title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality. | |
The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade The increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods. 1 Marla Dickerson, "NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls," Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008. 2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers," Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5. | |
There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico. 1Paul Magnusson, "Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?" Business Week, May 8, 2000. | |
NAFTA has benefitted Canada. Canada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2. 1 Lee Hudson Teslik, "NAFTA's Economic Impact," Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009. 2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, "Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success," BNET, January 2004. | |
While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically. | |
If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community. | |
NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico. Trade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4. 1Kevin Kelley, "Good NAFTA?," Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2. 2Renee G. Scherlen, "Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election," Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21. 3Sam Dillon, "Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat," New York Times, July 13, 2000. 4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do," Business Week, December 22, 2003. | |
NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation. By expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war. | |
Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas. 1Amy Clark, "Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?," CBS, February 11, 2009. 2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006. | |
The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost. 1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," (New York: Picador, 2007), 148. | |
NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection. Under NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004. 2 "The Sun Belt NAFTA Case." Sun Belt Water, 2004. 3 Kerr, Jim. "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues." March 10, 2004. | |
NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power. In reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality. 1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006. | |
NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy. Although NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests. 1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do." Business Week, December 22, 2003. 2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Broken Promise of NAFTA." New York Times, January 6, 2004. | |
NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers. US farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004. | |
NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers. | |
NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors. As NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members. 1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006. | |
NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004 | |
NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered. 1 "> Jim Kerr, "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues," March 10, 2004, < | |
If retailers need to unload an item, it is totally within their rights to do that, as long as they don't use that item to trick consumers into buying more expensive items. Selling off goods at a low price, when not planned, would also not harm producers because it would not be a case of "retail price management (RPM)," in which producers agree to sell the product for less to the retailer. | |
The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects. Typically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive. 1 Robert Smith, “Lack of loss-leader sales good news for brand conscious wine industry,”National Business Review (New Zealand), June 19, 2009 | |
The use of loss leaders allows greater competition in the retail sector. It helps to drive the overall level of prices down by allowing much greater variation in pricing than would be possible if all goods had to be offered at cost price plus a small profit margin. Loss leaders also allow new entrants to make an immediate impact upon a mature marketplace dominated by a small number of entrenched incumbents, and so they are a valuable tool in maintaining price competition over the long term. | |
Banning loss leaders would help suppliers The practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these "Resale price maintenance (RPM)" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers. 1 John B. Kirkwood, Albert Foer, and Richard Burnell, “The American Antitrust Institute On the European Commission’s Proposed Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on Vertical Restraints,” American Antitrust Institute, September 27, 2009, page 5-6. | |
The use of loss leaders in marketing campaigns can benefit both retailers and producers. Below-cost price offers are typically used at the introduction of new products in order to encourage consumers to try something for the first time. Whether it is a new vegetable or cheese, a different breakfast cereal or an improved type of soap powder, it is in the interest of farmers and manufacturers to build consumer awareness and market share quickly. In the long run, if consumers like the new product, prices will rise and both producers and retailers will profit from it, so it is quite reasonable that producers are asked to share in the costs of launching it at a discount. | |
Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics. Loss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone. 1 Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI Working Paper #658) | |
The prohibition of loss leaders would promote competition in the market. Selling items at a loss is a predatory strategy used by large retailers to drive out smaller businesses, and so prohibiting them would protect competition. The practice is especially bad for small businesses, which cannot compete with the massive retail firms behind huge hypermarkets. These dominant corporations have the deep pockets to make a short-term loss in order to increase the volume of their sales. The whole basis of this policy is to drive smaller firms that cannot afford to offer loss leaders out of business. France has regulated its retail sector to prevent this kind of abuse of market dominance, in order to preserve its traditional shopping streets with family businesses. Other countries should follow the French example and ban loss leaders to protect small business and boost competition. | |
It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing. | |
The government should be able to stop large retailers from exploiting consumers and producers. There is no doubt that retailers have a reason for selling items below market value, but they are only able to profit from such an illogical strategy by exploiting consumers and producers. They trick consumers into buying more expensive items and they force producers who have minimal leverage to lower the wholesale price in order to take the loss leader price into account. | |
Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers. The use of heavily discounted loss-leaders is good for shoppers, especially low-income consumers, who are most appreciative of a bargain that will help them stretch their limited budget. Customers are not stupid but instead canny consumers who are well able to see through the marketing ploys of the big retailers. Often price-conscious shoppers will stock up on the most heavily discounted items, but then go elsewhere for the rest of their shop. On the other hand, attempts in countries like France to regulate retailers have just resulted in protection for the existing firms that dominate the marketplace, and in a lack of competition, which drives up the cost of the weekly groceries for everyone. The same items can cost 30% more in France, where loss leading is banned, than in Germany where it is not and discount stores flourish1. Prohibiting this strategy will hurt consumers. 1: Economist, "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition," May 15, 2008. | |
Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell. Retailers find themselves all the time with stock that they need to unload, that nobody is buying. This is especially a concern with items that have a sell-by date after which they may not be sold and so become worthless. In such a situation, selling below cost price is economically rational, as it means that the retailer realises some money on their stock rather than none at all. Visit any open-air market at 3.00 p.m. and you will see traders slashing the prices of unsold perishable goods for just this reason. If a retailer is going to sell an item below price level, it might as well use that item as a marketing device. Can you imagine the same market trader slashing his prices, but not shouting them to passersby? Sometimes retailers need to sell items below the price level, and they should be allowed to market them cleverly in order to make up for some of the loss in revenue. | |
Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society. By requiring retailers to sell items at least at cost level, the government is creating an artificial price floor, which will cause prices to rise and create a net loss for society. Basic economics explains that artificial price floors upset the free market, costing a net economic loss for society, which will eventually be paid by all sectors involved. The harm that prohibiting loss leaders causes to prices is well documented. According to a study by the French newspaper La Tribune, a basket of identical items costs 30% more in France than it does in Germany, partly because of the ban on loss leaders1. In fact, this is the very reason why Ireland repealed its loss leaders ban. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment said at the time, "The single most important reason for getting rid of the [law] is that it has kept prices of groceries in Ireland at an artificially high level." Indeed, a study published in the British Food Journal concluded that the Irish law had caused prices to rise, and a separate study came to the same conclusion regarding France's loss leader prohibition. More generally, a report from the American Anti-Trust Institute shows that throughout history, such price laws have typically raised prices to consumers. 1 Economist . "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition." May 15, 2008. | |
The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods. It should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise. | |
There is a good and a bad side to loss leaders for consumers, but prohibiting the practice will always be worse. The obvious benefit to consumers of loss leaders is that they are inexpensive goods to buy. While it is possible that some people will then buy more expensive products because they have entered the store, every item has a price tag, so the customer is always aware of his decision, which means this is not a predatory practice. Banning loss leaders, on the other hand, is catastrophic for consumers, as it will always result in prices rising. When announcing the repeal of Ireland's loss leaders prohibition, Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment Micheál Martin said, “Very simply, the [law] acted against the interests of consumers for the past 18 years.”1 Loss leaders have positive and negative effects on consumers, but a ban is all bad. 1 Ireland Business News, “Groceries Order abolition.” | |
Loss leaders do not help lower-income customers because they are aimed at people who will buy a lot of expensive goods at the store. Patrick DeGraba of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argues that, when retailers act strategically, loss leaders are aimed at highly profitable customers1. Retailers have no interest in targeting less well-off consumers, because they won't then spend a lot of money in the store. Therefore, they are more likely to offer a high-quality item below its true cost; this will still be too expensive for many people, though. For example, stores will offer discounts on high-quality turkeys at Thanksgiving, because people who buy them are likely to buy a lot of food. Loss leaders may provide discounts for some consumers, but prohibiting the strategy would not hurt lower-income customers. 1: Patrick DeGraba, "Volume Discounts, Loss Leaders, and Competition for More Profitable Customers," Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics (Working Paper 260), 2003. | |
If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada. [1] [1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004, | |
Freedom of religion Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century. [1] Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish. [2] [1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, [2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey, | |
If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important. | |
Every nation should be allowed to respect its war dead Every nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state. [1] [1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013, | |
If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war. [1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does. [1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment, | |
Is a domestic matter for each individual The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”. [1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government. [2] [1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013, [2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, | |
It is silly to argue that visiting a shrine makes a country look militaristic. Of course in most cases militaristic symbolism and militarism goes hand in hand but this is not the case here. Japan by its actions is not militaristic and no amount of visits to shrines will make it so. Japan is committed to a pacifistic constitution; Article 9 states “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” [1] Despite flashpoints with all its neighbours only 25% of the Japanese public want to increase Japan’s defense capabilities – although this is rising. [2] It is notable that he Yashukan itself accepts that its position on the war is a challenge to the mainstream Japanese opinion. [3] [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, [2] Hayashi, Yuka, ‘As Tensions Rise, Pacifist Japan Marches Into a Military Revival’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2013, [3] Yoshida, Takashi, ‘Revising the Past, Complicating the Future: The Yushukan War Museum in Modern Japanese History’, Japan Focus, 2 December 2007, | |
Those going to Yasukuni are not going to honour the class A war criminals but the more than two million others who have given their lives for Japan. It is unfortunate that there are war criminals enshrined in the cemetery but it is wrong to conclude that because they are there those visiting must be visiting the war criminals. | |
Visits sour relations The visits by senior Japanese politicians to Yasukuni are clearly a major issue in international politics that damages relations between Japan and its neighbours, particularly the People’s Republic of China and the two Koreas. Whenever ministers visit there is a round of recriminations this is often accompanies by cancelling discussions and visits as in april 2013 when South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se cancelled his visit. [1] South Korean President Park Geun-hye notes “If [Japan] does not have the courage to face its past and does not take an attitude of taking care of its partners’ pain, it will be difficult to establish trust to proceed toward the future.” [2] Diplomacy is about trust, Yasukuni undermines it. Even attempts to minimise damage by sending representatives, as done by Prime Minister Abe in August 2013, does not help repair relations with China responding “It does not matter in what form or using what identity Japanese political leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine, it is an intrinsic attempt to deny and beautify that history of invasion by the Japanese militarists”. [3] The only option is for all ministers to steer clear of the shrine and avoid sending offerings. It is not in Japan’s national interests for them to go. [1] ‘Seoul cancels summit over Yasukuni visits’, The Japan Times, 23 April 2013, [2] ‘S. Korea’s Park: Japanese politicians hampering citizens’ efforts to promote trust’, The Asahi Shimbum, 15 August 2013, [3] Mead, Walter Russell, ‘China & Korea Condemn Japan over Shrine Visit’, The American Interest, 15 August 2013, | |
Separation of Church and State In most modern democracies there is a strict separation of Church and State. This is the case in Japan just as in the United States of France. The constitution states “No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority” and bans the use of public money on any religious institution. [1] Lawmakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, visiting the Yasukuni shrine break this principle. [2] The constitutionality of visits has been challenged before and was ruled to be in violation of article 20 of the constitution (quoted above) by the Osaka High Court in September 2005. [3] Clearly no state should have senior members of the executive regularly breaking its own constitution. [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, [2] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, [3] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, | |
Makes Japan look militaristic Ministers and MPs visiting Yasukuni makes Japan look much more militaristic than it really is. There are two reasons for this. The first is the class A war criminals who should not be honoured as it appears to be honouring their militarism. The second is that Yasukuni itself has an overt political mission that essentially promotes such militarism. In the Yasukuni’s museum the Yashukan Japan’s wars are portrayed as wars of liberation from Western colonialism and fights against bandits and terrorists [1] – exactly the same justifications used in World War II itself. The museum, and its close ties with the shrine, display the unreconstructed view that Japan was the victim of the Second World War not the aggressor. When politicians visit the shrine they are showing their support for this interpretation. This could be solved by making the museum much more balanced; admitting that Japan started the wars they were involved in, information about the massacres such as at Nanjing, and about some of the other horrors perpetrated such as the ‘comfort women’ and unit 731. [1] Kingston, Jeffrey, ‘It’s time Japan acted to end the war over Yasukuni Shrine’, The Japan Times, 14 August 2013, | |
Honouring war criminals is wrong It is wrong to honour war criminals whose actions resulted in the deaths of thousands – or if you count the responsibility for the whole war in East Asia millions – of lives including the lives of Japanese citizens. The results were horrifying criminal acts. If Yasukuni is at all about remembrance then these individuals should not be enshrined and politicians certainly should not visit. Even Emperor Hirohito – Emperor during the Second World War – was opposed to their being enshrined. After the enshrinement of the war criminals in 1978 he stopped visiting the Yasukuni. He is quoted by Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita in his memoirs “At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba [the chief priest before the enshrinement] acted cautiously” However he questioned “What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son [the chief priest at the time of enshrinement], who is the current head priest? Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since.” [1] [1] ‘Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals’, The Japan Times, 21 July 2006, | |
The ruling in this case, as in others, was equivocal as it considered the problem to be that the visits by then Prime Minister Koizumi were in an official capacity. Koizumi put his name down as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi which the court considered made it official. [1] If the visits had been considered to be in a private capacity it would have been ok. Most cabinet ministers when visit emphasize that they go in as private citizens not as state ministers. [1] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, | |
The visits to the Yasukuni Shrine are mostly taken by the PR China and the Koreas as an opportunity to complain and bring up old wounds. Simply stopping visiting Yasukuni is not going to solve the fundamental problems in relations between these nations – disputes over Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima and Pinnacle Islands/Senkaku/Diaoyu or provide the demanded apologies over Japan’s World War II conduct which in any case when offered tends to be rejected as not enough. [1] Ultimately foreign relations between nations do not have to be linked to history; many countries put conflicting pasts behind them. If the other countries of North East Asia wanted good relations with Japan they would simply ignore these visits. [1] AP, ‘China dismisses Japanese apology for war aggression’, USA Today, 22 April 2005, | |
Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create. Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it. | |
National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated. States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state. States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state [1] . The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention. The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them. | |
Interventions can be small and successful. It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq. [1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions. Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005. [1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, | |
Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention. [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < . | |
This deters future human rights abuses. The use of force sends a strong message to oppressive regimes that their behaviour will not be tolerated. Human rights abuses happen around the world because there is no mechanism to stop it. Oppressive regimes thrive simply because there is no real, coherent deterrent to their abuses. Sanctions target their populations not their personal enrichment they gain through siphoning off money from domestic industry, diplomatic sanctions have no tangible impact on states and peacekeepers are useless when there is no peace to keep. The only true deterrent to regimes around the world is the danger that a strong military rival from outside will intervene and stop them and remove them from power. Sending a strong message that the international community can and will intervene in the cases of human rights abuses seriously increases the costs in regimes' cost-benefit-analysis of state behaviour and deters them from committing human rights abuses for fear of military defeat from abroad. | |
Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs. Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions. | |
This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families. | |
Force does more harm than good. The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect. Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare. Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction. For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths [1] . If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them. [1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < . | |
This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty. Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state [1] . The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have. It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system. [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < . | |
Foreign intervention fragments the conflict. The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war. The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country. This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table. A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation1. 1 "Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011. | |
Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world. | |
There is no appetite for, and little interest in, the outside world in the North. Those reunions that have been organised have been established by the South. As far as the citizens of the North are concerned they are living in a utopia that is the envy of the world. There is little evidence that North Koreans are clamouring for reunification, although there is some appetite for it in the South, it is diminishing as the generations that remember a united country die and the younger generations take a look at the cost of doing so. It is also highly questionable what either party would get from the union. The North would gain little except mass unemployment as they are simply not equipped for a 21st century economy and the south would get all of the social unease that usually accompanies mass unemployment. Talk of a shared culture and heritage is all very well but simply doesn’t pay the bills in is a fairly dubious claim at best – the languages are now unrecognizable to each other and the last sixty years have eradicated anything but the most romanticised views of an ancient and honorable past that never existed. Neither party brings any noticeable natural resources to the deal and the skill sets of each society are now so vastly different as to be mutually exclusive. There simply is no economic advantage. Politically the merger would look set to cause disaster, the last thing that the South’s new and somewhat fragile democracy needs is the sudden addition of millions of unemployed citizens with no history of participating in a democratic process. It would confer second-class status on those from the North for generations to come and be more likely to create a situation that looks like Israel/Palestine than one that looks like Germany. | |
Kim Jong Un is unlikely to consent to any form of unified government that does not include him and his family Although the regime in Pyongyang has expressed an interest in a reunified country, progress has been painfully slow. It took twelve years to get from initial contact to the first meeting. It seems likely that any suggestion of reunification is more a negotiating ploy than emblematic of any serious commitment. If reunification is to be achieved, it will happen in spite of the current leadership in the North rather than because of it. The continued separation of the two Koreas is, in many ways, an accident of history. They were only divided in 1945 for administrative convenience. If the Soviet and American leaderships had been able to develop a more sensible agreement then the two would never have been separated in the first place. This means that for the sake of administrative convenience sixty years ago, four thousand years of history has been torn apart. From the perspective of Korean culture and the Confucian beliefs that underpin it the nations should be reunited. It is clearly in the interests of the citizens in the North, whether they are aware of the fact or not. It is an idea that speaks to natural justice but is obstructed by the fact that one half of the country is run as the private fiefdom of one family. The only realistic way it will happen is through military intervention to compel the North and remove Kim Jong-Un and his cronies. | |
Although the famines in North Korea are now an annual fixture and are routinely exacerbated by the regimes whimsical refusals to accept food aid, it is difficult to see how the situation would be improved by what would probably be a long and protracted war followed by permanent unemployment. South Korea has no welfare state to speak of and retired people live off the income of the working ‘middle’ generation. Mostly the situation works well but it does assume that at least somebody in the household is capable of getting a job at some point. Per capita incomes are approximately five per cent of those to the South. Although it is possible to make a moral argument that the world has a responsibility to avert another famine in the North, they certainly do not have the moral authority to impose, asked and unwanted, a solution that runs the very real risk of making things worse for citizens on both sides of the 38th parallel. It is questionable as to whether the South has the right to meddle in its neighbours affairs for the rest of the world, en masse, to take it upon itself to do so is as lacking in moral authority as it is in economic credibility. | |
North Korea represents a clear danger to its neighbours and their allies and that is unlikely to change [1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010 [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea North Korea is virtually the definition of a rogue state. It remains technically at war with the South and frequently this manifests itself in acts of aggression. In any other situation the regime bombing of Yeonpyeong island would have been considered an act of war and met with a military response [1] . The regime’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weaponry poses a very real threat. The regime has tested missiles at least capable of reaching Tokyo and Seoul and has indicated a desire to be able to reach Washington, [2] James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is worried that they will be able to hit the west coast within a few years. [3] It seems reasonable to assume that, with the limited resources of the state being spent on these two goals, rather than feeding the people, the regime will ultimately succeed in their ambitions. Waiting until they can actually bomb North America or Europe would make Kim Jong-Un or his successor far too secure. Although it seems unlikely that he would ever mount an attack with conventional weapons, access to an appropriate delivery system and a nuclear warhead would make his removal by military means virtually impossible. Removing him from office before this happens is essential for the security of the region and the world. [1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010 [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003 [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009 threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003 [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009 | |
North Korea may well be a dangerous state with an unstable leader but neither the regime nor the nation is suicidal. There may be a large military but it simply lacks the resources to mount an invasion. The occasional demonstrations of military prowess have far more to do with negotiations about aid than they have to do with a genuine military threat to the South. It is inconceivable that North Korea would take any significant military action without the agreement of Beijing and it is inconceivable that any military action would achieve more than a gnat bite from the point of view of either the American or Chinese military. Although Kim Jong-Il may be a master of sabre-rattling as a form of brinkmanship it is staggeringly unlikely that the sabre would ever be unsheathed. It is worth noting that the idea that Pyongyang would commit financial suicide by attacking their main form of financial support – South Korea – is relatively ridiculous. The shifting relationship between the two Koreas has more to do with the varying level of political machismo in Seoul than it has to do with the realities of the possibility of military intervention or confrontation. | |
Despite the tyranny of Kim Jong-Un, the control he exercises over his people has eliminated the possibility of revolution There is grinding poverty in the North as well as brutal repression and all the other trapping of a military dictatorship. The only alternative future for the North is of a failed state going economically and socially in the opposite direction from the rest of Eastern Asia but now armed with nuclear weapons. The security threat this poses to the region is terrifying. However, it seems unlikely that the regime has any intention of surrendering their absolute power and the people are unlikely to remove him however bad things get, North Koreans do not have access to the tools such as mobile phones and the internet that made the Arab Spring possible. [1] Instead the people will continue to be fed a diet of propaganda and not much else. As well as the security implications there is a simple issue of morality, in any other situation where the actions of a government were impoverishing a people to, quite literally, the point of starvation, the world would feel moved to act. It is as clearly in the interests of North Koreans not to starve to death by the hundreds of thousands as it is in the interests of the South not to see similar numbers irradiated by a bomb on Seoul. [1] Zakaria, Fareed, ‘Zakaria: Will the North Koreans rise up?’, CNN World, 14 November 2011 | |
Although the younger generation in South Korea doesn’t have the hunger for reunification of their parents and grandparents, very few are hostile to the prospect per se, they are only concerned about the cost. It seems unlikely that this would in any way reflect the ‘50-53 war which was a battle between the US, the Soviet Union and China and just happened to be hosted on the peninsula and to its huge cost. One of the advantages of involving China is that it would be the clearest possible demonstration to the South Korean people that the superpower was committed to the long process of rebuilding their mutual neighbour. This answers several of the possible objections. China gets the benefits of security and South Korea gets an important ally in the process of rebuilding the North. | |
China has an enormous interest in not having an unstable nuclear power on its doorstep. It also has an interest in Pyongyang doing nothing to upset the region’s relationship with the West. That in and of itself should be enough for China to at least increase the trade and support it gives to North Korea. China is already investing in North Korea, such as at the port of Rason, [1] it would want to protect these investments, Chinese firms main criticism of operating in North Korea is the business environment something that unification would improve. The same can be said for Japan and the other Asian Tigers. Rates of growth in North Eastern Asia have been spectacular in recent years and do not look set to diminish in the long term. It is also worth noting that the estimates for the costs of reunification vary and $5trillion is on the upper end. Also that is the cost for getting the North to where the South is now. It took the South 60 years. North Korea would be following the same path as part of a larger and richer nation and could as a result do it faster. The North has land for development that is desperately lacking in the south and a large pool of cheap labour whose living standards would be increased dramatically by the association. Even just accepting the food aid sent by the international community would be huge progress on the current situation. Clearly North Korea is not going to solve all of its problems over night but simply not getting much worse every year would be a start. [1] Wong, Edward, ‘Tending a Small Patch of Capitalism in North Korea’, The New York Times, 12 October 2011 | |
Forcible "liberation" is contrary to the principle of self determination The absence of a civil society in North Korea makes it very difficult to know if there is a great upwelling of dissent in the country but there is certainly very little in the way of evidence of it. For the same reason, there is no obvious government in waiting, there is nothing that could take over from the triad of party, army and state that currently runs the country except and imported elite from the South. As a result an uninvited military intervention the people of North Korea would end up, in effect being ruled by a ruling elite that they don’t know. The influence of the regime is everywhere in the North and an occupying force would need to attempt a process similar to the disastrous de-Ba’athification actions in Iraq. The results do not seem likely to be any different. Replacing a heavily armed rogue state with a similarly heavily armed failed state would not seem to represent much in the way of progress. A rogue state can, at least, be mostly constrained by China, a border region that is part of a united Korea in name only offers no such opportunities for persuasion and coercion. Instead it would represent a ‘badlands’ causing difficulties for all around it on a daily basis with rampant crime taking the place of economic activity. | |
There is little interest in unification among young people in South Korea There is one very obvious historical example which speaks to attempts to unite Korea by force: the 1950-53 war. It seems unlikely that even the most ardent supporter of reunification south of the border would be keen to repeat that fiasco which had at least 910,000 battle deaths and total death toll up to 3.5million. [1] In addition, the younger generations have much less interest in the proposal than their parents and grandparents did. As a result the grand coalition would run the very real risk of one of the component parts actively opposed to the proposal and the other half at the very least unhappy about it. The assumption that the North Korean army will simply roll over or melt away is reminiscent of the ideas about swift victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and so it seems unlikely that the US public would be too keen to sign up for a second Korean War. Ultimately to work this proposal needs the support of the peoples of North and South Korea as well as those of, at least, the US and China. There is precious little evidence that any of those things are true. [1] ‘Inter-State War Data’, Correlates of War v.4.0, 1816-2007 , ‘Korean War’, Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century | |
Reunification of the Korea peninsular is unaffordable Estimates of the cost of reunification vary wildly but one thing is clear, they’re all very large. One recent estimate put it at $5 trillion – or $40,000 per capita for South Koreans for 30 years. [1] The economy of the North is virtually non-existent, it was never that healthy even when Moscow was propping it up, in 1992 it collapsed completely. Now only the military has any money at all. A whole series on unfinished and unnecessary vanity projects are the only thing resembling an infrastructure and roads and factories would simply need to be built from scratch. Although it is tempting to make the comparison with the reunification of Germany, the two situations are very different. Incomes in the East were about one third to one half of those in the West and the population was about a quarter that of its more populous neighbour. The population of the North is about half of the South and incomes are at about 5 per cent. [2] The Republic of Koreas simply could not pay the bills and so the burden would fall on other nations, presumably China and the US. Such a commitment would seem unlikely, it would be fantastically unpopular in the United States and unlikely to be supported for more than a couple of years. In the case of China, since they have shown little interest in developing many of their own backward, rural provinces it seems unlikely that they would commit to someone else’s. [1] Beck, Peter M., ‘The Cost of Korean Reunification’, Atlantic Council, 7 January 2010 [2] Ibid | |
There are certainly difficulties in seeing how an independent North Korea could be reasonably expected to joined the global community of nations. However, that is not the case here. There are still ties between the North and South, of blood and kindred if nothing else, two potent forces in Korean culture and Confucian thought. The situation is different from Iraq and the lessons of the De-Ba’athication process appear to have been learnt; that middle ranking, and often senior, apparatchiks do not necessarily have a loyalty to the former regime. De-Ba’athication was much more extensive than its equivalent in post-communist Europe where generally only those over a certain level were excluded [1] while after World War II very few Japanese were excluded from the bureaucracy. [2] It seems unlikely that the mistake would be repeated. The closest analogy to where the North is now is not the oft-cited East Germany but South Korea’s own prodigious economic growth. On the basis of which there should be huge optimism at the prospect of reunification. Reunification looks almost inevitable as the state quietly implodes. The leadership in North Korea are not fools, they see the economic data and know that change is needed. There is even talk of not accepting Kim Jong Un’s designated successor. As a result reunification can take place after a long period of decline which leaves the country needing even more effort and money to rebuild or following decisive action. There is every reason to suspect that there is genuine dissatisfaction in the North and certainly the accounts and actions of defectors would suggest this to be the case. [1] Williams, Kieran et al., ‘Explaining Lustration in Eastern Europe: ‘A Post-communist approach’’, SEI Working Paper No 62, 2003, p.2 [2] Arato, Andrew, ‘The Occupation of Iraq and the Difficult Transition from Dictatorship’, Constellations, Volume 10, Number 3, 2003, p.9 | |
Africa has witnessed significant economic growth since the inception of the ‘War on Terror’, and it is predicted that between 2013 and 2023 there will be an annual increase in GDP of 6% a year [1] . This implies that US military assistance to help counter-terrorism activities will not be needed in the future to same extent. In addition, the emergence of the African Union’s composite peacekeeping force has created an army with counter-terrorism abilities. This force draws from multiple countries which reduces the cost for each member, creating an economically viable African force. [1] The Economist, ‘Africa rising: A hopeful continent’ | |
African states can’t afford the full cost Africa is the least developed continent in the world and will struggle to independently maintain a specialised counter-terrorism force. Thirty four of its fifty four states are classed as ‘least developed countries’ [1] . The result of poor funding and bad governance is a decreased efficiency of security and military services in these states. In turn, this has resulted in destabilisation of the region. Wages, training, and military equipment are expenses which few African countries can afford alone. Kenya, for example, had to disband its Police Reserve unit in 2004 as unpaid officers had turned to corruption to ensure a decent wage, despite the need to combat terrorism in the state as shown by the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall [2] . Aid from the United States enables these African states to field financially viable forces which can then participate in counter-terrorism. Before military aid was cut to Egypt in 2013, the US provided $1.3 billion annually to support one of the strongest militaries on the continent [3] . [1] The World Bank ‘Least Developed Countries’ [2] Boniface,B., ‘Kenya to revive police reservists in Garissa to fight al-Shabaab’ [3] BBC ‘US withholds Egypt military aid over crackdown’ | |
Other actors are gaining strength in the counter-terrorism scene. Despite its weaknesses, the AU has participated successfully in counter-terrorism actions such as that of Darfur and Somalia. Other Western actors have also presented themselves as an alternative. In 2012 France intervened in Mali and prevented extremist Muslim and Tuareg separatists from gaining control of the state. The US’ response to this same incident was limited in contrast demonstrating numerous alternatives to AFRICOM. | |
Specialism of the United States in counter terrorism The United States has one of the most elite and experienced counter-terrorism forces in the world, Africa could only benefit from the help they offer. Branches of the US military which specialise in counter-terrorism, such as the US Navy SEALs and Delta Force, receive rigorous training and have gained experience from numerous operations. Many African states lack the ability to train and utilise such forces, which is why US help is welcome. US military advisers were sent to Uganda to help combat the Lord’s Resistance Army [1] (LRA) and assisted with ‘an impact disproportionate to its size’ [2] . Between 2011 and 2013, the LRA’s attacks were halved and the conflict’s death toll decreased by 67%. The experience that these forces provide is visibly valuable for Africa’s counter-terrorism activities. [1] Shanker,T., ‘Armed U.S. Advisers to Help Fight African Renegade Group’ [2] BBC, ‘US forces join jungle search for Kony’ | |
The use of US Special Forces does not guarantee success in counter-terrorism operations. These forces have made mistakes in the past, as demonstrated by the failure in the battle of Mogadishu. Despite two years in the field, the US assisted African forces have still not found Joseph Kony (leader of the LRA) which puts the Special Forces’ usefulness in to question. There is also the issue of sending the ‘right man for the job’. Military advisors who are female or lower ranked are often not respected by the forces they train [1] . [1] Metrinko,M.J., ‘The American Military Advisor’ | |
Providing military assistance against terrorism can have a negative effect on global stability. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia misappropriated the state as a terrorist haven and anti-terror missions failed to target the nature of the conflict [1] . This led to continued instability within the country which then produced a significant Islamic, terrorist movement in 2006. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.4 | |
There are few alternatives The United States is the only significant actor in region which can be relied upon in counter-terrorism issues. Due to the “War on Terror” and a need to maintain a military equipment export industry [1] , the US has been a reliable ally for many African states. The alternatives are less attractive. African nations often dislike their neighbours involving themselves in their affairs, exemplified by the second conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo – the Great War of Africa that drew in nations across the region attempting to secure their own interests. The limited effectiveness of the AU’s army has also prevented them from becoming a prominent actor in counter-terrorism. The failure of the AU’s measures in Sudan during 2003 forced them to appeal to the UN for aid. This was effectively an admission of failure [2] , signifying these actors as weak in comparison to the USA. [1] Plumer,B., ‘The U.S. sends Egypt far more military aid than it needs’ [2] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.13 | |
Increased global security The presence of US military equipment and counter-terrorism forces in Africa will result in greater security for the rest of the world. Many of the terrorist groups which have existed in the ‘ungoverned’ spaces of Africa have an international agenda. Al-Qaeda and other groups have used Africa as a base to plan attacks against the West, such as the 2004 Madrid bombing [1] . The disruption and eradication of these groups is therefore beneficial as it will prevent these groups from acting freely on the international stage. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.2 | |
The US Congress has taken steps to reduce security assistance to states which have committed mass human rights abuse [1] . In October 2013, President Obama announced cutbacks in military aid to Egypt after a military coup and crackdown on protestors [2] . In addition to these penalties, there are also good governance programmes run by USAID in unison with counter-terrorism policies to ensure a healthier transition to democracy, reducing the risk of repression [3] . [1] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.38 [2] Gordon,M.R., ‘In Crackdown Response, U.S. Temporarily Freezes Some Military Aid to Egypt’ [3] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.55 | |
The rise in terrorist activity in Africa since 2006 has reshaped this priority. Following the Kenyan example, the Nairobi mall massacre and the subsequent attacks have acted to change the prioritisation of terrorism in some countries. In early 2014, Kenya’s Defence Secretary Raychelle Omamo stated that there was going to be a greater focus on counter-terrorism in the future [1] , this event has shown many Africans that terrorism is an issue that requires serious attention. [1] Otieno,B., ‘Kenya: China to Help Kenya Safeguard Territory’ | |
Militarisation of US policy in Africa The broadening of USAID to accommodate counter-terrorism assistance has detracted from long term development goals. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the change of USAID’s focus, the agency transformed from one of development to one of a ‘quasi-security’ nature [1] . Since 2001, USAID has been forced go beyond its traditional humanitarian role. Development goals, which are crucial dealing with the root causes of terrorism such as poverty and poor state-citizen relationships [2] , are being sacrificed for short term military objectives. The military training of police has actually served to detract from development, as police financially exploit citizens with their newly gained power [3] . Africa’s urgent need for development suggests that the expansion of USAID’s role is disadvantageous for the continent. [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.629 [2] Gast,E., ‘U.S. Counterterrorism in the Sahel’ [3] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638 | |
Disrupts international relations US counter-terrorism support of certain African states has resulted in the indignation of their rival states. Africa’s complex history of conflicts has created enmity between states. The selection of some states for counter-terrorism support has weakened relations between these states and the United States. Eritrea, for example, has been hostile towards the United States due to the latter’s support of Ethiopia, who fought a war with Eritrea from 1998-2000. Eritrea accused the US of supporting Ethiopian occupation of Eritrean lands and caused the state to withdraw from US regional counter-terrorism plans [1] . [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.7 | |
Props up authoritarian regimes The USA has helped solidify the rule of several oppressive regimes in Africa through its counter-terrorism assistance. In an effort to prevent terrorism from gaining a foothold in Africa, US policy has supported states which have poor human rights records, allowing them to continue brutal regimes. The training and equipping of counter terrorism units by the US has been linked to increased repression and unaccountability from police forces [1] . This approach strengthened the Sudanese regime, who committed atrocities in Darfur while simultaneously received aid from the USA [2] . US support on the continent could backfire if highly trained but repressive forces become prominent. [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638 [2] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.13 | |
Many Africans do not prioritise counter-terrorism The US focus on terrorism has detracted attention away from the more pressing issue of domestic crime. High rates of murder, manslaughter, rape, corruption and the illicit drug and small arms trades are of greater importance than counter-terrorism to many Africans. The misplacement of funds by USAID in states like Kenya, has detracted attention away from the major threats to citizens. Hills commented in 2006 that ‘their (Kenyans) concerns focus on the ineffectiveness of the country’s criminal justice system in the face of rising crime’ and claims that the counter-terrorist training received by them does little to improve domestic crime rates [1] . [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.637 | |
In general, the USA’s counter terrorism assistance has led to greater regional co-operation. Shared intelligence and resources have become necessary to efficiently combat the global threat of terrorism. The US assisted a joint Mali-Niger venture to regain their desert regions, increasing co-operation between these two states [1] . Intelligence co-operation between North and Sahelian Africans has increased significantly since the beginning of the “War on Terror”, improving international relations between these countries. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.18 | |
Counter-terrorism helps ensure security, which is closely linked to development. Before it is possible to improve health care, education, poverty and other development factors, it is necessary to have a secure environment [1] . The action to broaden USAID’s development agenda is therefore taking a more practical approach towards ensuring that long term growth can occur in a stable environment. [1] Beswick,D. & Hammerstad,A., ‘African agency in changing security environment: sources, opportunities and challenges’ pg.476 | |
Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation. The coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days. [1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament [2] this is what the Parliament has done. [1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014 [2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 & 10), wikisource, 2004 , 2010 | |
Necessary response to an illegal coup The current government in Ukraine is the result of an illegal coup. On the 21st February Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine agreed to EU proposals that restored the 2004 Ukrainian constitution and set Presidential elections for later in 2014. The two sides were “to create a coalition and form a national unity government”. Thus Yanukovych was to remain President until the next elections. [1] The opposition however ignored this deal. As Putin puts it “They immediately seized his residence rather than giving him a chance to fulfil the agreement... He didn’t have any chance of being reelected.” The Ukrainian opposition used illegal and unconstitutional means to effect regime change. Russia therefore has a right to act to protect those who there has been an “armed seizure of power”. [2] [1] ‘Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text’, theguardian.com, 21 February 2014 [2] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014 [used this link as it is more comprehensive than the Guardian’s own] | |
Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. [1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim. [1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994 [2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999 | |
Approval of the Parliament The Russian parliament has agreed to approve force “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots” [1] The Russian Federal Council approved the move unanimously so allowing Russian troops to be used. [2] This gives President Putting the authority to use the Russian military in Crimea, or elsewhere in the Ukraine, if he believes it is necessary. The Crimean Parliament has also asked to join Russia and is to have a referendum to show the support of the people for this action. “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.” [3] This clearly gives Russian troops the right to be in Crimea. [1] Kelly, Lidia, and Polityuk, Pavel, ‘Putin ready to invade Ukraine; Kiev warns of war’, Reuters, 1 March 2014 [2] RT, 1/3/2014 [3] AP, ‘Crimean parliament votes to join Russia, referendum on move March 16’, FoxNews.com, 6 March 2014 | |
Invited by the legitimate government President Yanukovych is Ukraine’s legitimate President. He is therefore perfectly at liberty to allow Russian troops into his country to keep the peace in much the same way as countries around the world welcome US troops on their soil as protection from external threats or UN peacekeepers to keep the peace domestically. Yanukovych in a letter to Putin called “on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine.” [1] [1] ‘Yanukovich sent letter to Putin asking for Russian military presence in Ukraine’, RT, 3 March 2014 | |
This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case. On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2] [1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014 [2] Fraser, 2014 | |
Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise. Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1] [1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 | |
“Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive. While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people. [1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014 [2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014 | |
Crimea should be Russian Russia has a strong claim to the Crimea; The territory was only handed over in 1954 by Nikita Krushchev for political reasons. [1] Previously it had been Russian for three hundred years. Historically Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian. Culturally Crimea is important to Russia too, it was the main Russian tourism destination during the Soviet Union and Symbolised Russia’s gains in the 18th and 19th Centuries. [2] Russia for most of the 1990s refused to accept Ukraine’s independence, let alone Crimea that Crimea should be a part of it with the Russian Parliament engaging in actions such as declaring Sevastopol a Russian city. [3] Therefore the sovereignty of the region should be considered to be contested. [1] Pravda, ‘USSR's Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia’s Crimea away to Ukraine in only 15 minutes’, 19 February 2009 [2] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014 [3] Minorities at Risk Project, ‘Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine’, 2004 | |
Need to protect Russian civilians It is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”. [1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev. The Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.” [2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine? [3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people. [4] [1] RT, 1/3/2014 [2] RT, 27/2/2014 [3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014 [4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014 | |
Negotiating with the new government would mean recognising it. Russia may well recognise a new government after elections are held and the government is once more legitimate but until then there is little to negotiate. Moreover elections must be held only when there is stability. At the moment Russia won’t recognise any elections because they would be held under a situation of terror where “there is the danger that a fascist element will come to the fore, and some anti-semite will come to power.” [1] [1] Siddique, 2014 | |
Russia is hardly the first nation to send troops across a border without UN Security Council support, indeed there is quite a list; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo. All undertaken by western powers. Russia is not threatening the use of force it is simply guaranteeing that its citizens will not come to harm and putting the military on standby just in case such protection is necessary. | |
Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty States are allowed to take measures for “self-defence if an armed attack occurs”. [1] The movement of troops across the international border from Russia into Ukraine, and from the Russian base in Sevastopol clearly is a violation of sovereignty and Ukraine if it wishes has every right to use force to defend itself even if the Russians don’t fire first. [2] [1] United Nations, ‘Article 51’, 1945 [2] Deeks, 2014 | |
Damaging to Russia The United States wants to isolate Russia economically with Kerry threatening Putting “He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business, American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the ruble.” [1] Even without economic action Russia is already suffering fallout from the markets. The Moscow stock exchange fell 11.2% - or almost $60billion. The ruble reached all-time lows against the dollar and the euro and the Central bank was forced to raise interest rates by 1.5% to prevent further losses. [2] Longer term investment is likely to be hit as US and European companies are less willing to invest in a country with an aggressive foreign policy. [1] Swaine, 2014 [2] Adomanis, Mark, ‘The Invasion Of Crimea Is Crushing Russia's Stock And Currency Markets’, Forbes, 3 March 2014 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.