title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Cluster bombs are an ineffective weapon that often deal more damage to the side deploying the weapons than their opponents. Given modern warfare scenarios, the need for cluster bombs is not great given that in asymmetric warfare the conflict will be over relatively quickly, owing to the massive level of firepower that ... |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | The Ban is Unfeasible The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon t... |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the milita... |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This n... |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese m... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Putin’s initial support was based mainly on strong promises, a series of arrests of corrupt businessmen and tough action towards Chechnya that at first seemed to give positive results. His support base, however, has been significantly damaged following his increasing tendencies to control the media and to replace elect... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | A strong leader has more benefits than harms Putin is the strong leader that Russia has been waiting for. His electoral success and consistently high approval rates show that the people of Russia are ready for someone who can rid their society of increasing corruption and restore a sense of calm and equality. His abil... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Putting your hopes and trust in a single person can be fairly dangerous, particularly in a transition period. Putin is not the state and his ability to control and represent the state and the population at large is questionable. Putin is also not a saint and an example to be followed. His authoritarian tendencies do no... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Stability is more important than reform Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the cha... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | All periods of transition have been chaotic by definition and reforms are by their nature disruptive. At the same time, it is only through these reforms that a future of freedom and prosperity is possible. While a long transition process can certainly cloud minds and turn people into distrustful and disillusioned indiv... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | History is not destiny and a highly-selective view of Russia's past should not lead us to prefer authoritarian rule today. The Tsars and their communist successors killed millions of people through brutal rule and failed policies - made possible by the same lack of consultation and accountability that we see in Russia ... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest Putin’s authoritarian style is not a threat to democracy but rather a requirement for a successful and quicker transition. Having Putin control the media is probably healthier than having it be controlled by a corrupt few that promote their personal interests rat... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | All of these speculations are rather unreasonable and tend to create a public opinion which does not cooperate entirely with the truth. Such drastic conclusions can be made just about any other country. It is true that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader and a powerful figure in the Russian political life, but this does ... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Russia does not have true democracy The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Puti... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former pre... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving There is a fine line between enough authority to fight corruption and enough authority to oppress a population. Many corrupt, authoritarian leaders have risen to power through the promise of social reform and of wiping out drug cartels and g... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | The current president Dmitry Medvedev is working on and introducing policies toward corruption. Actually this is his main strategy. It is a well-known fact that Medvedev keeps close relations with the former president Putin and discusses Russian relations and policy with him. If the abolishment of the corruption was st... |
onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership | Russia has the attributes of a democracy. It is a federal state with a constitution. It has a two chamber legislature; the lower house is the Duma with 450 members elected from nationwide party lists based upon proportional representation. The Upper house; the Federation Council has two representatives from each of Rus... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The onl... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to ref... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway f... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive powe... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Le... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | Ukraine may not be a high priority itself for British foreign policy but Russia is still a major, possibly the most major, threat. The UK has had very poor relations with Russia for years with various spy incidents such as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko [1] and with Russian bombers regularly being intercepted near ... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be indivi... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | UK will be disentangled from EU affairs Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neithe... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such ... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | Power is shifting to the East Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potential... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | The EU is a force multiplier The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representati... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK [1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influent... |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | The UK will still be part of Europe just not in the EU. It will still be a member of a plethora of other organisations; NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, European free trade area. Countries like France and Germany are not going to stop listening to the UK because it is no longer a member. |
onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence | There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the U... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to le... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | There are other means by which cutting earmarks could be achieved, without the drastic step of mutilating the work of the Founding Fathers. For a start, Congress could just ban the use of earmarks, unfortunately an attempt in 2010 was defeated 39-56 in the Senate.1 Existing rescission powers could be toughened by requi... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these t... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | This amendment would only give the President a limited power for a limited but worthwhile purpose. The media and interest group scrutiny that accompanies the Presidency will ensure that the White House will have to justify every line-item decision made. It does not affect the Congress's power regarding policy-making, e... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | The constitution should not be amended We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It wou... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | Has made little difference in the past The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerabl... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not ... |
onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment | We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. Th... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their griev... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their griev... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. ... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the r... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. Internationa... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | It is very unlikely that many states will invite their neighbours to help them in the development of their weapons and in securing them, as doing so would open the risk to sabotage and would disclose potential weakness in their defences. Furthermore, terrorists will not be substantially deterred by greater openness in ... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbat... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer dest... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Powerful states often couch their imperial ambitions and desires to further their own aims on the world stage in the language of humanitarian intervention. [1] Such interventions are rarely due solely to the abuses, real and imagined, committed by leaders upon their people, but are driven by geopolitical considerations... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] S... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. U... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of s... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of ... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, I... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law. There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a ... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | It is true that most states will not develop nuclear weapons, whether they are recognized as a rightful possession of states or not. The important thing is that those states that do want nuclear weapons can have them, which will likely be only a handful. As to arms races, it is unlikely that they will occur, as the def... |
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons | Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failin... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the presi... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected o... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something th... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President. |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affectin... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Ameri... |
ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics | Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded ... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Constitutional imperative The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only ... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Checks and balances By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies. Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda w... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court. In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no ma... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventi... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | How Congress Works Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Effect on the structure of the main political parties Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing f... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological ... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections [1] ) when... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Existing checks and balances Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this. Firstly, the checks and balances put in pla... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Parties as coalitions The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, thr... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Growing partisanship The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of p... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | Effect on democratic participation Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them. The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it t... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party. Primaries are a symptom of ... |
government house believes governance united states should be split between two | As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditi... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down. |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | Providing attention simply encourages the regime North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace tre... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | South Korea can handle the situation itself The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its ow... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in pa... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting ... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflic... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the wit... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet a... |
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations | While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of internati... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.