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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011


Western societies are secularly focused  Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society.  1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women.  Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination.  1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011


Religious symbols cause division within Western society.  Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.  1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011


A ban would be simple to enforce.  A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with.  1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11


Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others.  At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


It is their culture and religion.  Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1  1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011


If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things.  Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols.  1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011


Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people.  Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live.  1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


PMCs give value for money  Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Outsourcing when necessary will reduce the cost of the force. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War (PBS News Hour, 2004). This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races which can be cripplingly expensive as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union.


PMCs can be made much more legitimate by regulation  Currently mercenary work as a profession is not regulated by law, which allows the corruption and lack of guaranteed quality, as well as the problems of accountability to remain problematic. Regulating PMCs encourage a safer, professionalised security sector which can be standardised and controlled. Governments would then legislate, regulate and moderate the use of such forces rather than provide them outright. PMCs today are legitimate businesses, much of their work has nothing to do with fighting and killing MPRI for example "shipped more than $900,000,000 worth of donated food and medical supplies to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union over a five year period”. These companies are already placing greater emphasis on having a good reputation and are increasingly transparent so many companies would welcome regulation.(Vaknin, 2011)


PMCs provide a service that may be otherwise unavailable.  Many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies but for those which cant, mercenary forces provide an invaluable and possibly only mode of protection and security. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role” (The Economist, 2002). Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup. Recruiting local mercenaries also has the benefits of reducing transportation costs, instant readiness as well as any knowledge of the local politics, geography and customs which may be highly valuable to a security force. These local recruits may be less inclined to share this information with a government force.


PMCs are a valuable resource  PMCs are a flexible and efficient tool with which to fight 21st Century wars making them a necessity. Private contractors can be hired at short notice and used only when necessary. They can be used to carry out specific missions, to reinforce traditional troops where greater numbers are required or to protect other contractors whilst traditional troops carry out more lucrative missions. Additionally, most PMCs are non-combative but rather defensive, providing security for officials, supply trains etc. As a result they are viewed less as invaders or “the enemy” and more as peace-keepers.


PMCs have an equally strong incentive to perform.  PMCs must perform carefully and effectively to secure future contracts. It is therefore in their interests to ensure their employees are well- trained and well-equipped and perform to the highest standard. Most PMCs recruit ex-service personnel as a way to ensure the quality of their force. In 2004 more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the army. Additionally, governments increasingly recognise the quality of mercenaries. PMCs and regular militaries cross over on occasion: An American PMC -Military Professional Resources Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf of the US Government (Lock, 2011). The British Ministry of Defence now allows soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope they will return having earned more in the private sector. This official recognition suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image. They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national governments


PMCs attract less attention and suspicion and can carry out their role more effectively.  Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff. As they are mercenaries they can be fighting for the national or local government of where their mission even if they have a different paymaster.


PMCs are untrustworthy  The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk. PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be threatened with a charge of desertion. PMCs are motivated by money and do not have the interests of their employer at heart. Loyalty is given to the highest bidder and is therefore delicately balanced. “The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe.”(Machiavelli, 1515) Machiavelli considered that it was mercenaries that ruined Italy much as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The role of PMCs has had a negative effect on traditional militaries and their operations.  Soldiers trained at high expense by the state may leave for the greater income of private employment, reducing the power of the state’s military and bolstering the attraction of PMCs. PMCs also have a much more relaxed, business-like attitude to conflict. Being unregulated gives them a freedom to work outside of the law to an extent, using illicit practices such as torture and bribery which goes unnoticed. However, these practices strengthen the morale and line the purses of “the enemy”, such as warlords or the Taliban in Afghanistan, putting the militaries they are fighting alongside in danger.


PMCs violate human rights and International agreements in pursuit of profit or power.  Some PMCs may abuse the power they wield. Simon Mann, founder of PMCs EO and Sandline International, in a recent plot to oust President Obiang in Equatorial Guinea (BBC News, 2008) shows that even mercenary organisations considered legitimate by the British Government remain staffed by corrupt opportunists. It is highly morally questionable whether organisations with such a profound disrespect for the sovereignty of other nation states should be involved with the training of our armed forces, let alone fighting alongside them.


PMCs have an interest in conflict.  ncreased reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry. This then leads to a proliferation of armed forces in the country, some working for the central government, others for local governments and some for private individuals and firms. These PMCs are hired provide security and to help create stability yet that is not where their interests lie. If the country returns to stability they are out of a job so it is in their interest to keep an unstable situation unstable to result in more work. (Wennmann, 2008)


The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths  The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.


The only function of a gun is to kill  The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old. [1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.  [1 ‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010,


Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms  Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.


Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide  There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.


Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.  Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.  [1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership  Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task. [1]  The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK . [2] [3]  [1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976   [2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4th September 2005.   [3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008.


Sports shooting is a safe activity  Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.


Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence  Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)


Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]


Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.  As noted above, the political life is steeped in difficult decisions, and some of these are bound to result in choices that are at least potentially illegal. The ability to prosecute politicians incentivizes political opponents to search out past actions by said politicians so as to immobilize them politically. Such prosecutions are therefore not motivated by concern for justice, nor are they conducive to a well-functioning, multipartisan political system wherein representatives seek to work together to achieve their political ends. In the most extreme cases, powerful politicians use prosecutions to immobilize their political opponents.


Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties  The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.  [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005,  [Accessed September 19, 2011]


In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.  The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians. However, this benefit can be achieved through other means. Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system. While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct. If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power. Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part. Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it. While Nixon received a full pardon from his success, [1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid.  [1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]


Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.  It does tremendous damage to the public perception of a given political position to see the holder of that position on trial for criminal acts. Politicians are important role models for the populace at large, and shining light on everyone one of their misdeeds is not conducive to them playing such a role. This hurts the ability of their successors who, though completely innocent, are stepping into an institution now tainted with the image of corruption or scandal. Finally, the very process of prosecution can be damaging to the country, as citizens on opposing sides of the political spectrum disagree over the legitimacy of charges. These effects all deal real damage to the political institutions necessary for the functioning of the state.


Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve.  The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.


Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.  Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office. It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity. [1] Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties. This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons.  [1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]


Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office  Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account. Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option.


Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard  Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.


The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power.  It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians.


Quebec has the right to self-determination.  All people have the right to determine their own form of government and representation and Quebec has been systematically denied this right.  Quebec has historically been denied the right to determine its own form of governance systematically and therefore the Canadian government has no right to claim legitimacy over Quebec and cannot stop it from leaving the federation.  The Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982 in a backroom deal known as the Meech Lake Accord [1] where Quebec was explicitly excluded from the negotiations and their issues were ignored. Specifically, Quebec was attempting to entrench recognition of their special status and needs as a distant society within Canada [2] and this was denied. To this day, Quebec has refused to sign the Canadian constitution as it feels it doesn’t adequately represent its interests and needs [3] .  Therefore, Quebec has the right to independence as its sovereignty was illegitimately taken from it and it is systematically denied adequate representation in Canadian politics.  [1] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


Quebec needs to be independent to retain its distinct language and culture.  The only way to ensure that Quebecers get to retain their distinct culture is to gain independence as a country and remove themselves from the Canadian federation.  A very big issue for certain Quebecers is the threat that an overwhelmingly English-speaking country has on their pocket of distinct French-Quebecois culture [1] . The unrestricted immigration of English-speaking Canadians to Quebec has diluted the culture of the Quebecois and has set off the process of cultural-loss and the highly feared loss of their language [2] . Moreover, whenever Quebec has tried to put in place provisions to protect their culture and language, such as with Bill 101 [3] , Quebec is called racist and Canadian Federal Courts try to strike down their laws to stop their “discrimination” against English-speaking Canadians in their province [4] .  The only way that Quebec can protect its language and culture is to be able to stop the unrestricted flow of English-speaking immigration into its territory and gain complete control over its own law and cultural policy. The only way to do this is to gain independence from Canada.  [1] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .  [4] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .


International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence  International law recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination and denying them self-determination is therefore a violation of international law.  International law recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. The international community has decided that it is oppressive to individuals to live under a government that is systematically incapable or unwilling to protect them and their interests. [1]  The Quebecois have been systematically denied adequate representation in the federal government of Canada. Quebecois legislation protection their basic rights to retain their language and culture have been met with contempt [2] and legal action by the federal Canadian government and courts. [3] This is but one example of the very clear denial of basic representation and self-governance that afflicts the Quebecois in Canada.  Therefore, Quebec has the legal right to self-determination and independence in international law.  [1] „Reference re Secession of Quebec“, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, <  >  [2] “Maxime Bernier on Quebec law: ‘We don’t need Bill 101’”, The Canadian Press, 4 February 2011, <  >  [3] Hudon, R., „Bill 101“, The Canadian Encyclopedia, <  >


This is not the will of the people of Quebec.  Secession from Canada would not be a fair or adequate representation of the will of the people of Quebec.  The most recent referendum and all current polling data suggest that an overwhelming majority of Quebecers are opposed to Quebec seeking independence from Canada [1] . The government of Quebec pursuing such a policy is only representative of a very small minority of people in Quebec, and therefore is undemocratic in nature. Moreover, this policy explicitly denies consideration or enfranchisement for the very large populations of Anglophone Quebecers who also deserve representation, and whose interests are being wholly discounted to pursue this one policy on behalf of the Francophones in their province.  Therefore, pursuing secession is both wholly undemocratic, but also specifically disenfranchises a very large portion of the population entirely in a trade-off for one specific policy that doesn’t appeal strongly to anyone beyond a very small minority of citizens.  [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.  Quebec independence simply will not work because Quebec would not be financially viable as an independent economy.  Quebec has been financially dependent on the rest of Canada for years [1] specifically being dependent on “have” provinces such as Alberta to prop-up its economy as a “have-not” provinces through equalization payments [2] . Moreover, all financial indicators point to the situation staying as it is or worsening, with no signs of improvement in the economy visible [3] .  If Quebec were to gain independence, it simply would not be able to sustain itself as an independent country. Quality of life would necessarily have to drop for all those living in Quebec and the economy would only crash further as confidence in it would dwindle once you remove the credibility the support of the Canadian government and economy that currently gives it.  Therefore, Quebec should not secede from Canada as it would only serve to harm their economy and the livelihoods of the people they supposedly are there to protect.  [1] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections  It is hard to see what the benefit of an election that can change nothing is, but there are certainly all the costs associated with a normal election. Elections can be costly in financial terms, the United States elections cost several billion dollars but even much smaller and less extravagant elections need financing. Zimbabwe’s elections in 2013 forced the government to ask its neighbours for $85 million to carry out the polls, for a nation that is essentially bankrupt this is a lot of money. [1]  Another cost is uncertainty. In fully democratic elections the uncertainty is with what the policies will be when the government changes. With sham elections the uncertainty is whether the elections will be a focus for violence. Sometimes this is during campaigning itself as with Zimbabwe in 2008 where up to 200 people were killed. [2] Otherwise violence occurs when there is a perception that an election has been stolen so the Green Movement in Iran took to the streets and was met with a violent crackdown in 2009. [3]  [1] VOA News, ‘Zimbabwe Seeks Help to Cover Election Costs’, Voice of America, 10 July 2013,   [2] ‘Zimbabwe: No Justice for Rampant Killings, Torture’, Human Rights Watch, 8 March 2011,   [3] AFP, ‘Iran opposition says 72 killed in vote protests’, Google, 3 September 2009,


Having no elections is honest  Holding sham elections is fundamentally dishonest as it is asking the people to choose a government and then ignoring their choice. Not holding elections is at least honestly telling the people that they get no say in who is in power. Holding a sham election inevitably means having to lie to the people somewhere along the line; whether it is in preventing people registering, or voting, or in manipulating the results. The people usually know the result is a sham or at least are suspicious – in the latest Zimbabwean election the headlines in the newspapers included “ZANU-PF gloats over victory”. [1]  Without a sham election the government can at least be honest with their people so enabling a level of trust or even a kind of contract between the two – the government and the people each lets the other get on with it. Thus for example in China trust in government in 2012 was 76% against the world average of 51%. [2]  [1] Chinaka, Cris, ‘Africa and West at odds over disputed Zimbabwe election’, Reuters, 4 August 2013,   [2] Sedghi, Ami, and Rogers, Simon, ‘Do we trust our government? See how your country compares’, TheGuardian.com, 24 January 2012,


Allows the ruler to make necessary but unpopular decisions  Democracy and elections are about popularity but popular decisions are not always the right ones. Even mature democracies have sometimes seen their government’s make use of the levers of government to boost their electoral chances; for example Margaret Thatcher’s government stoked the economy in the Lawson boom in 1987 which just happened to be an election year. [1] Governments without elections can engage in long term planning and make unpopular decisions without fear of the consequences. Thus for example Saudi Arabia is willing to pump less oil (and so get less money in the short term at least) in order to create stability in the oil market by having enough excess capacity to prevent price spikes.  [1] Congdon, Tim, Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism, 2007, p.73


Forces the ruler to find another way to placate the people  Not having any elections – or only elections for a powerless advisory parliament – may actually have a benefit in putting responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the rulers. Only a country that is comparatively well governed, or successful, can manage without a democratic safety valve. It is notable that the remaining absolute monarchies or those where the King rules as well as reigns are mostly very wealthy petro states. Several of the remaining communist regimes, China and Vietnam, rely on rapid economic growth to cement their legitimacy combined with meritocracy in their selection of leaders. In both cases there is an incentive for good governance by those in power as they are in for the long term. The leaders know they are not going to be elected out of office so have the motivation to reduce corruption and create long term growth through investment in infrastructure because this will benefit them in the future. [1]  [1] Feldman, Noah, ‘Feldman examines corruption and political legitimacy in China’, Harvard Law School, 11 March 2013,


Elections of any sort force rulers to meet their people  Elections almost anywhere in the world mean politicians getting out and campaigning. Regardless of the legitimacy of the final election the leadership of the country will be going out and meeting voters. In many of these events individuals won’t be able to express their views but there are also likely to be protests and meetings where individuals can get their views across. This provides an opportunity for the leader to stay in touch with the people – often a problem with dictators who have been in power too long.  Dictators will want to, and often believe that they are likely to win even without resort to fraud, as Marcos did in 1985. [1] They are then are much more likely to consider the views of the electorate to still be relevant if there are elections than if there are not. Thus for example Mugabe in the most recent elections made a bid for, and won, the youth vote by promising a direct stake in the economy, [2] so responding to their desire for jobs. [3]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  p. 10  [2] Agyemang, Roy, ‘Why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [3] AFP, ‘Youth, rural voters may hold key to Zimbabwe election’, Fox News, 27 July 2013,


Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.  For an autocracy the election for the top job needs to be predetermined, but the other elections do not. This means that elections for the legislature can still be competitive. The seats do have some influence, provide patronage, and have status attached so there are plenty of people who want to contest them. In the Arab world before the Arab spring there was a less than 25% incumbency rate for legislatures. [1] Having elections that determine control in local areas or allow opposition some control in parliament is far preferable to the alternative where the government appoints everyone. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in Burma have for example gained entry into Parliament and have despite being a minority had an impact. This has particularly been the case internationally. They have helped liberalise the new Foreign Investment Law and have encouraged more liberalised freedom of the press and association. [2]  [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.7.   [2] Turnell, Sean, ‘Myanmar has made a good start to economic reform’, East Asia Forum, 27 March 2013,


Even a sham election demonstrates what the people want  In an election the people show what their policy preferences will be. Even if the government is engaging in vote rigging or voter intimidation they will still know how the people voted or wanted to vote (if they stuffed the ballot they will know how many extra votes they added) so will have some guidance as to the policies that the people wish implemented. If there are multiple different parties competing in the elections then it will be possible to tell which party platforms are the most popular and so which to take ideas from.  If there are elections then there are opposition parties and independent MPs who are given much more space than they would be without elections. Being MPs gives the opposition some status and gives them a controlled setting in which to criticise the government. This provides the opposition with the chance to channel the voice of the people and encourage change from the governing party.


Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election  The acceptance by most autocrats that there need to be elections shows the idea that legitimacy derives from the people is generally accepted. Meaning that these states are already part way to having a genuine democracy. Having regular elections, even if the outcome is preordained, means that the electorate becomes used to voting and the idea of voting to make their voice heard. In such circumstances eventually they are going to want their vote to really count. If there is a creeping process of reform eventually this will result in free and fair elections.  Having any kind of elections means that there are people who are recognised as an opposition. This means that there is a viable alternative to the ruling party which can be turned to in a crisis, or can take on the leadership role when the regime is finally toppled. For example in Philippines the opposition was able to create a united opposition party in 1984 and coalesce around Corazon Aquino in the snap elections of 1985. [1] This meant that Aquino was in a position to swiftly set up a government following the people power revolution and flight of Marcos. [2]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  Pp.4, 10  [2] Reaves, Joseph A., ‘Marcos Flees, Aquino Rules’, Chicago Tribune, 26 February 1986,


Mayors would be more accountable than a council  Electing mayors would improve accountability in local government. A Mayor would have a bigger mandate, which could be up to 500,000 votes compared to 5,000 for individual councillors making them more directly accountable to the city’s electorate. [1] They are also more visible; 57% of people could name their mayor when they had one compared to only 8% being able to name their council leader and so they are more likely to be held to account for their individual policies. [2] By comparison where there are not mayors an elaborate and confusing series of committees make decisions in most areas, making it easy for individual councillors or parties to dodge responsibility for unpopular decisions or failed policies. Bristol is a good example of this with wobbly coalitions resulting from backroom deals and constantly shifting politics; the council changed hands seven times in the ten years to 2012. [3] Placing this power in the hands of an elected mayor would streamline decision-making and increase accountability. A mayor who failed to improve local services or in other ways implement their campaign promises would have little chance of re-election.  [1] Sims, Sam, ‘Electing mayors for more English cities would increase local democratic accountability and widen political participation. But the government must grant them real power and freedom’, blogs.lse.ac.uk, 7 October 2011.  [2] Gash, Tom, ‘A turning point for England’s big cities’, Institute for Government, 29 March 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.


Electing a Mayor will revitalise local democracy  An elected mayor would revitalise local democracy. At present many people have no idea who their local councillors are, or who leads their council, perhaps because collective decision-making is generally unexciting. It is not surprising then that turnout is only around 30% and in some urban areas in Britain fewer than 1 in 4 adults bother to vote in local elections – the worst turnout in the EU. [1] An elected mayor would act as a focus for local people, both symbolically and as someone with real power to improve their lives. Local elections would gain more coverage and more people’s attention as they are voting for one recognisable figure rather than a number of councillors. This in turn would turn attention to local democracy and increase turnout in elections.  [1] Shakespeare, Tom, ‘For Good Measure Devolving Accountability for Performance and Assessment to Local Areas’, Localis, 2010, p.17


Elected Mayors would attract the best candidates to run for office.  Elected mayors would allow talented individuals to make a difference, regardless of their party affiliation. The present system rewards long-serving and loyal party hacks rather than innovative managers, thinkers and leaders; polls show that the public think councillors put party politics above the needs of their community. Those who are most talented who are elected are simply using the council as a stepping stone for running for national office. If mayors were directly elected, local parties would have to find dynamic candidates with a proven ability to solve problems and manage big organisations, or risk such candidates running and winning as independents. This has already been shown to be the case in London where Ken Livingstone (who initially became Mayor as an independent) and Boris Johnson, both established and well known politicians, ran for Mayor, and in Birmingham where Lam Byrne, formally no.2 at the treasury, has expressed an interest in running. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Labour’s Liam Byrne wants to run for Birmingham mayor’, 30 March 2012.


Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent  Elected mayors would speak on behalf of their communities, raising the profile of their town or city nationally and internationally. This could be particularly valuable when negotiating with businesses, helping to draw valuable investment into their area and overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that typically hinder development. Chambers of commerce in cities that are holding referendums believe a figurehead will provide a focal point for business relations and a single point of contact that champions the city’s interests. [1] In addition, mayors would give local government in general a higher profile after years of increasing centralisation by national government. Acting collectively, and through the change in attitudes their higher media profile would generate, mayors would be able to draw power away from the centre once again and bring it closer to the people.  [1] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.41


Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid


Mayors could split economic regions  The value of a mayor is dependent upon that mayor having a distinct area of control. However often this area is set too small. Cities are the hubs for neighbouring towns and countryside as well as the inner city. This could then end up splitting up economic regions. Birmingham and Coventry are very close to each other but at some point in the future could potentially have different city mayors. There would then be confusion; who runs regional transport policy or the West Midlands police that affects both cities? [1]  [1] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.


Mayors will come at a cost  Having Mayors is costly. First of all there is the referendum and the election of the Mayor himself which Bristol council has said could cost up to £400,000. [1] This is then followed by the extra administrative cost created by having a Mayor who will of course have to have deputies, staff, offices, cars and a publicity budget, which could mean up to £3 million a year. [2] This is money that at a time where councils are facing budget cuts could be better spent on shoring up the services councils provide.  [1] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.  [2] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.


Mayors would result in too much centralisation of power.  An elected mayor would have too much power, making the prospect of its misuse alarming. If the mayor has the power to choose their own cabinet of councillors, this could be as small as three members, all of whom could be sacked at will for opposing the wishes of the mayor. If the mayor has the right to delegate powers to his cabinet members, they equally have the authority to reserve all the real powers to themselves. And those councillors outside the cabinet would have little to do other than to monitor broken streetlights and the standard of refuse collection in their ward. Why would talented and ambitious people stand for council in these circumstances, and what would the absence of such people do for the council’s oversight of the mayor?


Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.  If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.  1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy


Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.  Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan."  2 Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy.


Promoting democracy promotes peace.  By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.


Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.  Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.  1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.


Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.  POINT  The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2.  1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010,  2 Doyle , Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.  Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.  1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010,  2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011,


The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty  Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.  1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,


The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.  Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan."  2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.  Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1.  1 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


The House of Lords has an inbuilt conservative majority.  The traditional provenance of the House of Lords translates to an in-built Conservative majority. Even so called Liberal and Labour peers are usually conservative in their opinions. They represent a social and economic elite and seem to flaunt diversity monitoring in a house with only 181 female peers and a staggeringly low 31 peers from ethnic minorities. [1] This unfair skew in the favour of the conservative has the power to slow down and revise legislation and is a gross misrepresentation of the British population. The House of Lords should be reformed in order to better reflect the British people so that their actions and decisions benefit the whole of society and not just their own.  [1] Smith, Ben, ‘Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (18 November 2008) and see  viewed 1 June 2011


The House of Lords is out of touch with the electorate.  The 19th century US President Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy should be ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ [1] Therefore peers who sit in the house based on noble birth right or their membership of the Church of England, that is itself largely ignored by the people, do not represent the people of Britain.  [1] A' Short Definition of Democracy’, Democracy-building.info, 2005, viewed on 1 June 2011


Reform would strengthen the House of Lords  Reform of the House of Lords would strengthen the legitimacy of the house and therefore improve its functions. By electing the second chamber they would gain the legitimacy to not simply stall bills but reject them all together or drafts bills of their own, thus facilitating a more dynamic government, able to change. Using a different electoral technique, for example Proportional Representation with members sitting for longer periods would allow them to still be of a different composition to the House of Commons and not sway to short-term political popularity. Electing different portions at different times would also guard against a freak landslide result affecting the house’s balance. By creating a worthy opposition to the House of Commons all issues would be debated and decided upon more fairly and government would be more closely monitored.


The current House of Lords is undemocratic  The House of Lords is undemocratic. Currently the members of the House of Lords consist of hereditary peers, senior members of the Church of England and those appointed by political parties. Whether or not there is an abuse of power or the outcome of the House of Lords is beside the point – its very existence in its current state is undemocratic and as such it should be reformed. It seems nonsensical that a country that lectures to the rest of the world the importance of democracy, to the point of war, should overlook such a grievance in their own society.


Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons  An elected House, even one elected every ten years, would still think about policies that are popular in the short term rather than the long-term welfare of the country, making it closer to the House of Commons in its interest and reducing its role as a balance. By subjecting the second chamber to election there would be two outcomes: if elected at the same time the House of Lords would simply become a mirror-image of the House of Commons rendering it pointless, if elected mid-term the composition of the House of Lords would reflect the tendency for a government to be unpopular mid-term, thus creating gridlock and making the system unworkable. Reform of the House of Lords is impractical and undesirable.


The public is apathetic to reform.  Whether or not reform of the House of Lords should be a top priority in the current economic climate is debateable, let alone whether or not a coalition government would be able to initiate and drive through such measures. Attempts to reform the House of Lords have been delayed time and time again, demonstrating the House of Commons’ reservations on change. [1] A feeling that is no doubt echoed in popular British opinion – as demonstrated by the recent outcome of the Alternative Vote – the public are either adverse to the idea of change or apathetic to it. [2]  [1] Summers, Deborah, ‘Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords’, The Guardian (27 January, 2009), viewed on 1 June 2011   [2] BBC News, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote, 7 May 2011,


Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.  One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria. [1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth. [2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’. [3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution.  [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003)  [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001)  [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004)


The House of Lords allows a number of experts to influence government policy.  While the members of the House of Lords may represent a small section of society, they also include expert peers including lawyers, scientists, businesspeople, academics, doctors and civil servants that can balance out the sometimes short term, political opportunism present in the House of Commons. Election does not guarantee these expertise and knowledge, so having a second chamber that is appointed rather than elected improves the quality of the governance of the country.


Citizens have a right to know what is done in their name  The nation exits for its citizens; it depends on their consent to maintain order and to raise finances. The main purpose of the state is law and order, and national defence, both of which are covered by security. As an area that is so central to the role of the government it is vital that the stakeholders in that government, its citizens, know what it is the state is doing in their name for their security.  The Obama administration for example refuses to acknowledge that it is carrying out a campaign using drones while at the same time saying it is “the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.” [1] If the US government is bombing another country then the US people have a right to know with much less ambiguity what exactly is being done, who is being hit, when and where. They also need to be informed of any possible consequences.  [1] Kaufman, Brett, ‘In Court Today: Fighting the CIA’s Secrecy Claims on Drones’, ACLU, 20 September 2012


Transparency prevents public relations disasters  Transparency is necessary to avoid public relations disasters; particularly in countries where the media has some freedom to investigate for themselves. It is clearly the best policy for the military to make sure all the information is released along with the reasons behind actions rather than having the media finding individual pieces of a whole and speculating to fill the gaps.  A good example would be a collision on 16th January 1966 between a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker while attempting to refuel that destroyed both planes. Accidents happen, and this one cost 11 lives, but could have been much worse as the B-52 had four nuclear bombs on board were not armed and did not detonate. In this case an initial lack of information rapidly turned into a public relations disaster that was stemmed by much more openness by the military and the US Ambassador in Spain. The release of the information reduces the room for the press to fill in the gaps with harmful speculation. [1] In this case there was never much chance of national security implications or a break with Spain as the country was ruled by the dictator Franco, someone who would hardly pay attention to public opinion. But in a democracy a slow and closed response could seriously damage relations.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.65


Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013


Transparency helps reduce international tension  Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war.  The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness.  Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2]  [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013  [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013


Transparency prevents, or corrects, mistakes  Transparency is fundamental in making sure that mistakes don’t happen, or when they do that they are found and corrected quickly with appropriate accountability. This applies as much, if not more, to the security apparatus than other walks of life. In security mistakes are much more likely to be a matter of life and death than in most other walks of life. They are also likely to be costly; something the military and national security apparatus is particularly known for. [1] An audit of the Pentagon in 2011 found that the US Department of Defense wasted $70 billion over two years. [2] This kind of waste can only be corrected if it is found out about, and for that transparency is necessary.  [1] Schneier, Bruce, ‘Transparency and Accountability Don’t Hurt Security – They’re Crucial to It’, The Atlantic, 8 May 2012  [2] Schweizer, Peter, ‘Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget’, The Daily Beast, 22 May 2012


Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013


In security too much transparency endangers lives  Transparency is all very well when it comes to how much is being spent on a new tank, aircraft, or generals houses, but it is very different when it comes to operations. Transparency in operations can endanger lives. With intelligence services transparency would risk the lives of informants; it is similar with the case of interpreters for US forces in Iraq who were targeted after they were told they could not wear masks because they are considered to be traitors. [1]  In military operations being open about almost anything could be a benefit to the opposition. Most obviously things like the timing and numbers involved in operations need to be kept under wraps but all sorts of information could be damaging in one way or another. Simply because a state is not involved in a full scale war does not mean it can open up on these operations. This is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen in response to WikiLeaks said “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing… But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” [2]  [1] Londoño, Ernesto, ‘U.S. Ban on Masks Upsets Iraqui Interpreters’, Washington Post, 17 November 2008  [2] Jaffe, Greg, and Partlow, Joshua, ‘Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans’, Washington Post, 30 July 2010


Transparency can lead to conflict  The idea that transparency is good assumes that the people watching the government be transparent are likely to provide a moderating influence on policy. This is not always the case. Instead transparency can lead to more conflict.  First a nationalist population may force the government into taking more action than it wants. One obvious way to quiet such sentiment is to show that the country is not ready for war; something that may not be possible if being transparent. Instead if it is transparent that the military could win then there is nothing to stop a march to war. It then becomes possible for multiple interest groups to form into coalitions each with differing reasons for conflict trading off with each other resulting in overstretch and conflict. [1]  Secondly when there is a rapidly changing balance of power then transparency for the rising power may not be a good thing. Instead as Deng Xiaoping advised they should “Hide your strength, bide your time”. [2] Showing in the open how your military is expanding may simply force action from the current dominant power. Transparency, combined with domestic media worrying about the other’s build up can make the other side seem more and more of a threat that must be dealt with before it can get any more powerful. It is quite a common international relations theory that one way or another relative power and the quest for hegemony is the cause for war, [3] transparency simply encourages this. William C. Wohlforth points out when studying the cause of the First World War that it is perception of relative power that matters. Germany’s leaders believed it had to strike before it out of time as a result of Russia rapidly industrialising. [4] Transparency unfortunately reduces the ability of the government to manage perception.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.17  [2] Allison, Graham, and Blackwill, Robert D., ‘Will China Ever Be No.1?’, YakeGlobal, 20 February 2013  [3] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, The Atlantic, 20 December 2011  [4] Wohlforth, William C., ‘The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance’, World Politics, Vol.39, No.3, (April 1987), pp.353-381, p.362