Citizens deserve the right to know what is happening in their name.  It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia. [1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify.  The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”. [2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news.  [1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012,   [2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk,


Journalism should report the experiences of the vulnerable and oppressed just as much as those of the elite and powerful.  The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”. [1]  [1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes,


The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened.  It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.  News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.  [1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.  [2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars,


Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists.  In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.


The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.  The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals.  In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries.  An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy.


The American people support ICC membership.  In a democracy the voice of the people should carry weight in determining how the country acts internationally. According to a 2005 poll carried out by the Chicago Council on foreign relations 69% of the US population are in favour of US participation in the ICC. This clearly shows that the US people are unconvinced by the arguments on the theorized drawbacks of the International Criminal Court and are happy for it to be ratified.


Risk of “lawfare” against Israel  The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends.  A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts.  Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.


ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution  US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.  The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations.  There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence.


The rest of the world is better off with the US out  The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction.  When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution.  This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene  American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either.


Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty  Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies  Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself.


A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.  Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved.  Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.  [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23.


A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.  A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained.


A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves.  A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together.


A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.  A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice.  1. U.N. Charter, (1945)


A UN standing army is unnecessary  A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.


A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.  Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.  1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787


There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.  If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.


A UN standing army would not be cost-effective.  The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. State armed forces have the advantage of preparing for specific battles with specific enemies. Any UN standing force would be forced by its very nature to prepare for every enemy, in every environment. Such a scope is neither desirable nor easy to overcome without great expense and large numbers. At present, the UN model is preferable; it can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.


UN ignores or enables human rights abuses.  Despite the development of the concept of human rights in the post-war world, the UN has totally failed to protect the rights of citizens, ethnic minorities, women and children. It has stood by during episodes of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Yugoslavia among many others [1] , tolerates some of the world’s worst dictatorships as members, and does nothing to improve the situation of women in developing nations. Indeed, where UN peacekeepers have been sent into war-torn countries, they have sometimes been guilty of the most horrendous human rights abuses themselves. [2]  As of 2011, the UN’s Human Rights Council itself is comprised of members such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. [3]  [1] “UN admits Rwanda genocide failure”. BBC website, 15th April 2000.   [2] MacFarquhar, Neil. “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On-Screen and Off”. New York Times, 7th September 2011.   [3] “Membership of the Human Rights Council”. United Nations website, 2011.


Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework.  The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1]  [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011.


: Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved.  The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully.  In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War. [1]  [1] Harrison, Mark & Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011.


UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.  The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1]  [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website.


Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised.  As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1]  There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state. [3]  [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011.   [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005.   [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011.


The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.  When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1]  [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”.


As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important.  In a globalised economy nations depend on each other as never before, and the costs of war and conflict grow ever higher. So it is more important than ever than countries have a forum for resolving their disputes and simply talking to each other. Regional bodies such as the EU or ASEAN can perform some of these functions, and specialised bodies such as the WTO some others; but there can never be a substitute for the global forum provided by the UN. If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. [1]  [1] Hammarskjold, Dag. “Do We Need The United Nations?”. Address to the Students’ Association, Copenhagen, 2nd May 1959. www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/docs/needun.pdf


Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.  It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. [1]  [1] London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007.


Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world.  The United Nations is far more than simply a debating forum; it does a massive amount of vital work around the world through its other organs. Examples of these are the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, UNICEF, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) among many others. [1]  Even if the slow speed of diplomacy at the UN General Assembly can sometimes be frustrating, the idea that the United Nations as a whole has “failed” simply does not take account of all these very important bodies. Furthermore, the UN remains one of the most respected of international organisations among ordinary citizens.  [1] “United Nations: Structure and Organisation”. United Nations, 2011.


The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping.  It is clearly unrealistic to imagine that the United Nations could prevent all wars, but nonetheless it has been successful at negotiating peaceful resolutions to international disputes. It has also authorised military force to defend countries from unprovoked attacks; Kuwait and South Korea, to name just two, owe their freedom to UN action. Finally, UN peacekeepers do vital work all over the world from Cyprus to Korea. [1]  [1] “What is Peacekeeping?”. United Nations, 2011.


Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship  Myanmar has taken significant steps towards democratisation in the last three years. The new constitution and the elections that resulted in the current civilian government being appointed represent a marked shift in its governance structure. Though there may be scope for improvement in its democratic framework, institutions for democratic functioning have been created and this is a huge step forward. Aung San Suu Kyi has also been released from house arrest, and the tone of the statements made by the new government has been a reconciliatory one. A new human rights commission has also been established. While the pace of reform may not match the supposed expectations of the US and the EU, Myanmar’s choice to change gradually and engage with them on its own terms must be respected. The fundamental circumstances under which a policy of limited engagement was adopted with Myanmar have changed, and this calls for reassessment.


Regional factors favour re-engagement  Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken.


States should not be isolated on political grounds  The isolation of Myanmar by some of the developed Western powers is arbitrary and marked by hypocrisy. The real reasons for the stance taken by these countries are political. There is little consistency in the attitude taken towards other governments and dictatorships across the world that also have questionable human rights records (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name a few), but either offer other strategic and economic benefits, or are much more influential in international affairs than Myanmar. Myanmar is only part of a group of countries (also including Cuba and North Korea) whose economic and political policies have remained relatively opaque to arm-twisting by the US and the EU. It is unfair to impose sanctions on and isolate Myanmar on this basis, especially in an emerging multi-polar international environment.


There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement  Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change.  1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011.  2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy)


Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region  The policy of disengagement has not resulted in any meaningful change in Myanmar, politically or economically. Since Myanmar has not been dependent on the US or the EU, sanctions and arms embargoes have not had any effect on the government. The changes in 2010-2011 have been due to the influence of the NLD, and certain regional players (like Thailand and China) which have sought to directly engage with Myanmar. Further, the sections of the population that are most affected by the sanctions are those not in the top tier of the political and economic class, but smaller manufacturers and the working class. Restrictions on exports and developmental aid from the US and the EU prevent local manufacturers and consumers from having access to them. On the other hand, restrictions on imports from Myanmar weaken the market for its exporters. These factors only further impoverish and alienate the local population, increasing economic disparity, and consequently the power of the ruling elite in the national context as well.


The international community and political legitimacy  The military-controlled government in Myanmar clearly does not have popular domestic support - otherwise the artificial election process would not have been necessary. Therefore, it derives its strength from the fact that many international players other than the US and the EU have continued to recognise it, while there is historic precedent for concerted international opinion having influenced illegitimate regimes (Haiti and South Africa, for instance). Having a nationalised economy increases the control the military has over trade and investment, while a majority of the country finds itself in poverty. The choice for the international community is between continuing to strengthen the military by engaging with it, or by disengaging (like the EU and the US) until the ruling elite runs out of resources and options. The former option does not give hope to any real democratic reform, while the latter option would take away the legitimacy of the government in the international arena.


Vested international interest are harming Myanmar  Certain members of the international community, especially regional players like China and India, have tended to ignore questions of legitimacy of the regime for economic and political benefits. While this may be beneficial to them in the short term, it is very harmful for Myanmar as a democracy in the future. Politically, a blind eye is being turned to a culture of violating human rights. If and when Myanmar becomes a real democracy, it is unlikely that it will magically transform into a model democratic state, unless enough emphasis is provided to fundamental principles of good governance at the outset. Economically, investment is being provided in a highly monopolistic and imperfect environment, without addressing problems of corruption and inadequacy of legal processes. In the long run, even if a democratic constitutional framework exists, the country is likely to continue to have high economic disparity and corrupt markets due to these reasons (in a manner comparable to how Russian markets have evolved since the 1990s). Reengagement should not be setting the stage for a shift from a military-controlled government to a poor democracy, which would also be harmful for stability in the region as a whole.


Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement  International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1  1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’.


Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes  The new civilian government in Myanmar is as illegitimate as the rule of the military junta which led to its creation. The military junta itself was guilty of overruling the democratic verdict in 1990 that gave power to the NLD. Under the new constitution, 25% of all seats in parliament and the most influential governmental posts are reserved for the military, and more than 75% majority is required for amending the constitution. Political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) were not permitted to participate in the elections. Further, the election process itself has been described as a sham, involving violence and intimidation of democratic activists. The current government is only a tool for the preceding military junta to consolidate its power and provide a safety valve for its leaders through apparently legitimate means. It attempts to use the false democratic process as a veil to resist international criticism. Widespread human rights violations, ethnic violence, and undemocratic curtailment of the freedom of speech have characterised the period of rule of the military junta. By engaging with it at the political or economic level, other countries provide it with a false sense of legitimacy. This is morally at odds with established standards in of human rights and international relations, especially where other illegitimate governments (Syria, Iraq, and North Korea for instance) across the world continually face censure and isolation.


Blind obedience to authority  One of the major factors that exacerbated genocide ideology was the “AKAZU” controlled media which made most of the Hutu population wrongfully obey authority and government propaganda of divisionism[1].  This was achieved by proclaiming that the Tutsi are snakes and cockroaches in newspapers, and directing the Hutu extremists to where killings were to be conducted on radio RTLM. Meanwhile they also refused to broadcast speeches calling out for unity among people helping to lead to the assassination of the then Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who opposed government restrictions. There was no space to question policies and ideas that were encouraging genocide by manipulating people to believe it was right path for Rwanda.  The genocide should therefore serve as an example that restricting freedoms of speech and press can cause severe damage. This is especially harmful to a healing and reconciling country like Rwanda that needs the freedom to debate the past and analyse how far it has come openly. Rwanda should learn from the past that freedom of speech is necessary to prevent conflict while having only one side potentially exacerbates it.  [1] Chalk, Prof. Frank ‘Radio propaganda and genocide’, Concordia.ca, November 1999


Authoritarian leadership  President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].  Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.  The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]  [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014  [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011  [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013


International concern  Rwanda, though a progressing country is still aid dependent which has been a backbone for its achievements today[1]. Spoiling Rwanda’s relations with the international community would therefor be destabilising Rwanda’s focus and growth. This has been evident when some countries cut aid to Rwanda recently following allegations of the government supporting insecurity in Congo [2].  Most donor governments are strong backers of human rights and freedom. Continued restrictions to freedom of speech may provoke international reaction through cutting aid and trade ties a move that may hinder the success of Rwanda’s goals. Aid has been cut on other human rights issues for example donor countries have recently acted to cut aid to Uganda as a result of their criminalisation of homosexuality.[3]  [1] DFID Rwanda, ‘Growth and Poverty reduction grant to the government of Rwanda (2012/2013-2014/2015), gov.uk, July 2012  [2] BBC news, ‘UK stops £21m aid payment to Rwanda’ bbc.co.uk, 30 November 2012  [3] Plaut, Martin, ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, theguardian.com, 25 February 2014


Setting Rwanda's priorities  Rwanda is an emerging democracy healing from the wounds of the horrific past. To achieve the set vision, there should be a priority which in this case is economic development[1].  A large number of Rwandans believe that the government should focus on transforming the nation economically although it may mean restricting free speech, which has prompted a huge participation in government development programs like Ubudehe[2]. Freedom of speech and press needs to be restricted if the government wants to engage in unlimited development; there is no time to engage in long debates over whether a particular project is being implemented the correct way. Having freedom of speech and press would hinder the government’s ability to manage the resources of the state and to encourage investors who don’t want to have protests to their building factories, or have labour complaining about not being paid enough.  Whether a country puts rights or the economy first is up to the individual country, Rwanda has chosen.  [1] Horand, Knaup, ‘Kagame's Priorities for Rwanda: First Prosperity, then Freedom of Expression’, Spiegel.de, 12 August 2010  [2] NS world, ‘Rwanda Engages Citizens in Community-Level development’, nsworld.org


There is accountability without a free press  Freedom of speech and the Press is not the only way of creating accountability in a country – especially a comparatively small one such as Rwanda. Rwanda has been ranked a transparent and is the least corrupt state in East Africa [1] where everyone is accountable and equal before the law.  How can this be without an aggressive free press? Annually, all government officials are cross examined by locals publicly in a forum called national dialogue “Umushyikirano”, to ensure that they meet the needs of citizens and assess their performance[2]. This has given Rwandans courage to express their desires and feel much valued in the process of policy making and engagement. It puts ministers and even the Prime Minister on the spot on individual issues. Restricted press and speech is therefore rendered irrelevant by such programs as people can question authorities and demand justification directly rather than relying on the press.  In Africa, most countries lack transparent government systems and institutions, a factor responsible for continued corruption, poor governance and crime which in turn destroy progress in societies [3], but this is not the case with regard to Rwanda.  [1] Zegabi East Africa news, ‘Transparency International Ranks Rwanda the Least Corrupt Country in East Africa’, 5 December 2013, zegabi.com  [2] Hunt, Swanee ‘Rebuilding Rwanda: Access and Accountability’, inclusivesecurity.org, 30 December 2013  [3] Jones Lang Lasale, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: A region with opportunities amid transparency challenges’, joneslanglasale.eu


Focused leadership  Progress in Africa has been hindered by factors like corruption, conflicts and poor infrastructure, all of which are linked to the incompetent or greedy leaders.  Rwanda is a different case, ranked among the best countries with a strong and focused leadership in Africa, the country has set up clear policies like EDPRS [Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy] which aims to change Rwanda from an agriculture based economy to knowledge and service economy [1]. It is well known for zero tolerance to corruption, improved infrastructure and technology all of which are core factors in achieving development. In Africa, Rwanda tops list of easiest countries to do business a move that has encouraged more investors into the country[2].  Limited freedom of speech and press does not hinder economic development. What matters is that the government is trusted to fulfil all its commitments. After all, nothing has stopped China progressing despite human rights violations and censorship of both free speech and the press.  [1] The world bank, ‘Rwanda overview’, worldbank.org  [2] International finance corporation, ‘Rwanda top business reformer’, ifc.org


The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa  The reason why Moshoeshoe, the leader of Lesotho, wished to become a British protectorate was because of the Boers of the Orange Free State was trying to take their land. In 1966, when the Kingdom of Lesotho gained its independence from Britain, it remained separate from SA as it had been a separate colony. Lesotho was under direct rule while South Africa was a dominion. There was no incentive to change at the point of independence because SA was ruled by the apartheid regime. Lesotho was a strong public opponent of the regime and granted a number of SA refugees’ political asylum. The African National Congress, the ruling party in SA since 1994, was founded in Lesotho. Moreover, during the struggle against apartheid, the ANC’s armed wing organized its guerilla units from the enclave. [1] We can firmly say that Lesotho vas a very important actor in a post-apartheid SA, but the times have changed. The ANC is now in power in South Africa and SA and Lesotho are closer together than ever before.  [1] Smith, 2010,


Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services  For the Basotho in a landlocked country the free movement of their people is a right that is in large part dependent on the South African (SA) government rather their own national one. Its importance is shown by 40% of border crossings into South Africa being from Lesotho. Acknowledging the fact that Lesotho is an enclave state surrounded by SA, the ability of people to move freely depends on whether they are allowed to enter SA or not. There is corruption at border posts and the number of crossings results in long queues and slow service; 63% of border crossers experience problems. [1] This is sometimes made even more difficult by SA government actions as before the World Cup in 2010 when border restrictions were tightened making it almost impossible for Basotho to leave their country. [2] This happened due to the detention of several Lesotho nationals after a spate of criminal activities along the border.  The same situation applies to trade. Lesotho is dependent on the trade with South Africa, even for goods that come from beyond South Africa as Lesotho has no port of its own most goods will have to be transported through South Africa. This dependency is rising. In 1980, Lesotho produced 80% of the cereals it consumed. Now it imports 70%. [3] Annexation would eliminate these borders boosting trade between the countries, helping to make both richer. In the best interest of Basotho is to be able to control and be listened to by the entity that is metaphorically and literally feeding them.  [1] Crush, Jonathan, ‘The border within: The future of the Lesotho-South African international boundary’, Migration Policy Series No.26,   [2] Patel, Khadija, Lesotho and South Africa: ‘Good fences make good neighbours’, 19 April 2013,   [3] Smith, Alex Duval, ‘Lesotho's people plead with South Africa to annex their troubled country’, theguardian.com, 6 June 2010


Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally  With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line [1] , Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus. [2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change.  [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014,


South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage  Bringing South Africa and Lesotho will benefit SA on the global stage. The move would be one to provide aid to a smaller state and provide stability. The dire conditions for the Basotho people are acknowledged by the UN and the Africa Union. Firstly, SA, by the annexation of Lesotho, will prove good intentions in creating a sustainable Sub-Saharan Africa. This will ultimately create a better image and a greater influence in the region if they choose to respond positively to the People’s Charter Movement in Lesotho [1] , a social structure pleading for annexation. The movement, driven by trade unions, has collected 30,000 signatures in favor of their goal and is rising in popularity. Secondly the annexation will provide a boost for the South African Development Community and South African Customs Union by demonstrating the willingness of South Africa to integrate with poorer neighbours and take on some of the responsibility for them.  [1] Smith, 2010,


A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho  With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3]  [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011,   [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012,   [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009,


It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country  It is not in South Africa’s interests to annex Lesotho. Lesotho would be a burden; it is poor, might cause instability, and has no resources as compensation. On a simple cost-benefit analysis made by the SA government they would clearly see they would have more responsibility towards the Basotho population but new resources to fulfil those responsibilities. South Africa has its own problems that it should be focusing on first. Poverty is officially at 52.3% [1] and unemployment is a great problem for South Africans; a quarter of the majority black workforce is unemployed. [2] Moreover, Only 40.2% of black infants live in a home with a flush toilet, a convenience enjoyed by almost all their white and Indian counterparts showing the inequality that still exists in the ‘rainbow nation’. [3] Why add more people under your protection when you can’t take care of your own?  [1] ‘Statement by Minister in The Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Collins Chabane, on the occasion of the launch of the Development Indicators 2012 Report’, thepresidency.gov.za, 20 August 2013,   [2] Mcgroarty, Patrick, ‘Poverty Still Plagues South Africa's Black Majority’, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December 2013,   [3] Kielburger, Craig & Marc, ‘Why South Africa is Still Dealing With Segregation and Poverty’, Huffington Post, 18 December 2013,


Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries  Lesotho and South Africa already cooperate on a wide variety of issues. If we look at the example of the law system; the two systems are almost the same and all but one of the Justices on the Court of Appeal in Lesotho are South African jurists. [1] Moreover, there are at least four inter-governmental organizations that maximize the trade, help and social connections between the two states. Starting with the African Union, going on to the Southern African Development Community [2] that promotes socio-economic cooperation as well as political and security cooperation, moving to the Southern African Customs Union [3] and the Common Monetary Area. Lesotho is not only helped by SA but this is happening without them having to let go of their national identity and history. In much the same way as different nations, large and small, benefit from the EU so the countries of Southern Africa can benefit from some integration without the negative consequences of complete annexation with the loss of control that would bring.  [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘Lesotho (10/07)’, state.gov,   [2] Southern African Development Community Official website   [3] ‘Continued economic reforms would attract more foreign investment’, World Trade Organisation, 25 April 2003,


A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states  A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation  Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws.  Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided.  Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Poaching is becoming more advanced  A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals.  [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’  [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’  [3] ibid


The justice system does not currently work  A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2]  [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Natural habitats being are destroyed  A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] .  [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”  [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”


Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries  Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented.  [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’  [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’


Poaching is linked to terrorism  Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa.  [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’


Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’


Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching  Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves.  Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers.  [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162  [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”


Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective  Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3]  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’  [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’


African countries have little money to spare  Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’  [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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