Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join  Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union. [1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.  [1]  European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30th October 2010


Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world  Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.  Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.  Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.  [1]  ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010  [2]  ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010


Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power  Turkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%) [1] , so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives.  [1]  European Union (EU-15) & Constituent Nation Population from 1950 & Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001


Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union  Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.  Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.


Turkey has a poor human rights record  Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts." [1]  The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned." [2]  Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004  [2]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004


The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey  There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd". Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU.  Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country.


The partition of Ireland was undemocratic  The people of Northern Ireland should have decided whether or not they wanted to be united with Northern Ireland, rather than it being battled out in the British Parliament and the country partitioned by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920* that created a separate parliament for the six counties of Northern Ireland.** It was because the vote was not put to the Irish that the Unionists could twist arms and manipulate British politicians into allowing the six counties to remain part of the UK. After partition, the Unionists fixed electoral boundaries so there would never be a Republican majority in an electorate. This was unjust and illegitimately prevented a pro-Republic vote passing in future.  * Government of Ireland Act, 1920,   ** Ferriter, ‘Ireland in the Twentieth Century’,


Economic efficiency  A Unified Ireland would be better off economically. “Ireland is too small for two separate administrations….There is a draw towards the greater integration of services, structures and bodies on an all-Ireland basis in order to deliver quality services and economies of scale.” – Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland*  Having two electricity grids, two transport networks, two separate police and judiciary hamper economic growth and waste resources that could be better used in a unified system, as cost would lower as efficiency rises.  *McGuinness, 2010,


Britain is morally obliged to permit the secession of northern Ireland  The age of colonialism is over. We recognize that the dominance of one country over another is morally wrong. Ireland was already in the hands of the Irish people before English earls and kings invaded. The Irish had a right to the ownership of their land because they cultivated it and so put their labor into it. The use of force to seize that land from the people’s control is unjust because it denies them the right they had to their land. They had no choice to voluntarily hand over their land either.  To right this historical wrong, the British government should relinquish Northern Ireland, just as they have decolonized the rest of the world ending the British empire except for a few scattered outposts. Since Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 Northern Ireland is the only remaining colony with a significant population and independent identity.


It would be easier to protect the rights of religious minorities within a united Ireland  Unrest in Northern Ireland was started by the appalling treatment of the Catholic minority there. When there was a Northern Ireland Parliament there was some gerrymandering, while the discrimination in representation was slight very few nationalists were able to get senior jobs, in the civil service for example in 1927 fourteen of the 229 officers of staff officer rank or above, or 6 per cent, were Catholic, while in 1959 there were forty-six Catholics out of 740 in such ranks, or once again, 6 per cent.* Over the years reforms have been introduced but there is still huge stigma against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, who have little representation in politics, because it is dominated by Unionist rhetoric.  The best way to ensure equal treatment of the Catholics in Ireland is to unite majority Protestant Northern Ireland with Catholic majority Republic of Ireland, where they will be better represented in politics and not stigmatized by their neighbors.  *Whyte, 1983,


Uniting Ireland would bring about an end to sectarian violence  A united Ireland doesn’t have to marginalize the Protestant population. If they are included more in the political process there can be debate, discussion and an airing of grievances which can then be resolved.  There is little sense of attachment to the UK, and British institutions. Much like the Scottish and Welsh, the Northern Irish feel Northern Irish. This shows that the ties to Britain are not emotional, but political. It is clear that Unionists just want to have power over how they run their lives. If Unionists are included in the political process in a united Ireland they will have no grievances and there will finally be a lasting peace.


The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland do not support unification  The Good Friday agreement affirmed “That if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments [UK and Ireland] to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.* However as yet the Northern Irish do not wish to exercise this right. In a recent survey conducted by The Northern Ireland Life and Times it transpired that, “Overall, 73 per cent believe the long-term policy for the North should be maintaining the union, with 58 per cent supporting devolution and 15 per cent in favour of direct rule. Just 16 per cent want a united Ireland, with 3 per favoring an independent Northern Ireland.” This is not just amongst the Protestant population. The survey also showed that, “just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favoring a return to direct rule from Westminster.”**  *NIO, 1998,   **Moriarty, 2011,


Unification would reignite civil disorder and violent factionalism among Irish communities  As shown above, the Northern Irish don’t want to unite with the Republic. The Irish in the Republic will also resent the new drain on their economy. Either the Republican parties in Ireland will resent having to concede some power to new political entities or the Unionists will resent being marginalized. The recent reoccurrence of violence in Belfast is being attributed to the breakdown of protestant communities and low job prospects for young protestants. Both of these problems will be exacerbated in a majority Catholic Ireland. All of these examples illustrate how unrest is likely to breakout again in a united Ireland.


Unification would be damaging for the economies of both parts of Ireland  The Republic of Ireland is currently in a crisis. It is the I in P.I.G.S, the European Union countries whose economies are bust and require a bailout package. It would not be to the benefit of either Northern Ireland joining such a fragile economy, nor would it be good for the Republic of Ireland, having the cut back on public spending whilst trying to integrate Northern Irish transport/police systems etc.  Northern Ireland is a weak economy anyway and a lot of employment comes from the public sector, 30% compared to the UK average of 21%.* The region is £9billion in the red or £5,502 per person, three times the UK average.** These jobs will obviously no longer be an option under re-unification and so there is likely to be mass employment amongst the newly integrated Northern Irish. To counter this, money from Republican taxpayers will have to go to subsidize business/building projects etc in the way the Germans in the West still subsidize the Eastern parts of Germany, over 50 years since the wall came down.  *HM Treasury, 2011, p.9   **Fitzpatrick, 2011,


The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.


The New START treaty will make for a safer world.  Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1]  The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies.  The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace.  On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world.  [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010.   [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010.   [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence.  The US’ Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START. “The Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond.” [1]  Both US Military and civilian leaders insist that the new START treaty will still allow the US to deploy effective missile defenses, something which Russia was opposed to, and so will not affect US missile defense plans. The main limit on missile defense is that the treaty prevents the conversion of existing launchers for this purpose this would be more expensive than building new missiles specifically for defense purposes. [2]  Furthermore, as Joe Biden argues, New START is important to Russian cooperation on missile defense: "This [missile defense] system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December." [3]  In many ways, in the 21st Century having an abundance of nuclear weapons, particularly having too many, is more of a liability than an advantage. The United States will be far safer with fewer nuclear weapons in the world and a stronger, more stable relationship with Russia under New START, and this is desirable. Therefore it is clear that New START maintains the important parts of US nuclear capabilities while removing the over-abundance which may become a liability due to security and medical concerns, and so New START should be supported.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] ibid  [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.


The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US  Not only does New START leave in place Russia’s extant tactical nuclear advantage but it has further loopholes for Russian weapons. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers." [1]  New START also fails to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which Russia could potentially make use of. The definition of rail-mobile ICBM launchers was established in the expired START as “an erector-launcher mechanism for launching ICBMs and the railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.” [2] This and associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in the New START. This makes it possible for Russia to claim that any new Rail Mobile ICBMs are not subject to New START limitations. [3] Mitt Romney worries that Russia is already working to take advantage of these omissions: “As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. …. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs." [4]  This means that under the treaty limits, the United States is the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has managed to negotiate the treaty limits so that they simply restrict it to reductions it was already planning to do. As a result the United States is making what are effectively unilateral reductions. [5] Therefore, New START is an unequal treaty as it offers more to Russia than to the US. This is bad for the balance of power and thus bad for world peace, and so New START should be opposed.  [1] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [2] ‘Terms and Definitions’, The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms And Associated Documents, 1991,   [3] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [4] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [5] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.


Problems with Verification.  Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it.  Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles. [1]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world  New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1]  While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2]  New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3]  Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported.  [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Ibid.  [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.


The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities  As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2]  New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7]  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010,   [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


Environmental Damage  Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .  [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’   [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013


Resource abundance has led to poor governance  Corruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.  [1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013   [2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013   [3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5   [4] Ibid  [5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013,


Foreign companies gain most of the profits  The majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .  Kofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013   [3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012   [4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013


Resources are a source of conflict  There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.  [1] Pandergast, 2008,   [2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014


Bring Africa out of poverty  The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .  [1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13   [2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013   [3] Ibid


Natural resources create employment  The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.  [1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013


Source of trade  Natural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.  [1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011


Teacher training  Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key.  Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] .  Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training.  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project.  [3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.


Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers  UNESCO (2013) report the need for 6.8mn teachers by 2015 for the right to primary education to be achieved. The teaching workforce requires includes both replacements and additional teachers. Africa has a reality of low teacher-student ratios. In 2012, 80 students were reported per teacher in the Central African Republic (World Bank, 2013). Positive schemes are needed to incentivise potential teachers to enter the profession and meet demand.  Careers can be encouraged through multiple paths. For example, providing incentives to study teaching as a profession. Tanzania’s Ministry of Education provides grants to students entering University to study teaching.


Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed  Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need.  In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations.


Social Policy for satisfied teachers  The creation of national social policies which provide secure, and stable, wages for teachers is fundamental. Social policy can make satisfied teachers. A key concern amongst teachers is finance - inadequate wages and insurance. Teacher wages is considerably lower than other formal professions - combining to enforce low morale and occupational motivation as pay is too low to sustain individuals and households (Bennell, 2004). In South Africa an average teaching salary is 19,535 ZAR in contrast to the 28,235 ZAR average granted in all jobs in South Africa (Salary Explorer, 2013).  Further, social policy is required to introduce teacher pension schemes. Pension schemes are provided for workers within the formal employment sector, by various public organisations - including the government and GEPF [1] . However, some national pension schemes are more developed than others and teachers need to be ensured the profession can provide investments for future security. An ageing population only reinforces its importance.  [1] See further readings: GEPF, 2013.


Colonial legacies: the issue of language  A fundamental restriction to achieving universal education in several African countries is not teachers, as a resource, but rather the lack of a national language. Colonialism enforced national boundaries, of which remain mismatched to ethnicity and language. African nations remain some of the most diverse in the world. With the exception of Tanzania, whereby Julius Nyerere used policy to create a sense of national unity and language, many African nations placed minimal focus on nationalisation. Around 46 languages are spoken in Zambia.  Such language diversities make universal education difficult. Therefore, presidents such as Paul Kagame, have the right approach of enforcing a national language.


The MDG is the barrier  Significant progress has been made in meeting the MDG in Africa, therefore criticism needs to be raised on the MDG themselves. The MDG are unrealistic, unfair, and the benchmarks set fail to acknowledge progress made (Easterly, 2009).  The barrier to achieving universal education is not a lack of investment, rather inappropriate targets.


The complex controls over enrolment  Suggesting investments are required in teachers limits a recognition of the multiple forces creating barriers to achieve a right to education. Universal education is constrained by political, socio-cultural, and economic, structures.  Firstly, gender inequalities in education raise cultural norms of the role of girls in society, and within the domestic-sphere at home. Religious and cultural beliefs mean girls account for 70% of children not attending school. Across Sub-Saharan Africa the economics of child marriage often mean girls leave school or become reluctant to go to school. A positive correlation is found between low education and countries with high rates of child marriage [1] . Niger has the highest rate of child marriage.  Secondly, poverty and hunger act as key restraints in achieving the target. As Mkandawire (2010) argues, development needs to be brought back onto the ‘pro-poor’ agenda. Human capital cannot be developed without a broader focus on social and economic policies that enable development first.  [1] See further readings: Education for Girls, 2013.


Teaching begins at home  For the target of universal primary education to be achieved we need to look beyond a narrow education policy. Programs are required to enable teaching at home. The benefits of education need to be accessed nationwide; which will cumulatively encourage children to go to school and participate to do their best. For example, by introducing adult training/education courses to parents and elderly populations, parents are able to assist children at home, and to recognise the benefits of gaining an education. Simply providing better teachers at school fails to recognise the importance of intra-household decisions and life. For universal education the whole population strata needs to be included; and adult courses provided on basic maths, english and science.


Small size makes for ease  The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles


Moving is an imperative  It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people. [1]  [1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 11 January 2013,


Shared sovereignty  If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.” [1] Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory.  There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII. [2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible.  [1] Yu, 2013,   [2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005,  , p.77


Other nations have an obligation to help  The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”. [2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state. [3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land.  [1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  , p.4  [2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992,   [3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961,


New countries forged by those fleeing disaster  There have been very few countries that have been created in circumstances that are at all similar to that which would happen when island nations are forced to abandon their homeland. The closest parallel is Israel when Jews arrived en mass first because they were promised the land after WWI, when it is notable that they purchased the land they occupied, [1] and then after the disaster of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have not been happy about the loss of territory. Indeed there have been few examples in history of peoples’ willingly giving up land to a new arrival whether it is due to colonialism or migration. The result, especially if sovereignty is involved, is usually conflict.  [1] Pipes, Daniel, ‘Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel’, National Review Online, 21 June 2011,


Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory  While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan. For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world. [1]  A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such. [2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory. [3]  [1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines,  , p.182  [2] Yu, 2013,   [3] McAdam, 2010,  , p.8


Other states would not want to waste resources on a refugee state  The Seychelles are not a particularly rich place. Their main industries are tourism and tuna fishing accounting for 32% of employment, [1] both of which are unfortunately entirely dependent upon the territory of the islands themselves and cannot be moved. The result is that the Seychelles have little to offer those states that might consider giving up territory. The country will therefore have difficulty rebuilding its economy and would likely be a drain upon its host making countries unwilling to take on the commitment.  [1] The World Bank, ‘Seychelles Overview’, October 2013,


Human development indicators have significantly improved in recent years.  Human development index (HDI) indicators are used to assess levels of life expectancy, education and income indices throughout the world. The majority of African states have seen an improvement in these scores since 2001, and are predicted to continue this trend. Some African states, such Seychelles, Libya and Tunisia, are in the ‘High Human Development’ category and are positioned in the top 100 for HDI indicators, an improvement from 1990 [1] . Life expectancy has increased by 10% on the continent and infant mortality has decreased as well, thanks to the greater availability of mosquito nets and the attention given to HIV/AIDS [2] . Education is seen as a cornerstone to growth as it allows the quicker attainment of the skills required for knowledge-intensive industries (such as agriculture and services), which will in turn lead to greater development [3] . The level of literacy in Africa has seen an increase in reports on human development from 2001 [4] and 2011 [5] . Finally, levels of poverty throughout Africa have generally decreased, including in notable countries such as Ghana and Zimbabwe.  [1] Watkins, ‘Human Development Report’, 2005, p.219  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] Haddad, ‘Education and Development’, 1990  [4] Fukuda-Parr, ‘Human Development Report’, 2011  [5] ‘United Nations Human Development statistical annex’, 2011, pp.159-161


Africa’s Economies are growing rapidly  Africa has recently experienced some of the most significant economic growth in the world. Amongst the top ten growing economies in the world are five African countries; The Gambia, Libya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan [1] . The latter, South Sudan, witnessed GDP growth of 32% in 2013. Other economies in Africa are also doing exceptionally well, such as Ethiopia and Ghana. As ever, natural resources are a key export for these countries. Recent investments from China in exchange for Africa’s abundant natural resources have enabled many African countries to develop at a significantly faster rate, with trade between the continent and China increasing by $155 billion [2] . All of this has contributed to an average GDP growth of 4.8% in the past ten years. There is a rapidly expanding middle-class and it is predicted that by 2015 there will be over 100 million Africans living on $3,000 a year [3] , showing an increasingly positive future for Africa.  [1] Maps of World, ‘Top Ten Countries with Fastest Growing Economies’, 2013  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011


Foreign Direct Investment to the continent has increased  Foreign investment into Africa has seen a large increase in recent years, which has enabled Africa to invest significant amounts of funding in to infrastructure, jobs creation and acquisition of technology [1] . In Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, foreign businesses account for a much larger percentage of employment than any domestic firm, hence increasing the standard of living for a greater number of people [2] . FDI has gone from $15 billion in 2002 to $37 billion in 2006 and $46 billion in 2012. The vast majority of this investment is based on extractive industries such as agriculture and raw resources. However, Africa has recently seen an increase in FDI for manufacturing and services as well [3] . Central Africa alone received $10 billion in 2012-3, due to an increased interest in the DRC’s copper-cobalt mines. The sources of this FDI vary, but China has become the major investor in the region, with investment rising from $11 billion to $166 billion in the past decade. China has helped build vast infrastructure projects in return for natural resources and food for its growing population.  [1] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.2  [2] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.19  [3] UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment to Africa increases’, 2013


Greater Access to Technology  Proponents of this view claim that the traditional image of ‘Dark Africa’ is becoming outdated in the light of greater access to technology. Due to poor infrastructure, mobile communications have had a transformative impact on African life. In the past decade there has been a notable increase in mobile phone ownership, with the trend set to continue. There are over 600 million mobile phone users in Africa, which is more than in North America and Europe [1] . Mobile phones allow the use of services such as agro-info and mobile banking to further their businesses. It is thought that by 2017, 30% of households will have a television in their house. Household technologies becoming more available have gone hand in hand with the development of more sophisticated farming and industrial techniques. A recent Pan-African project designed at improving legume technology and enrich low-nitrogen soils has made it possible for farmers to increase their yields and has reached 250,000 smallholder farmers so far [2] .  [1] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011  [2] Abuje, ‘Putting biological nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers’, 2011


Majority of states are still undemocratic  While there is a lot of contention over government type, democracy is seen as an aspiration in Western eyes, and African dictators have a history of running brutal and corrupt regimes. In Africa the majority of states are still dictatorships. Only 25 of the 55 states are democratic, whilst the rest are authoritarian or hybrid regimes. These dictators are commonly associated with poor governance, which in turn can affect economic growth. Recent pictures of Robert Mugabe and his team of ministers asleep at an African-Arab economic summit demonstrate how little enthusiasm some of these leaders have for the progress of their country [1] .  [1] Moyo, ‘Mugabe and his ministers sleep through economic summit’, 2013


War and Civil unrest disrupt development and economic growth  Another major barrier to economic development in Africa is the regional instability caused by the 23 wars and episodes of civil unrest. War is naturally a costly affair; the 2001 conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea cost the former $2.9 billion with extensive damage to its economic and social infrastructure. A BBC report noted that extra funding had to be diverted away from development in order to meet the rising demands of the war [1] . What makes Africa’s situation far worse is the tendency of many armed groups to become bandits rather than armies with political objectives [2] . The inclination for these armed groups to forsake any ideal of governing in favour of banditry and rape makes them harder to negotiate as ‘legitimate grievances in these failed or failing African states deteriorate into rapacious, profit-orientated bloodshed’ [3] . The constant disruption to the lives of civilians in these 23 wars has led to poor levels of human development, which has further destabilised the region.  [1] Bhalla, ‘War ‘devastated’ Ethiopian economy’, 2001  [2] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010  [3] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010


The Continent is still vulnerable to natural disasters  A major road block to development and economic growth in Africa is the prevalence of natural disasters. These disasters commonly affect the poorest and most vulnerable in society, as they are often the ones living in the ‘most exposed areas’, thus preventing development [1] . In Somalia, for example, the 2013 cyclone left tens of thousands homeless in an already impoverished area, worsening their economic situation [2] . Dr Tom Mitchell from the Overseas Development Institute has claimed that economic growth cannot occur until disaster risk management becomes central to social and economic policy [3] . Disaster management could cost too much however. In November 2013, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report demonstrated that 2070 a total $350 billion per annum would be required to deal with the threats presented by clime change such as increased Arid areas and higher risks of flooding [4] .  [1] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [2] Migiro, ‘Somalia Reels From Cyclone, Floods and Hunger – ICRC’, 2013  [3] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [4] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013


Millennium Development Goals have not yet been reached  While the majority of African governments have made efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the deadlines for achieving them are fast approaching with little sign of complete success. The MDGs were established in 2000, and laid out a set of criteria which each country should aspire to in order to become developed. These development goals are essential for Africa to be able to effectively grow. The United Nations Development Programme readily recognises that the eradication of hunger, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health and ensuring environmental sustainability are all off track in Africa [1] . Observing the causes of this failure, the inequality existing in Africa is blamed as a fundamental roadblock.  [1] UNDP, ‘MDG Progress Reports – Africa’, 2013


Economically beneficial  Switching diplomatic recognition to China can be economically beneficial. A country that changes recognition is both likely to be given a reward for the change and then be much capable of engaging in joint economic projects with the PRC. Malawi for example cut its ties with Taiwan at the end of 2007. PRC offered a $6billion financial package for the defection. [1] Malawi has since benefited from large amounts of Chinese investment; Chinese companies have been involved in building vital infrastructure such as schools and roads, and even a new parliament building. [2] And trade between China and Malawi has been booming with growth of 25% in 2010 alone. [3] Even the Chinese believe that recognition occurs as a result of the economic incentive the Chinese envoy to Malawi having been quoted calling Malawi beggars. [4]  [1] Hsu, Jenny W., ‘Malawi, Taiwan end 42-year relations’, Taipei Times, 15 January 2008,   [2] Ngozo, Claire, ‘China puts its mark on Malawi’, theguardian.com, 7 May 2011,   [3] Jomo, Frank, ‘Malawi, China Trade to Grow 25% on Cotton, Daily Times Reports’, Bloomberg, 15 December 2010,   [4] ‘Chinese Envoy's Remarks on Malawi Breed Resentment’, Voice of America, 1 November 2009,


PRC is clearly the China that matters  The Chinese civil war is over, and it is clear that it is the People’s Republic that has won. The 1992 consensus (though the term was coined later) between Taiwan and the PRC is that there is “one China, Different Interpretations” about who controls that China. [1] If there is only one China then it is clear which of the two China’s that one is. The PRC is 266 times larger than RoC, has 58 times the population, and its economy is 13.7 times bigger (by purchasing power parity). [2] States should be recognising the PRC as the “one China”.  [1] Kan, Shirley A., ‘China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei’, Congressional Research Service, 26 August 2013,  , p.47  [2] All figures from The World Factbook, China and Taiwan pages  ,


Should not ignore the will of 1.3billion  A small African country should not ignore one sixth of the world’s population. To recognise a tiny country of 23million over one of 1.3billion is being unjust to a huge portion of humanity. When there is such an imbalance in population it is clear that the democratic path is to recognise the side with the greater population. When all the states that have recognised Taiwan finally transfer recognition to the PRC Taiwan may finally recognise that it would be best off returning to China. By changing its recognition São Tomé and other small countries can do their bit to ensure peace in East Asia.


Cannot avoid dealing with a UNSC member  The PRC is a member of the United Nations Security Council and as such is one of the key members of the UN. It is therefore difficult for countries to avoid dealing with it. The Pacific island of Tonga’s switched recognition because it feared the PRC would veto its membership of the UN. [1] São Tomé is already a member but that does not mean the PRC can’t cause problems in the international body; it clearly has the ability to scupper any initiative São Tomé wishes to pursue. Similarly in other international institutions while the PRC does not wield as much power as it does in the UN it still has considerably more influence than Taiwan; this includes over some organisations that provide aid such as the World Bank and IMF. São Tomé therefore must deal with the PRC, this being the case it should not let recognition get in the way.  [1] Fossen, Anthony Van, ‘The Struggle for Recognition: Diplomatic Competition between China and Taiwan in Oceania’, The Journal of Chinese Political Science, Col.12, No.2, 2007,  , p.4


There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict  There is a truce between Taipei and Beijing on the issue of recognition. Neither is currently aiming to poach countries from the other. China has refused advances from El Salvador and Honduras that have said they wish to change their recognition to the PRC. [1] When Gambia terminated its ties with Taiwan Hong Lei a spokesman for the PRC Foreign Ministry said “We learned the relevant information from the foreign media. Before that, China was not in contact with The Gambia.” [2] The truce has been maintained and Gambia has been left essentially not recognising either China. [3]  [1] Cole, J Michael, ‘Is China and Taiwan’s Diplomatic Truce Over?’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2013,   [2] Enav, Peter, ‘Beijing was in dark about Gambia's broken ties with Taiwan: China official’, The China Post, 16 November 2013,   [3] Atkinson, Joel, ‘Gambia’s Break with Taiwan’, The Diplomat, 2 December 2013,


Receive much greater interest from Taiwan  There are benefits to being one of only twenty-two countries that recognise another country; you are lavished with attention. The President of the RoC visited São Tomé in January 2014, [1] he was last intending to visit only two years before but cancelled as President Manuel Pinto da Costa was overseas. [2] Visits also regularly go the other way; in a four month period from October 2010 São Tomé’s President, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister all made separate trips to Taiwan. [3] The PRC being recognised by many more countries could never provide the same level of attention. As one of the poorest countries in the world without the question of recognition the PRC would have practically no interest in such a small African state.  [1] ‘Ma vows to strengthen ROC-Sao Tome relations’, Taiwan Today, 27 January 2014,   [2] Hsiu-chuan, Shih, ‘Ma’s trip canceled due to scheduling conflict: Sao Tome’, Taipei Times, 5 April 2012,   [3] Martins, Vasco, ‘Aid for legitimacy: São Tomé and Principe hand in hand with Taiwan’, IPRIS Viewpoints, February 2011,


Should recognise a democracy  São Tomé is a multiparty democracy and has been since 1995 with free and fair elections. [1] The country is eleventh on the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. [2] It should therefore be supporting its fellow democracy; Taiwan. As a country that was a colony of Portugal for five hundred years having only secured independence in 1975 São Tomé should not wish to support a country that colonises others such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia, seeks to colonise Taiwan, and engages in aggressive actions to seize small islands in nearby seas.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Sao Tome and Principe’, U.S. Department of State, 2012,   [2] ‘The Ibrahim Index of African Governance’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation,  accessed 10/2/2014


Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery  Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh.  [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News,   [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


The current austerity measures are not working  The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity.  [1] Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph,


A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone  A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members.  [1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems  The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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