title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2. 1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011 2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011 | |
Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developing countries in unlikely to improve anytime soon. Giving illegal immigrants temporary working visas will not stop some immigrants from staying in their host country after their visas have expired if they prefer the living conditions. Even in the case where they do decide to go back to their country of origin, this means the money they have earned will be spent there, and not in the country they have worked. This means the states loses out on revenue. | |
Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1 The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society. 1. Apsan, 2010 | |
Repatriation is immoral The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants are severely restricted in their freedom of movement. In the Western world, people can move around relatively easily, and this is seen as an inalienable right. To restrict this for people that do not come from this part of the world would be inhumane. Moreover, illegal immigrants have often built their lives in the country they reside in, having a family, sometimes children, work and a social circle. Often, children from illegal immigrants get citizenship because of their age, whilst their parents are repatriated. This forceful separation of children from their parents is a violation of their human rights, as article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the family is the natural unit in society which is entitled to state protection1. Separating children from their mother can be seen as a violation of this right. 1 United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948,, accessed 31 August 2011 | |
Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants The system of repatriating illegal immigrants can be proven harmful for these immigrants on several levels. Some illegal immigrants, although they might not fall under the official category of refugees, have fled dangerous situations such as persecution, violation of human rights and severe poverty. In 2009, France and the UK sent back several migrants that had fled the Taliban to Afghanistan when the country was still at war1. To send these people back to their country of origin would be a severe attack on their liberty and security. Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working conditions in illegal industries. 1 The Telegraph, "France deports illegal Afghan migrants on joint Franco-British flight", 22 October 2009,, accessed 31 August 2009 | |
Alternatives are better There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigration by focusing on border controls and improving economic conditions in countries where migrants come from. Trade agreements between developed and developing countries could be improved, which gives poorer countries more opportunities to trade. Most illegal immigrants migrate to Western countries to earn money, so if there are more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally and on a temporary basis, with the assurance that they can come back if needed, this will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country. | |
The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that people have the right of freedom of movement, but this right is restricted to the borders of one's home country, and are widened by international agreements. But even then the freedom of movement can be restricted, even for people in Western countries. If we take the example of a European or an American that wants to go on holiday to a tropical island, we see that freedom of movements is relative. Legally this person can be free to go, but if he or she does not have money to pay a ticket or refuses to do so, this right can still be taken away. | |
It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the relative short-term cost of repatriation. Alternatives, such as nationalisation of immigrants are also very costly and time-intensive, and would moreover encourages more potential migrants to come and obtain the country's nationality. | |
The reason western leaders have not been indicted is firstly, because their domestic judiciaries are strong and independent enough to be able to prosecute abuses when they occur. The ICC has a principle of complementarity where the ICC will only prosecute if the state themselves are unwilling or unable to prosecute. This is not the case in western countries where there is no difficulty putting members of government on trial – in the UK for example the environment secretary Chris Huhne was sent to prison for perverting the course of justice. [1] Secondly however, there is no evidence that these leaders were involved or responsible for atrocities in the same way the African leaders were. Western leaders have not authorized individual killings of civilians, or massacres, genocides or other crimes that are prosecuted by the ICC. [1] Mr Justice Sweeney, ‘Chris Huhne and Vicky Price jailed: judge’s sentencing remarks in full’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2013 | |
ICC treats Africa differently Africa and its leaders are treated far more contemptuously by the court. The prospect of prosecuting Barak Obama for the killing of civilians by drones which Amnesty International has suggested amount to war crimes [1] or George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is remote – yet Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta have both been indicted as sitting leaders. The ICC will only prosecute if those who have committed war crimes are not going to be prosecuted locally but this is as much the case for western leaders as African ones. This points clearly to the ICC proselytizing what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to Africans but not to other leaders – treating these leaders less respectfully and blatantly undermining African nations sovereignty in a way they would not, or would dare not, for others. [1] ‘USA must be held to account for drone killings in Pakistan’, Amnesty International, 22 October 2013 | |
The need in most cases for a referral from the UNSC certainly makes it unlikely that those states will be investigated but this does not make the court biased against Africa. Some of the cases in Africa have involved countries or their judiciaries referring themselves. In the case of Kenya’s election violence in the five years after the violence occurred very little action occurred from the domestic forces; there was a commission lead by Philip Waki that recommended a special tribunal to prosecute those involved. [1] However this never happened as a result the Waki commission handed their report over to the UN and ICC for action [2] . Unsurprisingly the case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, showing that a fair trial would have been very difficult to guarantee in Kenya itself [3] . [1] Waki Report, October 2008, (large pdf) [2] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009 [3] ‘Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013 | |
Africa is overtly prosecuted All of the twenty-four people currently indicted are African. Of the fifteen cases currently sitting before the court, all are African [1] . This in and of itself points to a large disparity between Africa and the rest of the world. It is also not at all true that Africa is the only place worthy of investigation – atrocities have occurred in the Middle East, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and North Korea, among others since the inception of the court. This is clearly because these other cases have powerful backers in the form of permanent Security Council members. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the ICC feels more comfortable targeting Africa then other regions where it is likely to run into opposition from powerful members of the international community. [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014 | |
While Africa is the only continent to face prosecutions, a number of other regions where atrocities have taken place are being heavily investigated, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea [1] . These are expected to lead to prosecutions occurring. So while Africa has had the focus during the initial years of the ICC, its focus is expanding not just focused on African atrocities. It is not even solely focused on developing countries; a complaint about British actions in Iraq has been handed to the ICC. [2] [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014 [2] Owen, Jonathan, ‘Exclusive: Devastating dossier on ‘abuse’ by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court’, The Independent, 12 January 2014 | |
ICC is controlled by the Security Council The ICC can only investigate situations that are referred to it by either the host country, or the Security Council [1] . A power also exists for the prosecutor to seek investigation, though this has as yet only been used twice. As such, most atrocities that occur across the world are shielded from prosecution because such a prosecution would be against the interests of a member Security Council. Leaders do not seem to be brought for investigation until they offend the west; Charles Taylor was not prosecuted until he had a falling out with the USA, despite their soft support for him in overthrowing the Doe regime [2] . Another case in point is Uganda where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been charged, but not the Pro-US government forces, despite evidence existing they have also committed crimes [3] . It is clear then that the ICC makes decisions by broad external factors, which biases it against Africa which does not have any countries on the UNSC or any patrons sitting on the council. [1] States parties to Rome Statute, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, ICC, 2011 [2] ‘Charles Taylor – preacher, warlord, president’, BBC News, 13 July 2009 [3] ‘ICC, A Tool To Recolonise Africa’, African Business | |
The point isn’t that the ICC has prosecuted in Africa; it’s that they have focused exclusively on Africa. This presents the rhetoric that Africa and Africans are somehow more violent and less moral then the rest of the world – or that Africans require more intervention than other places. This biases Africa again the rest of the world and marginalizes them in the international community. | |
While these countries referred themselves, they did under enormous pressure from the ICC. The Prosecutors chose to ‘follow closely’ African cases to the exclusion of others and then actively invited these countries to refer themselves, under threat of seeking prosecutions on their own if the country did not comply [1] . Self-referral under pressure does not show that the ICC is not biased against Africa rather it shows either that the ICC has been more interested in Africa than elsewhere, or that it has put more pressure on African states to self-refer. [1] African Business | |
Africa has a strong voice in the ICC The ICC has gone to great lengths to involve all parts of the world in all aspects of its operations. Fatou Bensouda, from Gambia, was recently appointed Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreover, Africans have twice been Vice-President of the court, and have had a fair representation of judges presiding over the court, with five of twenty-one current judges on the panel [1] . Moreover, the Africa Union played a large role in the negotiations over the Rome statute and the creation of the ICC, reflected in the large proportion of countries who are members. [2] As such, Africa’s voice is strongly heard in the ICC. [1] ‘Judge Sang-Hyun Song re-elected President of the International Criminal Court for 2012-2015; Judges Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Cuno Tarfusser elected First and Second Vice-President respectively’, International Criminal Court, 11 March 2012 [2] M urithi, Tim, ‘The African Union and the international Criminal Court: An Embattled Relationship’, IJR Policy Brief, no.8 March 2013, pp.1-2 | |
The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to those countries that have ratified the Rome statute. This combined with the likelihood of deadlock in the UNSC, means that many of the worst conflicts are off limits for the ICC. Using data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and UNHCR database since the Rome Statute came into effect in July 2002 (up to 2011) Ben Shea of the UCLA Law School finds that there has been little bias against Africa. Not only have most of the gravest conflicts taken place in Africa but the countries that were not investigated are not party to the Rome Statute. This eliminates Algeria, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Others such as Liberia, and the Philippines only signed up after their conflict had ended. Others such as Columbia, Georgia and Mexico can be eliminated due to Complementarity (where the states are willing to investigate themselves). In conclusion “Despite the fact that several very grave conflicts outside of Africa have occurred sometime between 2003 and 2011, once taking into account the jurisdictional obstacles of the ICC, only one country remains: Afghanistan. The fact that Afghanistan has been under preliminary examination by the ICC suggests that the Court is not biased toward Africa.” [1] [1] Shea, Ben, ‘Is the International Criminal Court targeting Africa inappropriately’, ICCForum, 17 March 2013 , Ben’s analysis is much more detailed than we have room for here so do read it for yourself. | |
African victims deserve ICC intervention to bring justice At the most fundamental level, many of the world’s atrocities of recent times have occurred in Africa, where weak government and mass war are rampant. Taken per head of population Africa has the most conflicts of any continent and unlike Asia its most brutal conflicts have occurred in the last couple of decades. [1] As such, it is not surprising that a focus has existed in Africa from the ICC. That the ICC has not been as strong in other continents is not evidence of bias against Africa, rather that they have work to do in other areas. But the victims of atrocities in Africa deserve their perpetrators to be brought to justice. As such, Africa is not a ‘victim’ of the ICC, but the greatest beneficiary. Africa had the greatest desire and push for international assistance in obtaining justice, and are now receiving that. This simply shows that Africa is forging a path that other regions should follow in terms of its acceptance of international criminal law. [1] Straus, Scott, ‘Wars do end! Changing patterns of political violence in sub-Saharan Africa’, African Affairs, 111/143, March 2012, pp.179-201, p.186 | |
Africa has invited ICC intervention Far from the ICC being biased against Africa it is Africa’s embrace of the ICC and the opportunity for international justice that has led to so many Africans being tried at the Hague. The reality is that the only nations to refer themselves to the ICC have been African –the DR Congo, Central African Republic, Mali and Uganda were all self-referred [1] . Likewise, the Ivory Coast referred itself to ICC jurisdiction, and referral of Darfur to the ICC from the Security Council was done so with the African Union’s support [2] . The ICC has clearly not as an institution been targeting Africa, rather it has been investigating, and then engaging in trials on situations that have been brought to it by the countries involved. Other regions of the world have not embraced the opportunity for justice in the same way so it is taking longer for investigations into war crimes in those situations by the ICC. [1] Clark, P. “Law, Politics and Pragmatism: The ICC and case selection in the DRC and Uganda” in Justice Peace and the ICC in Africa at 37. [2] Lamony, Stephen A., ‘Is the International Criminal Court really picking on Africa?’, African Arguments, 16 April 2013 | |
That the ICC is investigating the conflicts that under some analyses may be the gravest within its jurisdiction does not mean it is not biased. Complementarity in itself shows bias; it allows countries that are considered more developed off the hook ensuring that the ICC will only look at the least developed. African states have signed up to the ICC but the result of their belief in international criminal justice has been that those who attempt to avoid international justice by not signing up to the statute have succeeded while those who accept some form of justice have been targeted. | |
One of strongest current criticisms of the African Union is that the ICC is ignoring its opinions. In particular, the AU has very strong views on the treatment of the Kenyan President and his deputy by the ICC in the Kenyan investigation, which the ICC has failed to engage with. Tanzanian President, Jakaya Kikwete, said 'The ICC continues to ignore repeated requests and appeals by the African Union' and this 'attitude has become a major handicap that fails to reconcile the court's secondary and complementary role in fighting impunity' [1] . This has led to African Union seriously considering leaving the union – not evidence of them being an important part of the process. Having Africans as a part of the ICC itself does not mean it listens to the African states that are parties to it. [1] Dersso, Solomon, ‘Unplanned obsolescence: The ICC and the African Union’, AlJazeera, 11 October 2013 | |
Britain should not feel sorry for the new EU members and give up its rebate out of pity for them. They chose to enter the EU and accepted the terms of membership - including the rebate arrangements. Indeed, it could be argued that membership was not necessarily good for the former communist states - having escaped one bureaucratic and ideological superstate, they have now chosen to be ruled by another, exchanging Moscow for Brussels. EU membership will impose thousands of unnecessary regulations upon them and tie them to a “European social model” which is clearly failing in the western states - both these things could hold back their economic growth and leave them poorer than they could have been outside the EU. Even the development aid they will receive will largely be wasted because it has to be spent in ways Brussels demands rather than in locally productive investment. And if Britain did wish to be nice to the new member states, it could do so without giving up the principle of the rebate. Tony Blair agreed to alter the rebate in December 2005. Britain would not seek rebate payments linked to new member states agricultural and regional aid spending, but should keep the rebate in terms of spending of the original 15 EU countries who agreed . | |
New member states are much poorer than the UK Britain should give up the rebate in solidarity with the new member states. Most of the ten recent entrants to the EU are still struggling to overcome the legacy of communist rule and are much poorer than the previous 15 member states. In 2009 Bulgaria and Romania had less than half the average EU GDP per capita whereas the UK was about 120% EU average. [1] As one of the richest EU members, Britain has a moral responsibility to contribute its share of the money needed to allow the new member states to make a success of EU membership. It also has a self-interest in contributing to their economic development, for as they become richer their citizens will increasingly buy the services and media exports in which Britain specialises. Indeed, because the rebate is paid for by all member states the new member states will be contributing payments towards Britain’s rebate - clearly something which Britain cannot attempt to defend given the disparity in wealth. [1] Eurostat, ‘European economic statistics’, 2010, p.31 | |
It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card. | |
Enlargement could mean a new start Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Britain is much more likely to be able to work with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on these issues. [1] They also recognise that Britain promoted the cause of their membership throughout the 1990s and appreciate its willingness to grant immediate free movement to their citizens who wish to work in Britain. In all these ways they are closer to Britain than to France or Germany, the two big states who have traditionally dominated EU decision-making. Enlargement presents Britain with a great opportunity to influence the future direction of Europe in partnership with these new states, but this opportunity will be lost if British insists on the rebate regardless of Central and Eastern European opinion. [1] Number 10, ‘Transcript of press conference given by the Prime Minister David Cameron at the EU Summit in Brussels on 17 December 2010’, 2010 | |
The Rebate is not justified The British rebate is an undeserved anomaly - no other country has a similar arrangement to pay back part of its contribution to the EU budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all make a bigger net contribution to the EU than Britain does (in proportion to the size of their populations), [1] yet they do get special treatment. Britain knew how the EU operated when it chose to join more than thirty years ago - if it didn’t like the structure of the budget, whereby rich countries pay more than poor ones, it could have stayed outside. In any case, a few billion Euros a year is a small sum to pay for access to a huge continent-wide market, the department for Business Innovation & Skills estimated that GDP in 2006 was 2.2% higher than it would have been without a single market, [2] in Britain this would be almost $50billion. [1] BBC News, ‘EU Budget’, 2007 [2] BIS, ‘The Benefits and Achievements of EU Single Market’ | |
While the UK is the only country to have so far received a rebate the Commission pointed out that the Fontainbleu agreement was based on the principle that ‘….any Member State sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time.’ [1] This could clearly apply to many other countries apart from Britain, Germany and other countries could therefore ask for a rebate if they wish. While there is no other compensation mechanism like the rebate there are lump sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden [2] while Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria all have reduced rates of the European portion of VAT, [3] and the same states also pay less towards the rebate. [4] [1] Patterson, Ben, ‘The UK rebate issue’, p.2 (link downloads pdf) [2] Europa, ‘Where does the money come from?’, 2010 [3] Notenboom, Harry, ‘Structure and composition of the European Union own resources System’, 2009, p.17 [4] Ibid, p.15 | |
Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate. [1] [1] White, Michael, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Blair clinches deal with offer of big rebate cut’, 2005 | |
Britain does not want to be at the heart of Europe - it wants to be in the EU, but not run by the EU. Even if the rebate went, the UK would remain outside any EU “core group” of countries, as it has chosen not to join the Schengen agreement on passport free movement, and to stay outside the Euro. Both these decisions have very wide political and popular support in the UK, and neither will be changed even if the rebate was weakly given away. So tensions will continue between Britain and its European partners, but at least by defending the rebate they will know that the UK is prepared to stand up for its interests and respect it. | |
The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform It is worth giving the rebate up in exchange for serious reform of the EU budget, particularly of the Common Agricultural Policy which spends 40% of the EU’s budget [1] on 3% of its population. [2] The CAP not only wastes taxpayers’ money, it also raises the cost of food for European consumers, ruins the environment and prevents poor farmers in the developing world from trading their way out of poverty. Even in its own terms it is a disaster, for most CAP money goes to a small number of rich landowners running huge agribusiness estates, not to small-scale peasant farmers preserving the traditional rural way of life. If offering to give up the British rebate helps to get agreement on reform, then it is a sacrifice well worth making. Britain on the other hand favors using CAP more to protect the environment rather than encourage food production. [3] [1] Europa, ‘Budget 2011 in figures’, 2011 [2] Eurobarometer, ‘Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy’, 2007, p.9 [3] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013’, 2011 | |
Giving up the rebate would mean better relations with the Europe Union It is worth giving up the rebate to remove a constant source of tension and ill-feeling between Britain and its European partners. Until the rebate is abandoned, Britain will never be at the heart of Europe. This limits our ability to promote our other interests in Europe, as every argument always ends up back at the rebate, and weakens our moral authority. Denmark for example is similarly Euro sceptic but is fiercely opposed to the UK rebate and aims to scrap it during Denmark’s next EU Presidency in 2012. [1] Because preserving the rebate has always been the Prime Minister’s priority, every other British goal has been given up instead. This led to bad deals for Britain over the ERM, at Maastricht, and in 2002 when Tony Blair accepted a Franco-German agreement to leave the CAP unreformed until 2013. This is because Britain is inevitably on its own in any possible change to the rebate whereas on almost any other issue Britain has allies. So when Britain’s opponents can link the rebate to an issue Britain may be able to keep the rebate but will in other respects be on the losing side. [2] [1] Jensen, Arne Nis, ‘The UK rebate – or rethinking the EU budget?’, 2011, p.27 [2] Rennie, David, and Helm, Toby, ‘Blair is all alone in Britain’s EU rebate row’, 2005 | |
When the rebate was agreed over twenty years ago, Britain was poor after decades of decline. In fact it was the third poorest state in the then European Economic Community (after Ireland and Greece) [1] , so the size of its net contribution to the budget was clearly unfair. Now the UK is one of the EU member countries and the rebate is no longer justifiable in the way it was originally justified. The sums involved are small compared to the overall UK budget - much less than the margin of error in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s tax and spending plans, in 2003 for example Gordon Brown had to borrow £10 billion more than expected. [2] It is partly (perhaps largely) because of Margaret Thatcher’s achievements in power that the UK is so strong economically, so agreeing that the rebate is no longer necessary is a tribute to her legacy, not a betrayal. [1] OECD, ‘1984, Gross domestic product: Per head, US $, constant prices, constant PPPs, OECD base year’, 2011 [2] Schifferes, Steve, ‘Chancellor to squeeze wages’, 2003 | |
With the expansion of the European Union it is no longer justified that Britain should not be paying more towards the European Union, and in particular the much poorer Eastern European states which have joined. Britain cannot expect to get as much back from the European Union as it puts in. Britain should accept being one of the biggest contributors and in return would get a bigger influence one the EU, rather than being constantly frozen out of decisions by France and Germany. | |
The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people The EU is a vast wasteful bureaucracy, for example creating a ‘House of European History’ for €14 million, [1] and is beyond reform. Anything to limit Britain’s contribution to this monster with pretensions to becoming a super-state is desirable. Many in the UK, between 35 and 65% of the population, [2] would prefer that we withdrew altogether, but if we can’t at least we should “starve the beast” by limiting the amount of money we give it to do harm with. Even if you think Britain should stay in the EU, you must recognise that the rebate is one of the only things that makes EU membership acceptable to ordinary people. Giving up the rebate is likely to swing British opinion strongly in favour of withdrawal. [1] Banks, Martin, ‘Parliament hits back at claims of ‘wasteful’ spending plans’, 2011 [2] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Would Britain vote to leave the EU?’, 2009 | |
Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems Those EU leaders who are most critical of the rebate are ignoring the EU’s real and serious problems by spending large amounts of time in rows with Britain over the rebate. Europe has immense problems such as persistent 10% unemployment, which has gone up as a result of the financial crisis, the rejection of the EU constitution by voters, the challenge of globalisation, the failure to make the single market in services work fairly, corruption and waste at Brussels, etc. This is even before the immense difficulties with the Euro which the Eurozone is currently suffering from. All these issues are much more important than the rebate for the future of the European Union. If Europe can once again become competitive economically then the financial gains for Europe will be much greater than persuading Britain to drop the rebate. | |
The rebate could never be regained Margaret Thatcher fought for four years to win the rebate for Britain, famously wielding her handbag at EU summits until it was agreed. Giving it up is a clear betrayal of Thatcher’s legacy and shows the present government’s unwillingness to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brussels. With the situation now different due to there being more members there is no chance of any future British Prime Minister being able to repeat Mrs Thatcher’s achievement of 1984, so once the rebate is given up, it can never be regained. | |
Britain should not pay more than other countries Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.” [1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more, [2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has [3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much! [1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010 [2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154 [3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005 | |
There may be bigger problems but the rebate is symptomatic of many of them. The reason for many of Europe’s problems is the determination for member states to take from the EU but not give and to haggle over everything rather than working together. The rebate is a prime example of one state believing that it deserves a small amount of money more than others and as such should be scrapped in order to help show that both big and small problems can be tackled through one state being willing to give up something important to it in return for others doing the same on other issues. | |
The rebate is bad for Britain and the EU as it leads to a complacency in the UK about the way the EU is run. Knowing that two-thirds of Britain’s net contribution will be returned anyway, British politicians and civil servants have not had to be serious about tackling waste and corruption at Brussels. Giving the rebate up would focus British minds much more clearly upon how the EU operates and would lead them to demand higher standards, both of the Commission and of their own elected representatives in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. | |
This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.” [1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression. [1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012, | |
No reaction will embolden the regime Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”. [1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons. If there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response. [2] [1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012, [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, | |
Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would. Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air. [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012, [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012, | |
Intervention would be legitimate If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed. [2] The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.” [3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons. [1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, [2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013, [3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012, | |
Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very foolish to use their chemical weapons on a neighbour so inviting attack. The use of chemical weapons may be banned by international law but that does not mean that their use authorizes an intervention against a sovereign nation. [1] [1] Ku, Julian, ‘Would Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Change the Legality of U.S. Intervention?’, Opinio Juris, 7 December 2012, | |
No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence. Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons. More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons. [1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, [2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 25 July 2012, [3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011, | |
According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily. [1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons. [1] ‘Syria ‘secures chemical weapons stockpile’’, Al Jazeera, 23 December 2012, | |
All killing is abhorrent and one life is worth as much as any other. But while the lives lost are the same it is not true that the use of chemical weapons to kill is the same as conventional weapons; the difference is that one is banned and the other is not, their use makes intervention possible in a way it is not during a conventional conflict. The threat from chemical weapons is also of an order of magnitude greater than that of conventional weapons. They can kill immense numbers quickly and indiscriminately. The use of chemical weapons is an escalation that must not be allowed to happen. | |
The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation Russia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis. [1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happened in Libya. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has explicitly stated “We’ll not allow the Libyan experience to be reproduced in Syria.” [2] When Obama said that chemical weapons use was a red line Xinhua, China’s state news agency, responded “Obama's "red line" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention” urging continued negotiations instead. [3] While the use of chemical weapons is odious and would make Assad even more of a pariah than he already is it should be remembered that China supports an equally odious regime in North Korea, so may not see Chemical weapons as sufficient reason to change position. [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Russia, China veto U.N. action on Syria … and the blame game begins’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 4 February 2012, [2] ‘Russia Rules Out Libyan Scenario in Syria’, RIANovosti, 9 December 2012, [3] Chang, Liu, ‘Obama’s “red line” warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention’, Xinhua, 22 August 2012, | |
Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have. [1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012, [2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012, [3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, | |
Do chemical weapons really make a difference? Chemical and biological weapons are among the most horrifying weapons ever created by man; it is with good cause that they are banned. However if there have already been 60,000 [1] people killed by the conflict in Syria then would the use of chemical weapons, unless it was on a massive scale, would not make much difference in terms of the numbers of people the Assad regime is killing. [2] It is morally inconsistent to consider chemical weapons somehow different if they are not changing the scale of the killing. It is human lives that matter, or rather does not matter as has been made clear by the unwillingness to do anything, not the type of weapon that kill those people. If Syria kills a few thousand more by using chemical weapons then what is the difference to killing thousands more using conventional weapons? [1] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013, [2] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, | |
The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime. [1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012, | |
Just because the Scots are less Europhobic than the English does not mean they are actually natural Europhiles. There is still a fair amount of euroscepticism in Scotland [quote=Prof. John Curtice] The rise of UKIP is also evident here albeit at a lower level [1] [/quote]. When Scots were asked 'Which institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?' in 2012 9% thought the EU did, when the question was changed to 'Which institution do you think ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run?' Only 1% said the EU, which certainly implies a degree of Euroscepticism. [2] One poll asking the question 'if Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU?' even got a no answer, with 49% saying no and 32% saying yes. [3] Indeed Scotland was more anti-european in the 1975 referendum on Europe than England. 41.6% of Scots voted no to joining the European Community compared to 31.3% of English. [4] Scottish attitudes towards the EC/EU changed in the 1980s as Thatcher was becoming increasingly Europhobic. Because of this shift some academics think that the Scottish pro-european sentiment is a result of anti-Tory feeling rather than a judgement on Europe itself. [5] If this is the case then once independence removes the threat of Tory government Scottish attitudes to Europe might well shift back into a more anti-European position. [1] BBC Newsnight Scotland, 25 October 2013 01:12 am [2] What Scotland Thinks, ‘Which Institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?’, 2012, [3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU? ’, 2012 [4] Wikipedia, ‘United Kingdom European Community membership referendup 1975’, accessed 4 November 2013, [5] Carrell, Severin, ‘Salmond’s EU crisis: polling suggests Scottish voters care’, theguardian.com, 7 November 2012, | |
Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK According to a February 2013 Ipsos-mori poll Scots want an EU referendum but 53% would vote to stay in the EU and only 34% would vote to leave. Indeed if Scotland became independent those who wanted it to be in the EU rose to 61% and the number who wanted out fell to 33%. [1] In England 48% would vote to leave (as of November 2012) and 44% would vote to stay in. [2] The UK Independence Party whose principal policy platform is a desire to leave the EU has performed considerably worse in Scotland than in England. In the 2010 general election UKIP received 3.1% of the vote [3] whereas in the Scottish election the next year they only received 0.9% of the vote. [4] Similarly in the 2009 European Parliament elections UKIP came second nationally receiving almost 2.5 million votes, 16.5% [5] of all votes cast but in Scotland it came 6th, beaten by all four main parties and the Greens receiving only 5.2% of the vote. [6] Scots clearly believe their interests lie with Europe and it would be better for Scotland not to be tied to a country where sentiment is considerably more negative towards the EU. [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, [2] Social Research Institute, ‘British public split on our future with the European Union’, Ipsos MORI, 15 November 2012, [3] BBC News, ‘National Results’, Election 2010, [4] BBC News, ‘Scotland elections’, Vote 2011, [5] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: UK Results’, Elections 2009, [6] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: Scotland’, Elections 2009, | |
On the vast majority of issues rUK and Scotland have the same interests. Scotland wants to retain the UK’s opt outs on issues such as the free movement of people and the Euro. Scotland also has the same interests on the main issue for the EU; trade. Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted the benefit to Scotland of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership something that the UK is also strongly in favour of. [1] [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, | |
An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within the EU as an independent nation [1] [/quote] A vote for independence would therefore be a vote for a stable relationship with Europe. Interestingly should Scotland become independent and accede to the EU there would have to be a treaty change to provide for Scottish representation in EU institutions. [2] This could well trigger an EU referendum in the remainder of the UK (rUK) under the 'referendum lock'. [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, §9 [2] Avery, Graham, ‘HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 24 September 2012, point 6. | |
The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots with only 36% opposing a referendum. [1] A vote for independence would therefore seem to be a vote in favour of the validity of referendums legitimising the need to have referendums on similarly large issues in the future. A vote for an independent Scotland is not necessarily a vote for a stable relationship with Europe. [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, | |
Scotland has different interests to rUK States are often seen as having one single unitary interest, however this is not the case the interests of different regions can be very different. It should therefore not be surprising that Scotland and rUK have different interests with relation to the EU. For example on climate change Scotland has the greatest potential for the generation of renewable energy in Europe with 25% of Europe’s tidal potential and 10% of wave potential [1] yet the UK is in favour of scrapping European targets for the generation of renewable energy. [2] UK ministers have also been accused of “working against Scotland” on agriculture being willing to accept reductions in farm support meaning that Scotland receives the lowest level in Europe. [3] Scotland’s own interests would therefore be better represented by having its own government at the negotiating table than a UK government. [1] ‘Energy in Scotland: Get the facts’, The Scottish Government, 10 July 2013, [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Britain resists EU bid to set new target on renewable energy’, The Observer, 25 May 2013, [3] McLaughlin, Mark, ‘SNP Conference: UK ministers ‘working against Scotland’’, The Independent, 19 October 2013, | |
The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state obviously would not be in a position to do. [1] Therefore if Scotland retained UK opt outs there would be only a positive change in relationship with Scotland receiving greater representation in EU institutions through having its own seat in the Council of Ministers, possibly its own Commissioner, and also a reallocation of European Parliamentary constituencies that would increase its representation there (and paradoxically increase rUK representation as well). [2] [1] Noon, Stephen, ‘Euro membership’, 10 November 2011, [2] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, p.7 | |
The SNP argues that the transition from being a constituent part of the UK inside the EU and being an independent state within the EU would be seamless. [1] While 'the Scottish government does not take the process of EU membership for granted' they hope to notify the EU of their intent to join the EU before the referendum and then use the period between a yes vote and independence to negotiate their accession. [2] They would have 18 months to sort out the transition between the referendum on independence on 21 September 2014 and independence in March 2016. It should be remembered that an independent Scotland should already meet all the criteria for membership as a result of having already been a member so should be able to go through membership negotiations quickly. [1] The Scotsman, ‘Scottish independence: Hague EU claims criticised’, 31 October 2013, [2] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, §42-5. | |
The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU. Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Commons is likely to be butchered in the Lords and David Cameron's promise of a 2017 referendum relies on a Conservative victory in 2015. Such a victory may not happen, despite Labour's soft poll lead the natural bias of the current boundaries make an outright Conservative victory a very remote prospect. [1] Even if a referendum does get held the out supporters would then have to win it. Although polls for a prospective EU membership referendum tend to show those who favour the exit leading this cannot be taken as necessarily meaning that it is likely to happen. Polls change, the AV referendum saw numbers initially favourable to AV swing round to a decisive victory against AV over the course of the campaign. [2] There are a number of reasons why this is likely in an in/out EU referendum. A vote to leave the EU is in fact rather unlikely because of the full weight of the establishment in the staying in camp. Businesses tend to favour staying in because [quote=John Cridland, Director General of the CBI] being a member of a reformed EU is the best way to preserve market access [3] [/quote]. The CBI released a report that said that each UK household was £3,000 better off due to EU membership. [4] That is a lot of money and if opinions on the EU are anything like those on Scottish independence it is a killer argument. 56% of scots would favour independence if it would make them £500 better off but only 22% would still be in favour of independence if it would make them £500 worse off. [5] If similar swings were to occur in an EU referendum Britain would not be leaving the EU. Furthermore, the referendum is likely only to occur after a renegotiation which is bound to bring something, enough for the (presumably Conservative) Prime minister to recommend a vote to stay in, the result would be support for the EU across all three main parties, plus the nationalist parties as well. A renegotiation sufficient for a conservative PM to recommend staying in also has an interesting effect upon polled voting intentions by almost exactly reversing them. A YouGov poll (May 2013) found that while under the current terms 47% would vote to leave and only 30% to stay but after renegotiation 32% would vote to leave and 45% to stay. [6] [1] Mylles, Richard, ‘The chances of an EU referendum in the next parliament are wildly overstated’, New Statesman, 18 July 2013, [2] UKPollingReport, ‘Alternative Vote’, accessed 4 November 2013, [3] Cridland, John, ‘Leaving Europe would be bad for British business’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013, [4] CBI, ‘In with reform or out with no influence – CBI chief makes case for EU membership’, 4 November 2013, [5] ICM, ‘Scottish Independence Poll – September 2013’, 18 September 2013, [6] YouGov, ‘YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results’, 10 May 2013, p.15. | |
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence. The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same position. It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU then it implicitly wants to join the EU as it is now and could retain exceptional status only in the very short term. [1] The change in relationship would probably change the Scottish attitude to the EU, although it is hard to say whether this would be automatically in a negative way. The implication of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments quoted earlier is that Scotland will be unlikely to retain the UK's opt outs from certain areas of EU policy. Most obviously it is likely that if joining as a new state Scotland may have no choice but to join the Euro at least in the long term when it meets the convergence requirements. [2] Several polls show Scots less likely to vote for independence if Scotland would then have to join the Euro. [3] The other main sticking point would be Schengen, it has been suggested that Scotland would have to join the EU's free travel zone which the UK is not currently a member of and the main consequence of this would be border controls between Scotland and England. [4] Were Scotland to seek to avoid joining the Euro and Schengen then it would prolong the application process meaning that Scotland would be unlikely to be ready to join the EU upon independence. This point was made by the ambassador of the EU's newest member Croatia [quote=Ambassador Ivan Grdesic] if you decide to opt out on many things, you are not ready actually... [/quote] so warning that attempts to opt out of the Euro and Schengen would prolong negotiations. [5] [1] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, pp.6-7. [2] Thorp, Arabella, and Thompson, Gavin, ‘Scotland, independence and the EU – Commons Library Standard Note’, parliament.uk, 13 July 2012, [3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If an independent Scotland had to join the Euro, how would this effect your vote in a Scottish independence referendum?’, January 2013, [4] Barnes, Eddie, ‘Scottish independence: EU may force border terms’, The Scotsman, [5] BBC News, ‘Scottish independence: Warning over EU membership plan’, 3 November 2013, | |
Scottish independence might be a faster route out of the EU than a referendum. Before 2012 the SNP argued that Independence could be achieved and Scotland remain within the EU while retaining all UK opt outs with a minimal amount of trouble. However this position has since changed largely due to European commission pronouncements on the issue. [1] There is no EU precedent to the situation that Scottish independence would bring about. It has been argued that Scotland would not automatically remain part of the EU and would have to reapply. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said [quote=Barroso] For the European Union’s purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and then it has to negotiate into the European Union [2] [/quote] Certainly if Scotland's application to join the EU were a normal one then the 18 month timetable between referendum to independence would not give enough time to go through the process of joining the EU. Some applications have taken over a decade, the UK's own (second) application took over 5 years. The fastest application was Finland which only took 2 years 10 months between application and accession. [3] Even seemingly very minor disputes can hold up membership for long periods, a Croatia-Slovenia dispute over maritime access considerably delayed the accession of the former. Thus small disputes like with Spain over fishing rights or with Ireland over Rockall could be a considerable drag on Scotland's application. [4] None of the above are insurmountable problems and would only impose a temporary exit of Scotland from the EU. However, it is possible that Scotland will be unable to rejoin. It ought to be remembered that enlargement requires unanimous support of the current member states, which may not be forthcoming. A number of other states such as Belgium and Italy have regions with national aspirations, the most likely European opponent to Scottish independence would be Spain with its eastern region of Catalonia's independence movement often being compared to Scotland's. As a result there have been persistent rumours that Spain might veto Scottish re-entry into the EU in order to send a message to its own separatists. [5] Spain’s Prime Minister Rajoy was plain when he said [quote=Rajoy] It's very clear to me… a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU. [6] [/quote] [1] Carrell, Severin, ‘Barroso casts doubt on independent Scotland’s EU membership rights’, The Guardian, 12 September 2012, McSmith, Andy, ‘The impact of that Barroso letter’, The Independent, 20 December 2012, [2] Davidson, Ruth, ‘Separate Scotland would have to reapply to EU – Barroso’, Scottish Conservatives, 10 December 2012, [BBC Hardtalk transcript] [3] Wikipedia, ‘Enlargement of the European Union’, accessed 4 November 2013, [4] Open Europe Blog, ‘Scottish independence and EU accession: tricky to pull off in one manoeuvre?’, 5 February 2013, [5] York, Christopher, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain Could Veto EU Membership’, The Huffington Post, 6 December 2012, Peterkin, Tom, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain key to Scotland’s EU hopes’, The Scotsman, 4 November 2012, [6] Carrell, Severin, and Kassam, Ashifa, ‘Scottish independence: Spain blocks Alex Salmond’s hopes for EU transition’, The Guardian, 27 November 2013, | |
Polls consistently point to a vote to leave the EU in a prospective referendum. [1] Whether this actually happens is a moot point, such a referendum would still bring about instability in the relationship with the European Union. Scotland if independent could avoid this turbulence. At the same time a renegotiation does not mean that Scotland’s interests would be safeguarded as a British Prime Minister would be negotiating with an eye to winning any referendum. The result is that such renegotiations would likely favour English interests over Scottish ones as it is English votes the Prime Minister would need to win over. [1] UKPollingReport, ‘YouGov/Sunday Times – Con 29, Lab 40, LD 9, UKIP 14’, 19 May 2013, and others on the same site. | |
The Opposition acknowledges that the US government’s obligation to act in its own nation’s best interest reflects a flaw in the US’s international role. However, this flaw is outweighed by the benefits of US protection. First, other countries can use soft power to prevent the US from abusing its military power. In 2010, US exports exceeded $1.8 trillion and imports exceeded $2.3 trillion; international trade accounted for 14% of US GDP. [1] The US is vulnerable to economic sanctions. Furthermore, the US enjoys the position it holds in international relations; were it to lose respect and bargaining power in the international community, Americans would strongly question the wisdom of government decisions. Furthermore, Americans are strongly attached to an ideal of American morality. This ideal places a check on the nation’s willingness to engage in foreign combat without any moral justification. Thus there are checks in place to keep the US from acting only in self-interest. [1] William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy 12th Edition, (Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning), 2011, 23. | |
The US government’s obligation to its own people is mutually exclusive to acting on behalf of the international community. A government derives its sovereignty from a social contract with its citizens. Citizens surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for government protection; if a government does not serve its people’s best interests, it is not legitimate. Thus in any situation where the interests of the American public are not aligned with those of the global population, the US military cannot serve the international community without failing to meet its obligation to its own citizenry. Because the American public has the ability to oust a leader that does not promote their interests, the military is much more likely to choose the option of serving American interests. This may not be unreasonable behavior, but it is indicative of the need for other entities- either other nations or international organizations- to have comparable military power to that of the United States. | |
The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance. [1] Furthermore, US military strategy is constantly changing and adapting. The rules of international engagement change relatively quickly; when the rise of the Soviet threat rendered isolationism impossible, the US adapted its foreign policy to a bipolar world in which mutually assured destruction was an effective means of preventing direct conflict. The fall of the USSR created a multi-polar world in which MAD became a more complex and less reliable strategy. Today, the US is adjusting to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. These constant changes render perfect implementation of military force impossible- this impossibility is not unique to the US. But with constant reevaluation and assistance from the international community, the US can be a reasonably effective peacekeeper. [1] Steven Erlanger, “Panetta Urges Europe to Spend More on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance,” New York Times, October 5, 2011 | |
As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system. The United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion. [1] The US outpaces other possible peacekeepers by such a large gap that these other powers have little incentive to even try to keep up. Unilateral US intervention undermines international actors such as UN troops because it communicates the US’s refusal to submit to the interests of the international community. Thus US military intervention becomes a “quick fix” which prevents genuine long-term stability [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011. | |
The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation. The U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs. [1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency. | |
All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community. As is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation. The Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes. The Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all. | |
The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should be a sufficient incentive. In June 2011, then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that European NATO members’ reluctance to fund their share of NATO operations could be negative impacts for the alliance’s future. The New York Times related Gates’ words; “[Gates] warned of a ‘dim if not dismal future’ for the alliance unless its European members increased their participation, and he said that Washington would not forever pay for European security when the Europeans could do that for themselves.” [1] The US may be able to alter its role to be less unilateral, but it cannot do so until after other military entities improve their defense systems. [1] Erlanger. | |
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. All would simply lead to more strife; dominance by another, probably less peaceful power, no dominance at all leading to anarchy or a balance of power, which usually leads to war as in the 18th Century. All of these options would create considerably more conflict than there is at the moment.(See Opposition argument) | |
Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability. The US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldiers and approximately 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed while the US failed to subdue the Vietcong. The United States provided covert support to Augusto Pinochet after his military coup d’etat over Chile’s democratically elected government under Salvadore Allende because the US feared Allende, a socialist, would promote communism. [1] , [2] Today, Pinochet is remembered as a bloody dictator that ruled through terror for 17 years. US intervention in Somalia in 1992-94 resulted in little more than the loss of American lives. [3] The US experienced similarly negatively results during its intervention in Beirut (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), and Haiti (1994). [4] More recently, the US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly ten years without brining long-term stability to the region. The United States military needs to step down from its self-assumed role as world police officer because it is not effective and its failed attempts lead to huge civilian casualties. [1] Reel and Smith. [2] “Covert Action in Chile,” U.S. Department of State, December 19, 1975. [3] Richard W. Stewart, “The United States Army in Somalia: 1992-1994,” U.S. Army Center of Military History. [4] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline | |
US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. Western domination is not the answer to political conflict; it is the cause of many predicaments that result in the violation of human rights in countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East today. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, wrote in his 2005 book, Imperial Hubris, that “[Bin Laden] could not have his current- and increasing- level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are Bin Laden’s only indispensable allies.” [1] The United States’ unwavering support for Israel and its dubious grounds for invading Iraq are further source of anger in the Arab world. [2] The US justifies its military dominance by arguing that terrorist groups pose a serious threat to American society, and then this military dominance increases support for such terrorist groups. America cannot act as the world police because such a system will never lead to peace. [1] Scheuer, iii. [2] Ibid. | |
Brute force is not sufficient to maintain global security. Just as one cannot simply strike a stone repeatedly and expect to replicate Michelangelo’s David, one cannot simply produce more tanks and train more soldiers and expect to resolve the complex problems that create modern global threats. The US has failed to establish a stable and safe environment in Iraq and Afghanistan despite almost 10 years of occupation. The Pro’s arguments point to failed or misguided intervention in Vietnam, Chile, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, and Haiti. These examples demonstrate that the US is not receiving much benefit from the vast resources it puts into its military. The US is only one country, and thus does not have the capability to view global conflicts from an international perspective. The world would be better served by greater investment in international military entities, such as NATO or UN peacekeepers. An international response to global conflict has greater perceived legitimacy than a unilateral response by one nation; perceived legitimacy reduces backlash from groups that feel victimized. Thus US military intervention is not a very effective means of attaining sustainable peace. | |
The variety of checks upon the US military may prevent it from total global domination, but these checks are not sufficient to make the US a genuinely altruistic actor. The US justifies intervention on the grounds of promoting democracy, but selectively intervenes. The US has supported non-democratic regimes in Chile and Iran, [1] and Guatemala, and has relatively close relations with Saudi Arabia. The US rarely criticizes the Israeli government for expanding settlements, while at the same time providing support to rebel forces in Libya. The Pro does not contend that the US is a completely amoral actor. However, ideologically inconsistent foreign policy demonstrates that the US is willing to prioritize its own interests over the rights of other nations’ citizens. Thus the US is not an appropriate entity to protect global human rights or international stability. [1] James Risen, “Secrets of History: the C.I.A. in Iran,” New York Times, 2000. | |
The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens. In a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.” [1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens. [1] Madrigal. | |
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. The 2011 Libyan revolution demonstrates the world’s dependence on US military support. Although NATO unanimously agreed to intervene in the revolution, less than half participated, and even fewer actually conducted airstrikes. In August 2011, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Wall Street Journal “The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own […] the lack of defense investment will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders.” [1] Other prosperous nations criticize the US on the grounds that it needs to share military power, but these nations are not actually willing to increase their own involvement in order to share responsibility. The second largest military in the world belongs to China; because China is an emerging power, the international community cannot be sure how they will wield this power. Until US allies increase their military participation so that there are viable alternatives to US military involvement, the US cannot safely step down from its active military role. [1] Filer and MacDonald. | |
The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world. The US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military. [1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent past. In 1989, the US sent 27,000 troops to Panama to protect the lives of 35,000 Americans in Panama and to protect Panama’s own citizens. The invasion led to the removal of the dictatorial leader Manuel Noriega and the implementation of an elected government. [2] In the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the US successfully forced Iraqi troops to retreat from Kuwait. [3] In 1995 the US used limited military tactics to protect civilians in Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb forces, leading to a peace agreement between the warring parties. [4] The Opposition does not contend that every US military intervention is or will be successful, or that military intervention is all that is necessary in addressing conflicts. The Opposition also promotes constant reevaluation of military tactics so that past tragedies are not repeated. But despite its drawbacks, US military intervention has the potential to be a source of stability and protection in the modern world from nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and other large-scale violations of human rights. [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011. [2] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. | |
The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community. It is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. The US is an appropriate agent because its internal checks prevent it from abusing its military capacity. First, the US government contains a system of checks and balances that prevent an individual corrupt leader from going to war. Second, the US is a democracy; few civilians are eager to send their sons off to die in unnecessary wars. Thus political leaders must fear repercussions for engaging in excessive conflict. Third, the US is a relatively open economy; it is not unimpressionable to external influence. The Opposition does not contend that everything the US military does is perfect. However, the myriad of checks listed above ensures that excessive use of US military force will not go unchallenged, either domestically or internationally. | |
US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military power in the overbearing way that it does now but rather in a much more constructive way that relies on diplomacy rather than military force. (See proposition argument) | |
The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?” [1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats. [1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [ | |
Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) in order to try and push though resolutions would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already taking place – At a 19 July 2007 informal meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on an Increase in Membership of the Security Council, some suggested a more analytical report that would, among other things, provide rationales for the Council's major decisions. [1] [1] 'Efforts to Reform Council Working Methods 1993-2007', 18/10/2007, | |
The Security council needs to be more democratic. At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1] [1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010, | |
Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council's work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on its ability to provide quick solutions for world peace. | |
The EU is one of the world's largest trade blocs, has the world's largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined and at the same time, the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena. | |
The current Security Council doesn't reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. They are the 3rd and 4thworld economies. Furthermore these two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget – “The three largest contributors to the United Nations, the US (22.000% of the UN budget), Japan (12.530%) and Germany (8.018%) thus together finance some 43% of the entire UN budget.” [1] Meanwhile Brazil and India have emerged as major economies and stable democracies over the past decade, and deserve recognition for their global importance. [1] Contributions to the United Nations budget | |
Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution and wouldn’t, for that matter, be a equitable distribution either. Japan in particular is not as deserving as has been suggested; although it is rich Japan has been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. The Japanese economy has been recently hit by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster “Before Japan's 2011 earthquake, its economy was just starting to emerge from its deepest recession since the 1970s(…)Japan's economy is still challenged by rising commodity prices -- the country imports most of its food and oil -- and a shrinking labor pool, as its population ages. Japan's worst challenge is a national debt that is twice as big as its annual economic output.” [1] Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. Germany spends only 1.27% of its GDP on military defence, in comparison to 2.32% for UK and France. [2] This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions. [1] Amadeo, Kimberly. 'Japan's Economy', 26/08/2011 [2] 'Military of the European Union' | |
In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power. | |
There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman has politely opposed the endorsement (India’s candidacy in the UNSC), saying it will complicate the process of expanding the UN Security Council and increasing the number of its permanent members. He has referred, as has been done on several past occasions, to India’s bad record on human rights, unsatisfactory relations with its neighbours etc.” [1] Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese. [1] 'A permanent UN SC seat for India?', 9/11/2010 | |
A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. This means that there are many countries who do not have anyone on the security council that has similar priorities to them, their views may well be unrepresented. | |
There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1] [1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003' | |
By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. There are also the rebels in the Arab countries. There are a lot of concerns and the developed countries should give the developing ones the opportunity to participate in the process of their discussion and solution. | |
There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones. | |
A UNSC reform is very hard to achieve due to the many different interests and demands. Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and India seem obvious candidates for permanent status, but their candidacies are fiercely opposed by a variety of other Asian countries, while Nigeria and Egypt both feel they have a good claim to an "African" seat. The EU also considers it deserves a separate place. Furthermore Brazil as a very fast developing country and turning into a world power claims it also has a right in the UNSC as a permanent member. All these different demands opinions make an eventual reform or expansion of the UNSC very hard to achieve. | |
In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be. | |
The bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations. As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations, both because they are the main contributors to the budget1 and because the Security Council members pay more towards peacekeeping2 they should have the main role in deciding on action. Developing countries already have a voice in the Council but should not have a veto power over decisions that they do not finance. Developed countries would not agree to pay for something they are not happy with. In the contemporary world economy and business are fundamental and they are the ones who drive the world. 1 Contributions to the United Nations budget 2 United Nations, 'Financing Peacekeeping', | |
By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate. This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security council resolutions due to the deadlocked nature of the council. In the 20 years since there have been over 1300 resolutions.1 The negotiation process would also be significantly longer. As a result the peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step. 1 Wikipedia, United Nations Security Council resolution, | |
The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context, and given its goal of (and success in) creating everlasting peace on the continent, it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. Furthermore the EU is ever closer to a political union – “German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said his country is willing to discuss greater harmonisation of eurozone tax policy, adding that the next decade is likely to see Europe take significant steps towards closer political union.” [1] Therefore it is simply a normal step for the EU to have a say in the international affairs. [1] Willis, Andrew. 'Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years', 13/12/2010, | |
It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It maybe hard to achieve consensus on what exactly to be the change in the UNSC, but the new international environment requests that. This is supported by a lot of leading politicians and leaders in a global aspect. "The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform" 1"The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization." 1 (Dmitry Medvedev) 1 "The reform of the United Nations Security Council: What role for the European Union?" Bureau of Public Affairs (USA) , June 20, 2005, 2 Address to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly 23/09/2009, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.