideration, we should also seek to understand the SA government intention to secure their territory. As a sovereign state that is primarily responsible towards its citizens, SA has the right and the duty to secure its borders in order to prevent any kind of security problems that might occur when people from a poor, underdeveloped country like Lesotho try to enter their premises. If SA is concerned about the security of its border with Lesotho how much less secure is it when the border disappears? On the other hand, progress regarding border control is already being made through bilateral cooperation and agreements. [1] Certainly, there are less drastic solutions, such as border-unions that permit the exact same advantages as annexation when it comes to borders. [1] Magubane, Khulekani, ‘SA, Lesotho to ease border control’, Business Day Live, 22 April 2013, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line [1] , Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus. [2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change. [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project, [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
There is no guarantee that the SA government will indeed try to make a change after the integration of the Lesotho territory. The narrative is quite different in Europe for example where regions like Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are trying to secede because they do not feel the national government is addressing their problems as they should. Even if we agree that SA is the most powerful country in Sub-Saharan region and that they have more money that the Kingdom of Lesotho, there is no certainty that the money will be redirected toward that region. SA already has a lot of problems of its own. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage Bringing South Africa and Lesotho will benefit SA on the global stage. The move would be one to provide aid to a smaller state and provide stability. The dire conditions for the Basotho people are acknowledged by the UN and the Africa Union. Firstly, SA, by the annexation of Lesotho, will prove good intentions in creating a sustainable Sub-Saharan Africa. This will ultimately create a better image and a greater influence in the region if they choose to respond positively to the People’s Charter Movement in Lesotho [1] , a social structure pleading for annexation. The movement, driven by trade unions, has collected 30,000 signatures in favor of their goal and is rising in popularity. Secondly the annexation will provide a boost for the South African Development Community and South African Customs Union by demonstrating the willingness of South Africa to integrate with poorer neighbours and take on some of the responsibility for them. [1] Smith, 2010, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
While any annexation would be mutually agreed there is no guarantee that the whole international community would see it positively; any resistance from groups within Lesotho and it could be a PR nightmare. Moreover the spin of it being a humanitarian gesture is reliant on it following through and improving conditions. If it succeeds then SA will likely be called upon to resolve other humanitarian situations in the region such as in Swaziland. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3] [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011, [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012, [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
Of course, the local Lesotho authorities have a mandate to act upon the interest of Basotho, but the problem is that they are not able to do so; Lesotho is dependent on foreign aid. The state simply doesn’t have to money to fund a health system that could deal with the fact that 1 in 3 Basotho are infected with HIV. Moreover, the problems in SA and Lesotho are not that different. In SA, one in ten people have AIDS and a majority deal with poverty. Of course, economies of scale can deal better and cheaper with problems such as poverty and health issues because of their ability to provide more money, resources and expertise. The point about what kind of influence Basotho might have on the SA authorities is not entirely true. The National Council of Provinces, the upper house, gives each province ten delegates regardless of population size [1] ; Lesotho would have an outsized influence. [1] National Council of Provinces, Parliament.gov.za, accessed 28/3/2014, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country It is not in South Africa’s interests to annex Lesotho. Lesotho would be a burden; it is poor, might cause instability, and has no resources as compensation. On a simple cost-benefit analysis made by the SA government they would clearly see they would have more responsibility towards the Basotho population but new resources to fulfil those responsibilities. South Africa has its own problems that it should be focusing on first. Poverty is officially at 52.3% [1] and unemployment is a great problem for South Africans; a quarter of the majority black workforce is unemployed. [2] Moreover, Only 40.2% of black infants live in a home with a flush toilet, a convenience enjoyed by almost all their white and Indian counterparts showing the inequality that still exists in the ‘rainbow nation’. [3] Why add more people under your protection when you can’t take care of your own? [1] ‘Statement by Minister in The Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Collins Chabane, on the occasion of the launch of the Development Indicators 2012 Report’, thepresidency.gov.za, 20 August 2013, [2] Mcgroarty, Patrick, ‘Poverty Still Plagues South Africa's Black Majority’, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December 2013, [3] Kielburger, Craig & Marc, ‘Why South Africa is Still Dealing With Segregation and Poverty’, Huffington Post, 18 December 2013, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer. [3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden. [1] The World Factbook, 2014, [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service, [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-appghblsba-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries Lesotho and South Africa already cooperate on a wide variety of issues. If we look at the example of the law system; the two systems are almost the same and all but one of the Justices on the Court of Appeal in Lesotho are South African jurists. [1] Moreover, there are at least four inter-governmental organizations that maximize the trade, help and social connections between the two states. Starting with the African Union, going on to the Southern African Development Community [2] that promotes socio-economic cooperation as well as political and security cooperation, moving to the Southern African Customs Union [3] and the Common Monetary Area. Lesotho is not only helped by SA but this is happening without them having to let go of their national identity and history. In much the same way as different nations, large and small, benefit from the EU so the countries of Southern Africa can benefit from some integration without the negative consequences of complete annexation with the loss of control that would bring. [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘Lesotho (10/07)’, state.gov, [2] Southern African Development Community Official website [3] ‘Continued economic reforms would attract more foreign investment’, World Trade Organisation, 25 April 2003, | africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed
Assuming the two countries are so well integrated, there should be no reason for not taking the last step that is the annexation of the territory. Furthermore, the current sovereignty of the Kingdom of Lesotho exists as a fiction rather than reality. The authorities are not able to provide and take care of the basic human needs of their people; there was a humanitarian crisis as recently as 2012 when a third of the population needed food aid after flooding. [1] Lesotho does not even have control over its own defence with South Africa having launched a military ‘humanitarian intervention’ in 1998 to save democracy but which was also about South African concerns over water. [2] Rather than permitting for the local government to loose its authority, annexation represents the short step towards real and sustainable development for the land-locked country. [1] Beukes, Suzanne, ‘Food crisis aggravates the already massive social challenges Lesotho faces’, unicef, 28 November 2012, [2] Hedebe, Siyabonga Patrick, ‘South Africa’s Military intervention in Lesotho in 1998 – A critical overview’, academia.edu, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws. Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided. Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures. | europe house believes federal europe
Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller. Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised. | europe house believes federal europe
The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today. The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”. [1] A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences. [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’ | europe house believes federal europe
National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A federal Europe will be a stronger international actor A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs. Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively. | europe house believes federal europe
Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation. None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1] [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The federal model has proved to be a success previously The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world. The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries. | europe house believes federal europe
Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy. In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.” [1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.” [2] [1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’ [2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Existing contributive inequalities within the Union would be amplified by a formal federal system There is a possibility that once a federation, Europe will adopt certain policies that might be harmful for a minority of the member states. In consequence, any economic downturn in those states could manifest itself on a larger scale in the United States of Europe as economies of the member states rely (more than ever) on each other. Furthermore different states may not contribute equally. States, because inducements to cooperate or threats to punish may be low, fail to provide for the collective benefit, therefore essentially "passing the buck" to other states, and most frequently to the most economically powerful participants. Citizens of large states like France, Great Britain, and Germany frequently complain that smaller states are not paying their "fair share" of the costs of the European Union. Meanwhile, smaller states may complain that they are overlooked or even disregarded because of their economically weaker status. These issues will be exacerbated in a European federation. Decentralization decreases economic progress. [1] European countries where regions have more powers and responsibilities in terms of taxation, legislation and education policies tend to do better economically than centralised ones. Centralism hammers development of countries at the cost of its citizens. [1] EUObserver, ‘Centralised states bad for economy, study shows’ | europe house believes federal europe
On the contrary a federal Europe will bring the countries a lot closer together. Matters of harmful policies will be a lot less than they are right now in the EU simply because separate states do exist now. However when there is just one state with all the nations in it – the harmful policies toward a certain state will be reduced to a minimum – after all the leaders will be managing one country and will be watching for the interests of all its people equally. Furthermore in a federal Europe the economic situation will even far better and faster than it is doing so now in the EU. As a matter of fact there are examples with the recently joined states, Bulgaria and Romania, which after 3 years still cannot catch up with the more advanced western states. In a federal Europe this particular problem will be sorted out, because everybody will be a part of one major and powerful country. Therefore in an economical aspect a federal Europe will manage a lot better than the European Union is right now. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Subsidiarity will deal with regional identities’ problem Federalism and subsidiarity, that things should be dealt with at the lowest, most local, level possible, [1] can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot. For example for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures. [1] Europa, ‘Subsidiarity’ | europe house believes federal europe
Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The concept of federalism lacks political support Euroscepticism is highest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary, with only 25%–32% viewing membership as a good thing. Belief that the citizen's country has benefited from EU membership is lowest (below 50%) in the UK, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. A significant minority (36%) do not tend to trust the European Parliament. The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people. [1] [1] Directorate-General for Communication, ‘EUROBAROMETER 71 Public opinion in the European Union’ | europe house believes federal europe
This is all a matter of PR. Politicians and leaders need to work harder in order to present the benefits of an eventual federal Europe, which will also deal with some of the problems the EU has today. The public opinion is not a constant; it is rather variable and changeable. Furthermore the EU is getting some bad evaluation at the moment due to the economic crisis, but this doesn’t mean the overall opinion toward it is negative. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-ehbfe-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Moves toward federalism will endanger the stability of the EU There are great dangers of forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go. An ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe could raise dormant nationalist feelings, promote the rise of populist politicians with xenophobic agendas and endanger the stability of the EU. A Gaullist “Europe of Nations” [1] preserves the current benefits of EU without the risks of further unwanted political integration. “(...)Dominant groups have more to gain from the majoritarian principle which is indispensable for constitutional democracies. As such, minorities would be placed at an ever more disadvantaged position in a European state. Thus, the progression of the EU into a federal state is bound to have a more negative than it would a positive impact on European integration.” [2] [1] Ross, ‘Chirac the Great or de Gaulle the Small?’ [2] Cocodia, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’ | europe house believes federal europe
Surely an ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe and forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go is a bad idea. However a federal Europe is the normal concurrence of the process of integration. And this is not against people’s will- “…He (Belgian ex-prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) said, “I don’t think people have said that they are against a United States of Europe”. The no votes in France and the Netherlands were, according to Verhofstadt, not “no votes against Europe, but were votes against a certain type of Europe… what people want is a strong Europe, a United States of Europe that can give an answer to their concerns”. [1] [1] Eurealist.co.uk, ‘United States of Europe’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Poaching is becoming more advanced A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals. [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’ [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’ [3] ibid | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The justice system does not currently work A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2] [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Natural habitats being are destroyed A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] . [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’” | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented. [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’ [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Poaching is linked to terrorism Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Fewer human deaths Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives. [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’ [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’” |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3] [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’ [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-iiahwagit-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: African countries have little money to spare Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit. [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’ [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’ | imals international africa house would african government implement tougher
There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted. The Lisbon Treaty significantly affects the workings of each member country. It gives the European Union a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements and member countries are now made subject to majority voting [1]. The Lisbon Treaty does not only affect international policies, criminal law and national justice systems, it also gives power over to the Commission and European Court. Such major changes must be put to popular vote, the citizens of each EU member state have a right to legitimise or reject these changes that push for a more centralized European superstate. Furthermore the will of the people needs to be trusted, if a reform is intentionally ambiguous and complicated, which was one of the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty [2], it is the job of the politician to explain the cause to the public. Voters should be included in the debate and key issues need to be highlighted not just ignored. [1] European Commission, Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, viewed on 13 June 2011 [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008). | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2]. [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011 [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The decision not to hold a referendum directly ignores the wishes of the people and is therefore undemocratic. The Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution have 96% of the same text. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who wrote the original EU Constitution, has publicly stated that the Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same as the proposed Constitution [1]. The decision from countries not to hold referendums in 2007 that they had previously agreed to is a flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people. Moreover the decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through national parliaments in France and the Netherlands where the 2004 Treaty was rejected in popular vote demonstrates that the decision not to hold referendums was in the fear that they would be rejected when put to the people. Any decision that is forced through parliament in the fear that it would fail when opened to the citizens of that country lacks legitimacy. [1] Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution’, The Independent (30 October 2007), viewed on 13 June 2011 | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
The decision not to hold a referendum was not one taken against the wishes of the people. Firstly, citizens of France and the Netherlands, who voted no to the Constitution in public vote, accepted the decision to not repeat a referendum in 2007. Furthermore, the accusation that the two texts are 96% identical is a crude one that ignores the fundamental difference in meaning that a few words can make [1] therefore the decision to not hold a referendum to ratify The Lisbon Treaty should not be seen in conjunction with the result of the Constitution referendum. This demonstrates that the decision not to hold a referendum was not against the people's wishes: it was largely accepted that accepting constitutional changes through the elected national parliament was democratically acceptable. [1] 'The EU Reform Treaty |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed. The pure size and logistics of the European Union is such that if every member state had to hold a referendum on all EU Treaties, no EU Treaties would get enacted. It is too likely that one of the member states will vote against a motion. The EU should be able to vote on issues without consulting the citizens of all member states, in the UK legislation is voted on in parliament which is made of constituency representatives. The concept for government's voting in representation of their countries within the EU is the same. Furthermore the UK did not hold a referendum on the war with Iraq, so why should a referendum be held for issues of lesser importance. | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
There is a difference between holding a referendum for every decision and holding one for important constitutional changes that will affect a nation's future sovereignty. The logistics and the fear of rejection should not be a reason to not hold a referendum. If anything the current controversy surrounding the war on Iraq and its legality is proof that referendums are fundamental in important issues to ensure that the ruling government still reflects the will of the people. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Voters do not understand or care about EU reforms. They would have found the legal jargon off-putting and a detailed knowledge of the existing EU Treaties is necessary to understand the amendments proposed 1. They have limited understanding of the current system and therefore cannot evaluate how reform treaties would benefit or harm the EU and their nation's interest. Due to this lack of understanding citizens are too likely to be swayed by media bias and anti Europe campaigners. All this is shown by the low turnout in European parliament elections. Elected representatives on the other hand, do understand the impact of the treaties and therefore can make an informed decision on the behalf of their people and in the nation's interest. 1 'An unloved Parliament', The Economist (7 May 2009), viewed on 13 June 2011 'Elections 2009', eu4journalists viewed on 13 June 2011 | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
Voters do care about EU reforms, and they are owed the respect of being told in layman's terms what specific treaty changes would do in real terms. The Lisbon Treaty was unnecessarily complicated and full of jargon (Browne, 'Gobbledegook'). It is the role of the politicians to make sure that treaties are easy to understand and accessible to all the citizens of the countries that they will affect. If the public is apathetic it is because they know their vote will ultimately be ignored. Democracy is paramount and in order to remain democratic EU reform needs to be passed by a public vote and not just the elected: prolonged elite avoidance of the engaging the public will be more detrimental in the long run1 1 Lu, Chien-Yi Lu, 'Fallacies in Embracing a |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Referendums are more about PR than politics. Referendum votes always end up being about something other than the issue on the ballot paper. In many referendum campaigns the real issue becomes one of confidence in the government of the day and its management of the economy, law and order, public scandals, etc. So when people vote they are expressing their unhappiness at their national government rather than making a considered judgment about the future of the EU. This is exactly what happened in the French and Dutch votes on the EU Constitution in 2005. When asked what influenced their decision, most voters said that they disliked aspects of EU enlargement, especially the arrival of Eastern European workers who might take local jobs, and the proposed entry negotiations with Turkey – but none of this was anything to do with the Constitution [1]. Furthermore a referendum would be pray to media distortion, which could have swayed the votes with biased coverage. Referendums are too often about government confidence rather than the issue at hand, people may have voted to express other grievances with their current government and not the future of the EU. [1] The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity?’ House of Lords European Union Committee (23 November 2006) viewed on 13 June 2011 , p.10 | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
All politics is PR. If democracy was abandoned every time that the media held sway with the public, then government would soon become a dictatorship. It is a government's job to take up this PR war and to inform the public about the pros and cons of possible reform so that they can make an informed decision. It is not simply good enough to declare that referendums don't work |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epvhwhranet-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Significant changes in the past have not been put to popular vote. In the past treaties with more far reaching consequences have been ratified by ruling parliaments without ever going to popular vote. For example the 1986 Act establishing a Single Market and the 1996 Maastricht Treaty. These treaties gave the EU power in economic regulation, immigration and monetary policy and yet were not put to majority voting. It was understood that progress was important and popular voting could halt progress. If these changes were made it is nonsensical that treaties with less significance should use a referendum. | europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty
The lack of referendums in the making of past decisions is not reason enough to neglect democracy in the present. Decisions that were made by past governments should be made accountable by present governments, because voting has been denied in the past gives even more reason to now open up these important decisions to popular vote. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The only just method Prosecuting offenders is the only way to get a just outcome when there have been horrific crimes committed. At a most principled level, those who commit a crime ought to be held accountable for their actions even if they are powerful or it damages the chances of peace because the powerful must be shown not to be above the law. Even where the law did not exist, or the leaders were in control of the law, international norms provide a standard for what actions merit prosecution, and judiciaries have been very good at convicting those who committed atrocities[1]. Having those who committed crimes convicted by law courts helps prevent those affected by atrocities holding grudges and put the past behind them so aiding the healing process [2]. [1] Moore, John J Jr ‘Problems With Forgiveness’ 43 Stanford Law Review 733, February 1991 [2] abc news, ‘Dallas Holocaust survivors welcome prosecution of former Nazi guard’, wfaa.com, 20 August 2010, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
Most often, prosecutions that occur are not just with only the losing side being prosecuted for their crimes. The Nuremburg trials prosecuted Nazi’s for offences they committed, but none of the Allied forces were ever brought for trial; Curtis LeMay who commanded the US Air Force in fire bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese himself said “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”[1] Prosecutions also focus on a small number of scapegoats, to the exclusion of the majority who showed sympathy for that regime, civilians that marched with the regime, or political supporters. An example of this is the prosecution of the military junta in Argentina in 1984-5 while Peronist supporters (the new government was peronist) were given amnesties under the ‘full stop’ program. It took another 20 years before more – 267 members of the military and police – were convicted.[2] The third reason why these trials may be unjust is that the laws that get created – in order to ensure that no one slips through the cracks – are usually so broad and generalist that they are virtually indefensible and fail to take context of the crimes into account. As such, the laws themselves are often manifestly unjust.[3] [1] ‘General Curtis E. LeMay, (1906-1990)’, PBS, accessed 24/2/2014, [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012, [3] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Prosecutions are needed for victims Prosecutions are the only way for victims to see those who caused pain against them brought to justice. The alternative of some kind of reconciliation often leaves those who perpetrated crimes able to retain power as has happened in countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Guatemala[1]. When this happens there is clearly a concern both that these individuals are not being held to account and that they could act in a similar way again if given the opportunity. Under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, victims have a right to see offenders prosecuted[2]. And it is only prosecution that will ensure that such acts cannot occur again so giving peace of mind to victims. [1] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147 [2] Akhavan, Payam, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities' American Journal of International Law, 95(1), 2001, pp.7-31 | africa global law human rights international law house believes
Victims are often no better off by seeking prosecutions, especially because prosecutions are often hard to make stick in the first place. But moreover, the process often involves victims having to relive their story while being cross examined, which further harms the victim. The continued trauma among genocide survivors in Rwanda is largely due to having to give testimonies in such cases [1]. [1] Redress and African rights, ‘Survivors and post genocide in Rwanda’, redress.org, November 2008, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: International prosecution encourages domestic justice By introducing internationally based prosecution, the laws are able to effectively filter down into the domestic system. The international system takes care of powerful offenders who might otherwise not receive a fair trial or be brought to justice. This then allows domestic courts to prosecute those involved in the crimes at a lower level. This has worked in Ivory coast where the former leader was brought to face charges committed at home and also helped stabilize the situation in the country [1]. [1] Smith, David, ‘Laurent Gbagbo appears before international criminal court’, thegurdian.com, 5 December 2011, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
By using international courts, countries do not actually gain skills or dependence within their own systems, but may instead become reliant on that system. However, such an international institution cannot handle all the cases and delays the process of justice; The ICTR have completely finished 47 cases in 20 years [1], a slow operation compared to the Rwandan local courts. The domestic Gacaca system has done much more trying nearly 2million suspects.[2] But this system has been reconciliatory in nature without forensic evidence and cross examination. [1] Will, Ross, ‘Rwanda genocide: Did Bizimungu trial take too long?’, bbc.co.uk, 17 May 2011, ‘Status of cases’, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, accessed 24/2/2014, [2] Kimenyi, Felly, and Asiimwe, Bosco, ‘Legal experts hail Gacaca’, newtimes.co.rw, 18 June 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Deters future offences By prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes future leaders are dissuaded from committing such acts [1]. When criminals are held accountable, the belief in the reliability of the legal system is enhanced, society is strengthened by the experience that the legal system is able to defend itself and the sense of justice is upheld or rectified [2]. Since the Office of the Prosecutor announced its interest in Colombia in 2006, the government has taken a number of measures particularly the Peace and Justice Law to ensure domestic prosecution of those who could potentially be tried by the ICC. The threat of ICC prosecution appears to have concerned former President Pastrana. Vincente Castrano (AUC) a paramilitary leader was fearful of the possibility of ICC prosecution, a fear that reportedly directly contributed to his group’s demobilisation[3]. [1] Safferlin, Christoph J.M., ‘Can Criminal prosecution be the answer to massive Human Rights Violations?’, issafrica.org, [2] Grono, Nick, ‘ The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders ’, globalpolicy.org, 5 October 2012, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
Deterrence doesn’t work as people who commit these atrocities usually don’t believe they will be caught, or don’t care. Further, prosecutions can actually cause more offenses in the future, as supporters of those prosecuted seek revenge for the prosecution occurring. We have seen this in Sudan where President Bashir’s indictment by the ICC has done little to halt attacks on civilians in both Darfur and, more recently, South Kordofan [1]. [1] Jennifer, Christian and James, Bair, ‘ Why does the world allow Sudan’s Bashir to target civilians? ’, globalpost.com, 30 July 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Prosecutions don't get to the real truth Truth is the most important factor that supports the healing process. Individuals when being prosecuted have incentives to hide crimes and lie about the true motivations for offences occurring as they don’t want to go to prison for telling the truth. This means that the whole truth of matters never really come to light. TRC’s, such as that in South Africa, do a very good job of ensuring that the full record of human rights abuses come to light [1].The Rwandan Gacaca courts which encompasses three important features of relevance to broader experiments of reconciliatory justice serve as a lesson. Those who confess their crimes are rewarded with the halving of prison sentences and as a result, 60,238 prisoners have confessed to participating in the genocide [2]. Second, gacaca law highlights apologies welcomed by many as an important ingredient to promote reconciliation. [1] Linfield, Susie, ‘Trading Truth for Justice? Reflections on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, bostonreview,net, 01 June 2000, [2] Graybill, Lyn, and Lanegran , Kimberly, ‘Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and Cases’, ufl.edu, Fall 2004, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
Prosecutions allow an equal chance for both prosecution and defense to show the truth as they believe it with the result that far more facts are brought to life than a process that is reliant only on the individual being ‘truthful’. Moreover an amnesty may not be forever as it is against the norms of international justice so it is unlikely that they will tell the whole truth.[1] Argentina for example has seen the prosecution of those who were given amnesties two decades earlier [2]. [1] Ahmed, Anees and Quayle, Merryn, ‘Can genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be pardoned or amnestied?’, sas.ac.uk, 28 January 2008, [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Fear of prosecutions cause leaders to do more damage Instead of giving up fighting, leaders continue to fight, disrupting the ability of a country to move on, for fear of prosecution. Pol Pot, for example, rebuilt armies and continued to fight long after his regime was overthrown, killing thousands more people. Had an amnesty been offered, he might well have given up and allowed the country to heal with far less death. Joseph Kony also continues to plague Uganda from within bush land even though he has offered to surrender for amnesty, because the ICC refuses to grant him any indemnity for his crimes [1]. [1] BBC news Africa, ‘LRA leader Joseph Kony 'in surrender talks' with CAR’, bbc.co.uk, 20 November 2013, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
It is the threat of prosecutions that cause leaders to fear committing crimes in the first place. The best way to stop leaders causing damage is for them to be deterred from doing so by being held accountable of their deeds. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aglhrilhb-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Peace more important than Justice In practice, prosecutions often come at the expense of other forms of reconciliation. For instance before Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can work amnesties have to be given for people to be willing to tell their stories. In order for people to put down weapons, or agree to tell stories, prosecutions must be given up. This is evident with the conflict is South Sudan; the opposition which had signed the ceasefire agreement to restore stability in the region, breached it and started fighting again when many of its members were indicted for the crimes they had committed [1]. In such case the most important thing is to prevent future atrocities as healing can only start when there is no conflict or atrocities going on. [1] Deustche Welle, ‘South Sudan: Rebels Strike Oil Centre, Breaching Ceasefire’, allafrica.com, 18 February 2014, | africa global law human rights international law house believes
This often leads to a scenario where leaders grant themselves immunity, or continue to commit atrocities, in the comfort of knowing that immunity is coming. Those in the CIA who committed what many consider to have been torture were granted immunity by the justice department claiming that it would be unfair to prosecute men and women working to protect America [1]. Such an immunity or amnesty can then be used to close discussions to find the truth and effectively shut of the healing process. [1] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers’, thegurdian.com, 31 August 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology has driven youths to identify new markets A key technology for youths are mobile phones and devices. Across West and East Africa the possession of mobile phones has enabled citizens to network and form solutions to social problems. By 2015, there are expected to be 1 billion mobile cellular subscriptions in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sambira, 2013). This is the first African generation directly accessing high-technology, although uncertainty remains in the amount of youths having access to technology. Through mobile phones new business opportunities, and flows of money, are being created. Furthermore, mobile phones are providing innovative solutions to health care treatment, ensuring better health for future entrepreneurs and youths. SlimTrader is a positive example [1] . SlimTrader uses mobile phones to provide a range of vital services - from airplane and bus tickets to medicine. The innovative e-commerce provides a space to advertise skills, products, and opportunities - to, on the one hand, identify new consumer demands; and on another hand, create notices to exchange goods. Mobile technology is making it faster, quicker, and simpler to tap into new markets [2] . [1] See further readings: SlimTrader, 2013; Ummeli, 2013. [2] See further readings: Nsehe, 2013. Inspite of challenges Patrick Ngowi has earned millions through the construction of Helvetic Solar Contractors. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Currently 3 in 4 youths work informally or within vulnerable employment - working without a formal written contract (Work4Youth, 2013). Although technology may create new markets it will not change the type of employment youths engage in. The use of technology will mean a majority of youths will continue to work informally - without access to social security, a valuable pension scheme, and social protection in the event of a crisis. Self-employment and having the flexibility to connect to different markets provides a temporary fix and income. Stability and security is not provided for youths. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology has enabled Africa’s cultural industries to grow. Technology has enabled the development of entrepreneurial ideas for business, but also within Africa’s cultural industry. Access to video recording mobile phones, the internet, and televised publications has created a new culture of expression for African youths. Cultural industries are raising critical questions for politics, and empowering youth to tell their stories. The use of journalism has become mobilised by youths - as seen in initiatives such as, African Slum Voices, of which are encouraging youths to pro-actively raise their opinions and voices on issues occurring within their communities. Furthermore, the music and film industry in Africa has arisen as a result of access to new technologies at a lower-cost. Two key components responsible for the growth of Nollywood (Nigeria’s Film Industry) include access to digital technology and entrepreneurship. Youths have become vital within Nollywood, as actors, producers and editors. Today Nollywood’s low-budget films have inspired the growth of regional film industries across Africa and contributed to its status as the third largest film industry. Nollywood’s revenue stand’s at around $200mn a year [1] . [1] See further readings: ABN, 2013. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Cultural industries don’t always provide a positive role. If entrepreneurial youths today are using technology to create films on witchcraft in the public sphere, what effect will this have on future generations? Growth cant just rely on creative industries as there needs to be money created to drive demand for these films, and any money that might be made by the creative industries are undermined by piracy. Without a solution small time films are hardly the most secure of jobs. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology will lead job growth for youths. The rate of unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa remains above the global average, at 7.55% in 2011, with 77% of the population in vulnerable employment [1] . Economic growth has not been inclusive and jobs are scarce. In particular, rates of youth unemployment, and underemployment, remain a concern [2] . On average, the underutilisation of youths in the labour market across Sub-Saharan Africa stood at 67% in 2012 (Work4Youth, 2013). Therefore 67% of youths are either unemployed, inactive, or in irregular employment. The rate of unemployment varies geographically and across gender [3] . There remains a high percentage of youths within informal employment. Technology can introduce a new dynamic within the job market and access to safer employment. Secure, high quality jobs, and more jobs, are essential for youths. Access to technology is the only way to meet such demands. Technology will enable youths to create new employment opportunities and markets; but also employment through managing, and selling, the technology available. [1] ILO, 2013. [2] Definitions: Unemployment is defined as the amount of people who are out of work despite being available, and seeking, work. Underemployment defines a situation whereby the productive capacity of an employed person is underutilised. Informal employment defines individuals working in waged and/or self employment informally (see further readings). [3] Work4Youth (2013) show, on average, Madagascar has the lowest rate of unemployment (2.2%) while Tanzania has the highest (42%); and the average rate of female unemployment stands higher at 25.3%, in contrast to men (20.2%). | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Recent evidence by the World Bank indicates unemployment is not only due to the limited availability of jobs. A high proportion of youths have been identified as ‘idle’ - not in school, training, or work, and not actively seeking employment. Although variations are found, in 2009 only ~2% of male youths, aged 15-24, and ~1% of female youths, who were not in school or employment in Tanzania, were actively looking for work [1] . Without motivation technology will not make a difference. [1] WDR, 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology is building a platform for sharing ideas. Entrepreneurialism can be encouraged through an awareness, and sharing, of new ideas. The technological revolution has provided a platform for personal expression, delivery of up-to-date news, and the vital sharing of local ideas and thoughts. In Nigeria the Co-Creation Hub has emerged, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit. Further, Umuntu and Mimiboards’ are connecting individual communities to the web by encouraging local content creation [1] . Such platforms are enabling the transfer of knowledge and innovative ideas. Innovative solutions are being introduced to routine problems, such as ‘Mafuta Go’ an app to find the best price for petrol (Christine Ampaire). [1] See further readings: Co-Creation Hub Nigeria, 2013 | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Such platforms are known, and accessible, by a minority within Africa - limiting who benefits from the technology available. Rising entrepreneurs across Africa typically are able to access resources required and network their ideas, whilst a majority of youths remain out of the innovation loop. As inequality disparities continue to increase in Africa, a similar trend is identifiable to youth technology and entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurs rising in Africa show the future of a ‘young millionaire’s club’. They hold the right connections, access to credit and electricity, and time to apply to their business model. The millionaire entrepreneurs continue to create new technologies - not vice-versa. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Changing education systems and democracy. Technology has enabled access to e-books and resources for students and teachers [1] . Such changes have enabled improved efficiency in teaching, with the availability of up-to-date resources and awareness of relevant theories. Furthermore, the ease by which students are able to access multiple resources and buy books online is expanding their intellectual curiosity and library. In addition to raising new students, technology can be seen as a tool for democracy. Technology provides a tool for government accountability, transparency in information, and for good governance. Organisations, such as Ushahidi (Crowdmapping) following Kenya’s 2007 post-election violence; and mySociety which updates citizens on parliamentary proceedings in South Africa, show how technology is feeding democratisation for youths [2] . [1] See further readings: Turcano, 2013. [2] See further readings: Treisman, 2013; Usahidi, 2013. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Despite programs distributing technology into schools does the availability of technology provides future benefits? Having a tablet does not ensure teachers are well-trained to assist and guide the children. Without proper oversight it might prove more of a distraction. Technology in schools might also mean students having technology substituted for teachers. With programs still being implemented, and results variable, the causality between technology, education, and the rise of well educated, motivated, youths remains precarious. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The technological revolution has been hyped. Debates may be raised as to whether the technological revolution is actually a reality across Africa [1] . Have expectations been too high; the benefits exclusive; and the reality over-exaggerated? On the one hand, the type of technology raises significant questions. Although the population with access to a mobile phone has risen, the quality of the phones indicates a hyped-reality. Although technology has become easily accessible, the quality of such technologies puts constraints on what it can be used for. A vast majority of mobile phones are imported from China - at low-cost but also poor quality. Quality testing on imports, and locally produced products, is needed to approve market devices. On another hand, the reality of internet connectivity is not high-speed, and therefore of limited use. Better connectivity emerges in certain geographical locations, to those who can afford higher prices, and within temporary fluxes. [1] See further readings: BBC World Service, 2013. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
The technological revolution across Africa is broad, ranging from mobile technology to internet connectivity. The availability of mobiles has broadened who can use technology - being more inclusive to multiple socio-economic groups. Internet.org [1] has been established to resolve issues, making connectivity affordable. The initiative, which involves a collaborative partnership between Facebook and technological organisations, has a vision of ensuring access to the internet for the two-thirds who remain unconnected. Connectivity is a fundamental necessity to living in our ‘knowledge economy’. Their mission has centred on three aspects: affordability, improving efficiency, and innovative partnerships to expand the number of people connected. Intervention has therefore focused on removing barriers to accessing information by connecting people. Furthermore in Kenya, mobile phones have been made accessible to a wider audience through the removal of the general sales tax in 2009. [1] See further readings: Internet.org, 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology has only benefited private companies. Ultimately, technology, its provision, distribution, and function, is based on a business model. Profits are sought and losers emerge. The technology hype has attracted global technology giants, ranging from IBM to Google – a key issue as to whether entrepreneurialism can emerge amongst youths and technology used sustainably. The monopolisation of technology markets by multinational companies puts constraints on the ability for small businesses to break through. Any profits created are not recirculated in their locality, or Africa, but return to the country of origin. For entrepreneurialism to be gained, and youth jobs emerge, the technological giants investing in Africa’s rising future need to partner with communities and small businesses. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Several examples may be found on established partnerships between multinational technology firms and civil-society groups. Microsoft has become a key investor in South Africa to tackle youth unemployment. Microsoft has established a Students to Business initiative in South Africa, aiming to build human capital and provide professional skills to students, thus assisting job opportunities. Multinational companies are investing in youths as they recognise the burden of high unemployment and the potential talents youth have. By providing young students with key skills and sharing knowledge, a new generation of technology developers, leaders, and entrepreneurs will arise. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology remains insecure and a security risk. The internet remains at risk. Cybersecurity is a key concern, and the prevalence of hacking events across Africa identifies the need to promote security for the new digital users. Cyber-crime costs the Kenyan government around Ksh.2 billion (Mutegi, 2013); and affects around 70% of South Africans. In order to encourage more users in technology their safety, against fraud, hacking, and identity theft, needs to be prioritised. Without security technology can’t help entrepreneurs as customer details, business plans etc can’t be kept private. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Technology is enhancing security, not threatening it. Measures are being implemented to ensure cyber-security and further technology is creating new, local, initiatives for security on the ground. Ushahidi Crowdmapping - an interactive, collective, mapping tool - was used to expose, and remember, political violence that occurred in Kenya’s 2007 presidential election [1] . [1] See further readings: Ushahidi, 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-siacphbnt-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Technology will not result in entrepreneurialism without providing a foundational basis. The key constraint for entrepreneurship is the lack of access to finance, credit, and basic infrastructure - whether a computer or technical skills on how to use different systems. Limited accessibility acts as an obstacle to entrepreneurialism. In order to encourage an inclusive capability for youths to get involved in entrepreneurial ideas, technology training and equal start-up credit is required. Furthermore, dangers arise where credit has become easily accessible - putting individuals at risk of debt where a lack of protection and payment planning is provided. Kenya’s Uwezo Fund provides a positive example, whereby action has been taken to provide youths with safe credit. The government collaboration is calling for youths to apply for grants and loans in a bid to encourage entrepreneurial activity for all. Loans are interest-free. | ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies
Credit is now becoming more accessible through technology. Mobile-banking schemes such as MPESA across East Africa and ZAAB in Somalia, use mobile phones to transfer money and payments. The mobile banking scheme is increasing the efficiency of borrowing money from social circles, enabling quick transactions to be carried out, and introducing users to a wealth of market opportunities. Technology is integral to entrepreneurship. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them. | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined. [1] [1] University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country. Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust. [1] The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009 [2] ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level. Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further. [1] University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005. [2] ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home." [1] [1] ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks." [1] [1] ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union. [1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour. [1] European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30th October 2010 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority. Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access. Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’. [1] ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010 [2] ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997 [1] . The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism [2] . Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement. [1] Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey [2] ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1st May 2007 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power Turkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%) [1] , so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives. [1] European Union (EU-15) & Constituent Nation Population from 1950 & Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey is too big to be safely included within the EU. The Turkish population - estimated at 65.6 million in 2000 - is on current growth trends forecast to rise to 87.3 million by 2025, making it the largest single state in the EU [1] . As population size determines representation and voting strength in the Council of Ministers, and in the European Parliament, Turkey would be able to dominate EU decision-making and set its own agenda, to the disadvantage of existing members. [1] Population projections of countries and their coastal regions: Turkey |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU. Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights. | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution [1] . Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem. [1] ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10th June 2010 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Turkey has a poor human rights record Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts." [1] The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned." [2] Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions. [1] ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004 [2] ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004 | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey has a large number of pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights [1] . Police use of torture is widespread against PKK members and sympathisers. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a separate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. Peaceful protestors, including (but not only) those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994 there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country [2] . There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press. It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizou Case [3] . Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession. [1] Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, 1st October 2009 [2] United Nations Commission on Human Rights [3] Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, summary Loizuo and others v Turkey |
arguana-qrel-test-international-aegmeppghw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd". Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU. Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country. | americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would
Turkey is not a European country - 95% of the nation’s landmass is on the wrong side of the Hellespont, in Asia. If Turkey is allowed into the European Union, not only would the institution’s very name become nonsensical, but it would be impossible to place a limit upon its potential future expansion. If Gibraltar belonged to Morocco rather than Britain, would we have said yes to Morocco’s application to join the European Union? Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde in 2002 - "The day after you open negotiations with Turkey, you would have a Moroccan demand (for membership of the union)" [1] . One could of course then argue that Turkey should not be the only geographically non-European member of the European Union and that Morocco and Armenia would make excellent candidates. But if Morocco, why not Algeria? If Armenia, why not Azerbaijan? French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in January 2007: "Turkey has no place inside the European Union. I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union. Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept." [2] If there is to be a limit then it makes sense that this limit should be at Europe’s geographical borders. [1] ‘Turkey not part of Europe’ by Randall Parker, 8th November 2002 [2] 15th January 2007 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The partition of Ireland was undemocratic The people of Northern Ireland should have decided whether or not they wanted to be united with Northern Ireland, rather than it being battled out in the British Parliament and the country partitioned by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920* that created a separate parliament for the six counties of Northern Ireland.** It was because the vote was not put to the Irish that the Unionists could twist arms and manipulate British politicians into allowing the six counties to remain part of the UK. After partition, the Unionists fixed electoral boundaries so there would never be a Republican majority in an electorate. This was unjust and illegitimately prevented a pro-Republic vote passing in future. * Government of Ireland Act, 1920, ** Ferriter, ‘Ireland in the Twentieth Century’, | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
An attempt at a plebiscite in 1921/22 under the specter of a war of independence and civil war would have been fraught with danger and even more open to intimidation than the House of Commons. It would be undemocratic to relinquish Northern Ireland today, because recent polls have shown that the majority of people want to remain within the UK. * *Moriarty, 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Economic efficiency A Unified Ireland would be better off economically. “Ireland is too small for two separate administrations….There is a draw towards the greater integration of services, structures and bodies on an all-Ireland basis in order to deliver quality services and economies of scale.” – Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland* Having two electricity grids, two transport networks, two separate police and judiciary hamper economic growth and waste resources that could be better used in a unified system, as cost would lower as efficiency rises. *McGuinness, 2010, | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
If you were to adopt a federal system, which would best please Unionists, the systems would not integrate very much anyway as Northern Irish ‘states’ would want their own state constitution and have separate judiciary to the rest of Ireland, as is the practice in the US. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Britain is morally obliged to permit the secession of northern Ireland The age of colonialism is over. We recognize that the dominance of one country over another is morally wrong. Ireland was already in the hands of the Irish people before English earls and kings invaded. The Irish had a right to the ownership of their land because they cultivated it and so put their labor into it. The use of force to seize that land from the people’s control is unjust because it denies them the right they had to their land. They had no choice to voluntarily hand over their land either. To right this historical wrong, the British government should relinquish Northern Ireland, just as they have decolonized the rest of the world ending the British empire except for a few scattered outposts. Since Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 Northern Ireland is the only remaining colony with a significant population and independent identity. | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
The Unionists in Northern Ireland who wish to remain part of the UK should have the freedom to do so. To disown Northern Ireland would be a second involuntary decision made by an outsider. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It would be easier to protect the rights of religious minorities within a united Ireland Unrest in Northern Ireland was started by the appalling treatment of the Catholic minority there. When there was a Northern Ireland Parliament there was some gerrymandering, while the discrimination in representation was slight very few nationalists were able to get senior jobs, in the civil service for example in 1927 fourteen of the 229 officers of staff officer rank or above, or 6 per cent, were Catholic, while in 1959 there were forty-six Catholics out of 740 in such ranks, or once again, 6 per cent.* Over the years reforms have been introduced but there is still huge stigma against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, who have little representation in politics, because it is dominated by Unionist rhetoric. The best way to ensure equal treatment of the Catholics in Ireland is to unite majority Protestant Northern Ireland with Catholic majority Republic of Ireland, where they will be better represented in politics and not stigmatized by their neighbors. *Whyte, 1983, | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
There is no evidence that the Catholic population today suffers a bias in the current political system, except for that which they make for themselves. As of 2010 the Catholic representation in the House of Commons is 5 Sinn Fein and 3 SDLP against 8 Democratic Unionists,* it is only the fact that the Sinn Fein members do not take up their seats that make things uneven. In the NI Assembly things are slightly more skewed. As of 2011 there are 55 Unionists and 43 Republicans.** Attacks against Catholics are not based on religious lines. Unionist attacks are only focused on those Catholics that are Republicans. In general Catholics are perfectly safe in Northern Ireland. Additionally in united Ireland, the Protestants would become the marginalized minority. Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland***, for example, which will inhibit the freedom of non- Catholics. Such laws are likely to stay because of the overwhelming Catholic majority. *Parliament.uk, 2011, **Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011, ***Wikipedia, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Uniting Ireland would bring about an end to sectarian violence A united Ireland doesn’t have to marginalize the Protestant population. If they are included more in the political process there can be debate, discussion and an airing of grievances which can then be resolved. There is little sense of attachment to the UK, and British institutions. Much like the Scottish and Welsh, the Northern Irish feel Northern Irish. This shows that the ties to Britain are not emotional, but political. It is clear that Unionists just want to have power over how they run their lives. If Unionists are included in the political process in a united Ireland they will have no grievances and there will finally be a lasting peace. | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
We are at peace now. The Good Friday Agreement has created stability, with the exception of occasional outbreaks but nothing like the horror of The Troubles. We do not need re-unification to have stability. In fact, the positive outcome that might happen is unsure and not a reason worth gambling on. It is likely that there will be conflict in the beginning. Such a huge move will come to Unionists as a shock and without knowing how much power they will have, having to answer to Dublin, it is likely that paramilitary activities will flare up again. This will, of course, spark off IRA and other Republican attacks. If escalations get worse, the British may intervene as well as the Irish army and there may be an entire repeat of The Troubles. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland do not support unification The Good Friday agreement affirmed “That if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments [UK and Ireland] to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.* However as yet the Northern Irish do not wish to exercise this right. In a recent survey conducted by The Northern Ireland Life and Times it transpired that, “Overall, 73 per cent believe the long-term policy for the North should be maintaining the union, with 58 per cent supporting devolution and 15 per cent in favour of direct rule. Just 16 per cent want a united Ireland, with 3 per favoring an independent Northern Ireland.” This is not just amongst the Protestant population. The survey also showed that, “just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favoring a return to direct rule from Westminster.”** *NIO, 1998, **Moriarty, 2011, | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
It is highly probable that opinion will shift. Current statistics reflect the fact that this generation has lived through The Troubles. The next generation is likely to see a nation divided, which appears to so obviously belong together. There is no evidence that current opinion will not change with time. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Unification would reignite civil disorder and violent factionalism among Irish communities As shown above, the Northern Irish don’t want to unite with the Republic. The Irish in the Republic will also resent the new drain on their economy. Either the Republican parties in Ireland will resent having to concede some power to new political entities or the Unionists will resent being marginalized. The recent reoccurrence of violence in Belfast is being attributed to the breakdown of protestant communities and low job prospects for young protestants. Both of these problems will be exacerbated in a majority Catholic Ireland. All of these examples illustrate how unrest is likely to breakout again in a united Ireland. | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
There are many ways to resolve some of these issues. Firstly, regarding political resentment, a system of federalism is likely to ensure some level of political autonomy on both sides. Secondly, such a huge project is likely to attract funds from the UN, EU, the IMF, from charities from private donors etc. So, the former Republic of Ireland will not be subsidizing the Northern Irish, nor will the Northerners be left without support. There will most likely to be international bodies and charities monitoring the transition too, so that any outburst of violence can be contained or reported. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-epglghbni-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Unification would be damaging for the economies of both parts of Ireland The Republic of Ireland is currently in a crisis. It is the I in P.I.G.S, the European Union countries whose economies are bust and require a bailout package. It would not be to the benefit of either Northern Ireland joining such a fragile economy, nor would it be good for the Republic of Ireland, having the cut back on public spending whilst trying to integrate Northern Irish transport/police systems etc. Northern Ireland is a weak economy anyway and a lot of employment comes from the public sector, 30% compared to the UK average of 21%.* The region is £9billion in the red or £5,502 per person, three times the UK average.** These jobs will obviously no longer be an option under re-unification and so there is likely to be mass employment amongst the newly integrated Northern Irish. To counter this, money from Republican taxpayers will have to go to subsidize business/building projects etc in the way the Germans in the West still subsidize the Eastern parts of Germany, over 50 years since the wall came down. *HM Treasury, 2011, p.9 **Fitzpatrick, 2011, | europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland
Economic fortunes rise and fall all the time. Many in Northern Ireland looked up enviously during the Republic’s boom. There were even clamors from Northern Irish politicians to lower the corporate tax in Northern Ireland to match the Republic’s success. So, economic reasons for opposing unification don’t stand in the long run. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program. New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states. Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism. Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported. [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty will make for a safer world. Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1] The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies. The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace. On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world. [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010. [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010. [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace. [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence. The US’ Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START. “The Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond.” [1] Both US Military and civilian leaders insist that the new START treaty will still allow the US to deploy effective missile defenses, something which Russia was opposed to, and so will not affect US missile defense plans. The main limit on missile defense is that the treaty prevents the conversion of existing launchers for this purpose this would be more expensive than building new missiles specifically for defense purposes. [2] Furthermore, as Joe Biden argues, New START is important to Russian cooperation on missile defense: "This [missile defense] system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December." [3] In many ways, in the 21st Century having an abundance of nuclear weapons, particularly having too many, is more of a liability than an advantage. The United States will be far safer with fewer nuclear weapons in the world and a stronger, more stable relationship with Russia under New START, and this is desirable. Therefore it is clear that New START maintains the important parts of US nuclear capabilities while removing the over-abundance which may become a liability due to security and medical concerns, and so New START should be supported. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [2] ibid [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US Not only does New START leave in place Russia’s extant tactical nuclear advantage but it has further loopholes for Russian weapons. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers." [1] New START also fails to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which Russia could potentially make use of. The definition of rail-mobile ICBM launchers was established in the expired START as “an erector-launcher mechanism for launching ICBMs and the railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.” [2] This and associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in the New START. This makes it possible for Russia to claim that any new Rail Mobile ICBMs are not subject to New START limitations. [3] Mitt Romney worries that Russia is already working to take advantage of these omissions: “As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. …. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs." [4] This means that under the treaty limits, the United States is the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has managed to negotiate the treaty limits so that they simply restrict it to reductions it was already planning to do. As a result the United States is making what are effectively unilateral reductions. [5] Therefore, New START is an unequal treaty as it offers more to Russia than to the US. This is bad for the balance of power and thus bad for world peace, and so New START should be opposed. [1] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. [2] ‘Terms and Definitions’, The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms And Associated Documents, 1991, [3] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [4] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. [5] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3] Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling. [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation, [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010, [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Problems with Verification. Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it. Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles. [1] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2] When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today. [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010, [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3, [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010, [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1] While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2] New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3] Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported. [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010. [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [3] Ibid. [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1] If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-glilpdwhsn-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2] New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7] [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010. [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State, [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010, [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State, [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. | global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] . [1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 [2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 [3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Resource abundance has led to poor governance Corruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth. [1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 [2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 [3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 [4] Ibid [5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success. [1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 [2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Foreign companies gain most of the profits The majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] . Kofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services. [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 [2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 [3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 [4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal. [1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 [2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Resources are a source of conflict There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa. [1] Pandergast, 2008, [2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way. [1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Bring Africa out of poverty The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] . [1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 [2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 [3] Ibid | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists. [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 [2] Ibid |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Natural resources create employment The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa. [1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs. The presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] . [1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 [2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 |
arguana-qrel-test-international-sepiahbaaw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Source of trade Natural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria. [1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 | ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse
The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income. [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 [2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 [3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Teacher training Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key. Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] . Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training. [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013. [2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project. [3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
The issue is not teachers or investment per se, rather the structure of teaching used. The curriculum is focused on passing exams to meet the MDG criteria and get students to the next stage. There remains a need to incorporate the teaching of life skills for potential career options, and encouraging students to engage in innovative thinking and explore interests. UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Education approach is a clear example, whereby the child’s need is the central focus. Technology is changing teaching, and teacher training needs to be less theoretical; more focused on the subjective needs of the children. Further, challenges to teacher training are prevalent. For example, not all schools are government owned - with faith bodies, private sector and NGOs establishing schools. The diversity of ownership creates challenges for regulating training provided. By focusing on teaching curriculum the national government can enforce national policy change. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers UNESCO (2013) report the need for 6.8mn teachers by 2015 for the right to primary education to be achieved. The teaching workforce requires includes both replacements and additional teachers. Africa has a reality of low teacher-student ratios. In 2012, 80 students were reported per teacher in the Central African Republic (World Bank, 2013). Positive schemes are needed to incentivise potential teachers to enter the profession and meet demand. Careers can be encouraged through multiple paths. For example, providing incentives to study teaching as a profession. Tanzania’s Ministry of Education provides grants to students entering University to study teaching. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
Firstly, encouraging teaching as a employment path does not ensure committed or motivated teachers are gained. Secondly, the problem is advocating ‘universal’ education when the infrastructure does not match. Low teacher ratios per student indicate the need for new buildings, and bigger schools. Facilities need to be improved with space for more classes. Schools need to be designed to enable diverse learning - such as space for IT, games, and public discussions. The experience of learning is broader, and goes beyond the classroom. Good education is not solely reliant on the teacher, but on what the student is able to engage in and how they can learn to raise new ideas and questions. Investment is therefore required in new schools and universities. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need. In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
A positive intervention to tackle geographical disparities in education is by introducing long-distance learning. ICT and technology makes such a reality possible. Such proposals require institutional change. The capacity of local, and regional, government bodies need to be built to enable decentralisation. Community centres can be used for distance learning, forming schools that are adaptable to the needs of rural children and families. However, for such proposals we need to focus on decentralisation and ensuring good governance amongst local and regional actors. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Social Policy for satisfied teachers The creation of national social policies which provide secure, and stable, wages for teachers is fundamental. Social policy can make satisfied teachers. A key concern amongst teachers is finance - inadequate wages and insurance. Teacher wages is considerably lower than other formal professions - combining to enforce low morale and occupational motivation as pay is too low to sustain individuals and households (Bennell, 2004). In South Africa an average teaching salary is 19,535 ZAR in contrast to the 28,235 ZAR average granted in all jobs in South Africa (Salary Explorer, 2013). Further, social policy is required to introduce teacher pension schemes. Pension schemes are provided for workers within the formal employment sector, by various public organisations - including the government and GEPF [1] . However, some national pension schemes are more developed than others and teachers need to be ensured the profession can provide investments for future security. An ageing population only reinforces its importance. [1] See further readings: GEPF, 2013. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
A key concern for government’s education policy is ensuring efficiency in the allocation of resources. Investment is required in management structures - to ensure teachers accept the social contract of responsibility, and duty, to the services provided and enable the efficient allocation of public resources. Weaknesses have been identified with regards to resources being lost or misused in districts or schools. The rising cases of ‘Ghost teachers’ - teachers who are not real but created to exist on paper - indicates the scope of chaotic management structures and persistent corruption. Resources are being lost through cases of manipulation, whether by teachers or government officials embezzling money. Reports from Sierre Leone, Uganda, and Libya, showcase the concerning reality [1] . Before higher wages can be provided, forgeries need to be resolved. A system needs to be built which enables monitoring to ensure real teachers are paid and found. [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2012; The Informer, 2013; and BBC News, 2008. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Colonial legacies: the issue of language A fundamental restriction to achieving universal education in several African countries is not teachers, as a resource, but rather the lack of a national language. Colonialism enforced national boundaries, of which remain mismatched to ethnicity and language. African nations remain some of the most diverse in the world. With the exception of Tanzania, whereby Julius Nyerere used policy to create a sense of national unity and language, many African nations placed minimal focus on nationalisation. Around 46 languages are spoken in Zambia. Such language diversities make universal education difficult. Therefore, presidents such as Paul Kagame, have the right approach of enforcing a national language. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
Proposals for basing education, and teaching, on a universal language raise criticism. Will students be able to ask for assistance at home and amongst their community if the language taught is not understood? Does enforcing a national language return to unequal relations of power - overriding the history and ethnic diversity of said nation? Shouldn’t national governments be more sensitive to local communities and group identities? Finally, what language will be chosen, and how will the decision be made? The implementation of a national language introduces a risk of conflict in unstable countries. It also needs to be remembered that a national language has to be taught; something which requires investment in teachers. |
arguana-qrel-test-international-atiahblit-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The MDG is the barrier Significant progress has been made in meeting the MDG in Africa, therefore criticism needs to be raised on the MDG themselves. The MDG are unrealistic, unfair, and the benchmarks set fail to acknowledge progress made (Easterly, 2009). The barrier to achieving universal education is not a lack of investment, rather inappropriate targets. | ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers
Critiquing the foundation of the MDG does not resolve the reality that around 56mn children are still unable to use their right to education (UN, 2013). |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.