title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
In many cases, an impartial third party can be more effective. If we look at peace negotiations as an analogy and look at, for example, those between FARC guerillas and the Colombian government they began in Oslo, Norway,(1) not in Colombia or any other South American country. This happens as in order for a conflict to be mediated, you need to have a neutral third party which no party can influence and has no preference. The same can be equally true of peacekeepers. Due to African membership, the AU is unlikely to be considered impartial putting troops between them African factions. Of course, those African countries are part of the UN too, but due to the sheer number of countries in the UN, it is clear that the influence is much more diminished. (1) Rueda, Manuel, ‘The Ultimate Guide to Colombia’s Peace Negotiations’, Fusion, 17 October 2012, | |
African forces will be trusted by Africans The primary purpose of international organisations is to resolve conflicts between members. In the case of the AU its first stated objective is “achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries”. The main threat to this unity as well as peace in the continent is rebel groups and internal conflict. Groups for whom the only goal is wealth or to get into power in their own country.(2) An AU force’s role would therefore be to defeat these armed groups and to engage in peacekeeping. An AU force is always going to be better at handling these situations due to its legitimacy in Africa. In many African countries, the West is perceived as an imperialist power, due to their colonial past and as a result there is a serious lack of trust between the parties. An AU force will also be better than any local force as a peacekeeper as it will, like the UN, be seen as being independent while also being African. It would also, like the rebels, be able to cross borders. Such a force would therefore be able to hunt down rebels like the Lords Resistance Army which has so far evaded destruction by moving between Uganda, Southern Sudan, and DR Congo. (1) The Constitutive Act, African Union, 11 July 2000, (2) Gettleman, Jeffrey, “Africa's Forever Wars”, Foreign Policy, April 2010 | |
In a world which has been constantly militarizing for the past century it is very hard to believe that Africa will be capable of building, from scratch, such an army capable of impressing the developed world. Any AU army will be small; the US has a military budget about 15 times all the African countries combined(1)(2), China’s military budget is growing at a double digit rate and many other countries have vasty superior armies when compared to the best in Africa. An AU force is always going to be severely limited by its low budgets and capabilities. It may win plaudits and influence for its help within Africa but it will have no role beyond the continent as it will never be a force used to project power. Changing a perception that Africa can do nothing on its own is one thing, it is quite another to gain influence outside the continent. (1) Simmins, Charles, “Defense Spending in Africa Increasing”, Clearance Jobs, September 6, 2013 (2) ’Military expenditure’, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2012, | |
The international community cant be relied upon It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis. First of all, when looking at statistics, having dipped in the 1990s the number of conflicts is growing once more, the most recent events of Mali and the Algeria serving as a perfect example(1). “following a year (2010) that signalled hope for a more peaceful development, the number of conflicts increased by nearly 20 percent “(4). This has served to demonstrate Africa’s need for a force to engage in peace keeping and peace making. Despite the growing need for peacekeeping forces, there is reason to believe that the help coming from the international community will be insufficient. The dysfunctional structure of the UNSC, the body which approves all major international interventions. Russia and China, two countries which have a non interventionist approach on foreign policy, have veto power in this body; which means a lot of possible interventions get vetoed. The examples of Syria and Sudan prove the inability of the international community to intervene in crisis situations(2) (3). (1) “Jihad in the Sahara”, The Economist, Jan 17th 2013, (2) ‘Genocide in Darfur’, United Human Rights Council, 2013, (3) Reuters, “Syria Death Toll Tops 115,000, Group Says”, Huffington Post , 1 October 2013, (4) ‘The number of armed conflicts increased strongly in 2011’, Uppsala Universitet, 13 July 2013, = | |
On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned. First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force? On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4). Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2). (1) Global Fire Power (2) “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013 (3) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, (4) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013 | |
Showing Africa can solve its own problems Countries desire to have influence among the international community. States gain this influence in all sorts of way; economic wealth, high technology, charismatic leaders, or a military power. Having an AU standing army would help provide Africa with influence; it would show the unity of the continent and its willingness to work together. A lot of influence is about perception and this is something that an AU army can change; Africa will no longer be a continent that cannot act for itself even on its own soil but will instead be taking the burden off more established peacekeeping countries. This is an important gain as influence is gained by being able to bring something to the table. Having an AU force means the AU will always be able to bring resources and capabilities when there is a crisis in Africa. The default position will no longer be to look to the UN, or even to France and the UK for peacekeepers when there is a crisis in Africa but to the AU itself. But an AU army would have other benefits too as the continent would be a better investment opportunity if there is an army guaranteeing security and ensuring peace. The continent’s economic influence may also therefore expand as a result. | |
In such a situation, past war experience counts for little as every conflict is different. First of all, African armies on the other hand are familiar with the territory, conditions and people. It is true that Nigeria never sent troops to Iraq, but by battling Boko Haram every single day, it is fair to assume that the strategies and the military techniques used by the army are improving constantly, as they are forced to improve them by the growing threat. Secondly, The West has been forthcoming when it needs to share military counter insurgency techniques for example of training foreign armies. Through the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan (1) numerous soldiers have been trained and thus the Afghan security situation dramatically improved. Even if African armies are be under experienced, by participating in joint military exercises with military experts from the western world, they could improve their capabilities quickly (1) ‘NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan’, International Security Assistance Force, 5 November 2013, | |
It would be only beneficial to Africa to take matters into its own hands and not depend on some foreign country to save the day when they are in need. Even though at a diplomatic level, all big western liberal democracies are “committed” to helping Africa, it is clear that this may not always be the case. The West has become fatigued by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as proven by the opposition to a proposed intervention in Syria. Prior to this, the West has failed to intervene efficiently, such as in Rwanda where the response to genocide was too late (1).Moreover the African Union is often much faster to respond to crises in Africa and is the ‘first resort’ while the UN or foreign troops is a last resort. Thus in the Central African Republic AU troops were deployed four months prior to the French intervention. Intervention by western powers will only happen when the crisis is serious, and putting a UN force together can take a long time. This is a very big drawback on the side of the international community and it most often translates into lost lives and increased damages. (1) Usborne, David, ‘UN pilloried for failure over Rwanda genocide’ Independent, 17 December 1999, | |
Action would require UN approval The AU’s powers will be at odds with those of the UN. While the United Nations accepts and even encourages regional organisations engaging in “pacific settlement of local disputes” the point of an army is to be able to intervene with more than just negotiations. “But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” so any potential intervention of the AU in crisis zones will be conditioned by UNSC approval or not.(1) If it will, it’s very easy to see how the creation of this standing army will be more or less in vain as it will either be prevented from intervening or act as a subsidiary to a better equipped UN force. The AU could choose to ignore the UNSC. However this option is also problematic as it would undermine the legitimacy of the operation and encourage the creation of regional organisations that try to keep the United Nations out of the region. (1) United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements’, un.org, 1945, | |
An AU force will be inexperienced An AU force won’t just be keeping the peace but it may also be involved in defeating rebel forces. One of the most important prerequisites for winning and ending such a conflict is experience. When it comes to fighting insurgencies there are many countries that have experience fighting insurgencies; the French in Mail, NATO in Afghanistan, the British in Sierra Leone etc. In each of these national armies have gathered experience and learned counter insurgency techniques. This now makes them best able to solve conflicts. On the other hand, when looking at the military campaigns of the AU or African countries, there has been little success. AMISOM (African Mission in Somalia) has been in place since 2007, yet Al-Shabaab is still in power in many regions including the capital city, Mogadishu, and the ending is nowhere near (1). As a result, we should choose the ones with the most experience to handle such crisis rather than a newly created and unprepared AU force. (1) Smith, David, “Al-Shabaab rebuilds forces in Somalia as African Union campaign stalls”, The Guardian, 28 October 2013 | |
There is no need for an AU force Western countries have military systems far more efficient than their African counterparts, so it is clear that their involvement would be much more efficient than any AU-lead intervention. UN has already embarked on a mission to end conflict throughout the world and help the continent reach prosperity. Therefore, it would be much more effective for Africa to concentrate and invest in other issues and let the international community handle security. France’s recent intervention in Mali is a testimony of the western world’s devotion when it comes to African security. The mission‘s ultimate objective is, in President François Hollande’s words, to “restore Mali’s territorial integrity”(1) and an AU army would be no better at doing this. The first point is obviously costs. The cost of a large effective army is very high, especially equipping it for any eventuality. This is very problematic especially when a lot of African countries have poor economies, extremely high illiteracy rates, bad healthcare and virtually no modern infrastructure. It would be much more cost effective for them to concentrate on handling these issues while using UN peacekeepers to maintain peace. There are currently over 15 UN peacekeeping mission in Africa, and if needed, this number can increase.(2) (1) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 (2) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, | |
The Security Council will be most unlikely to obstruct a recognised regional security organisation from doing its role. Any veto would be extremely costly for the power that did so as they would incur the ire of most of Africa. Most of thesituations which the AU will want to intervene in are not of a high enough priority for the international community to devote significant resources to, but which are still big enough to seriously damage African countries. There will be no reason to veto. Moreover, there will be times when the world will be just too ignorant and too slow at some urgent matters which need immediate attention. A well-prepared standing army would have been able to stop the Rwandan genocide. As a result, even though this policy is not perfect it would help the current situation in Africa improve. | |
That’s what the status is now. If Africa is indeed rising, surely that is a better bet for Cape Verde? Cape Verde is already being integrated into Africa; it is a member of the Economic Community of West African States. There is an intention for these regional African communities to at some point merge into a market stretching across Africa; The African Economic Community. Cape Verde should increase its integration with a community it is already a member of. Looking to the European Union also ignores China, India and other important economise – including millions of fellow Portuguese speakers in Brazil, one of the much touted BRIC economies. | |
Its the economy, stupid! Cape Verde doesn’t dislike West Africa – it just has no real economic connection to the region. Cape Verde’s main economic partners are in Europe, with over half of imports coming from Portugal and The Netherlands, and more than three quarters of exports going to Spain and Portugal together [1] . If Cape Verde were to join the EU Internal Market, as discussed [2] , it would give Cape Verdean exports total unfettered access to the whole market and integrate them in to the systems of standards. Joining would mean lower tariffs so in turn Cape Verde goods being exported would be cheaper in their main European market so boosting exports while imports would be cheaper for consumers in Cape Verde meaning the residents are able to buy more. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, [2] ‘Cape Verde could seek EU membership this year’, EUbusiness, 7 May 2005, | |
Schengen membership is not the same as EU membership – some non-EU states, such as Switzerland are part of Schengen, the UK and Ireland are EU member states but are not. Joining Schengen would involve the politically sensitive issue of undocumented migrants, which could not only be fatal to Cape Verde joining Schengen but to integration with Europe itself. Even if it is unlikely, is it that difficult for people to show a passport? Besides, tourism is not just from Europe to outside – a Euro move would only stop Europeans from needing to change currencies. The peg is the best of both worlds in that it means that the currency is stable. | |
Cultural links Cape Verde is not a good fit with the much of the history of Africa. It has been joined at the hip with Europe, if other things had gone other ways this debate would not be happening as the islands could have remained an integral part of Portugal as with Madeira and the Azores. Not all Cape Verdeans do consider themselves to be Africans [1] . Cape Verde culturally and historically has more in common with Europe. It has a longer standing relationship with a European state than other African nations that were colonized; it was first settled by the Portuguese in 1462 and unlike much of Africa it was uninhabited before Europeans arrived [2] . It history has therefore been one that is linked to Europe not Africa. A future orientated towards Europe would not have to be culturally exclusive. Cape Verde would not be giving up its independence, any more than Ireland gave up its independence by becoming part of the European Union. Cape Verde would still be free to explore cultural and historical links with Africa. [1] See Duarte, Diana, “Diana Duarte on Blackness and Cape Verde”, Unchain Africa Press, 2009, [2] Schultz, Colin, “These are all the places Europeans actually discovered”, Smithsonian.com, 16 August 2013, | |
While Cape Verde may have a history and culture that is closer to Europe than all other African states this does not mean it does not have an African culture. There are of course many African states all with their own histories, culture and independence dates – from Ethiopia in time immemorial through Namibia in the 1990s to the birth of South Sudan. Some will have more in common with European states than others. Cape Verde has strong links to Africa; much of its population were originally slaves brought from Africa. The World Factbook gives its ethnic groups as 71% Creole (mulatto) – mixed race, 28% African, and only 1% European. [1] With its population being descended from slavery despite its history having been controlled by Europeans its peoples’ historical experience is more in line with other African countries that were the victims of slavery. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, | |
EU membership is good for tourism Tourism is a key industry for Cape Verde. The archipelago is a popular destination for many from Europe. While the country is resource poor in terms of natural resources, three quarters of the country’s GDP comes from services [1] . Integration with Europe could see a number of advantages. The Schengen agreement allows visa free, and border control free, travel between its members so this would mean a potential boom in the tourist industry. Joining the Euro would also mean a common currency with other European nations – the Cape Verde Escudo is already pegged to the Euro, and prior to that, it was pegged to the Portuguese Escudo. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, | |
EU member states regularly have territories even further abroad than off the coast of West Africa – including even territory on the mainland of South America, French Guiana, a French overseas region. Cyprus is an EU member state too, in the Eastern Mediterranean sea sandwiched between Turkey and Syria. Cyprus is over 300 miles from any other EU territory, over water. In an era of telecommunications and international trade, is this distance too much of a problem? | |
Size is not necessarily a problem; it means it is much simpler for the EU to pull Cape Verde up to European standards than it would be with a larger country. It also means there will be few concerns about membership; no one is going to be worried about emigration from a country with a tiny population. The process would also not be immediate; countries take at a minimum five years and often over a decade to join the EU. There are other potential candidates such as Moldova, with a lower GDP per capita, which has been touted as a potential member by Romania [1] . Cape Verde has a service based economy, like many EU member states. It is already a member of the WTO, and has had good solid economic growth [2] . Moreover the entire accession process is built around helping potential member states achieve these criteria, and Cape Verde, due to its small size, would not face the biggest challenges to get in. There is no reason why Cape Verde joining the EU is somehow impractical on an economic level. [1] Nn, “Romania urges EU membership date for Moldova”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, 19 March 2014, [2] World Bank, “Cabo Verde Data”, data.worldbank.org, | |
Cape Verde should be a beacon for Africa Rather than joining the European sphere or even looking towards Europe, Cape Verde could act as a beacon for the rest of Africa. Africa has a need for countries that are setting a good example in governance for others to follow. The country is already at the top of several sections in the Mo Ibrahim Index, notably those relating to human rights [1] . Its former President Pedro Pires has also won the Mo Ibrahim prize for “transforming Cape Verde into a model of democracy, stability and increased prosperity”. The prize is only awarded when there is a peaceful, democratic transition and is in many years not awarded to anyone, it has not been awarded since Pires in 2011. [2] Instead of abandoning it Cape Verde should help build up Africa – a rising continent, rather than taking the tempting option of moving. [1] ‘Cape Verde 3rd/52’, Mo Ibrahim Index, 2013, [2] ‘President Pedro de Verona Rodrigues Pires, Cape Verde’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2011, | |
Geographical stretch too far Cape Verde is just too far from Europe – it is 400 miles off the coast of Senegal compared to almost 1,900 miles from the Portuguese mainland. [1] The European Union has never had a member from Africa, and neither have other European institutions such as the Council of Europe. [2] The Canary Islands and similar archipelagos are not helpful as a precedent because they are integral parts of other nations that are themselves clearly positioned on the European continent. The sole condition for EU membership is that the applicant must be a European state, something Cape Verde is not. Would the EU really be willing to have a member so far from it as a full member, when Morocco, just across the strait of Gibraltar, was rejected for that reason? [3] [1] ‘Distance from Praia to…’, timeanddate.com, [2] ‘Member States’, coe.int, [3] ‘Legal questions of enlargement’, Briefing No 23, europarl.europa.eu, | |
Joining Europe is unrealistic A move towards the European sphere of influence might seem logical, but success is not guaranteed. In terms of population, Cape Verde would be the second smallest EU member state after Malta meaning it would have little influence over the Union when it joins. And there is little reason for the EU to desire Cape Verde’s membership as it will provide no real gains to the Union. Also, its human development index is lower than that of Iraq [1] , over fifty places behind that of lowest EU member state Bulgaria – which when it comes to governance and development is subject to little more than ridicule in the media of other member states. Not every European nation would get in on economic criteria – Moldova joining is not likely in the near future either. The only success from orientating towards Europe would be a burning of continental bridges with Africa. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Iraq’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, | |
Cape Verde should determine its own role in the world – not be beholden to the interests of a continental bloc. Paradoxically by moving towards Europe Cape Verde could be a much better model for the African continent – it would show that African states, even small ones, are capable of becoming developed countries. An African country successfully joining European institutions would give hope to the rest of the continent that there could be closer integration and cooperation in the future. | |
Being leader should not allow you blanket immunity from persecution of crimes. If an agreement was able to be reached for these two men, surely a similar agreement can reached for others. Stability might be undermined more if leaders who are proven to committing war crimes are allowed to remain in power where they may do so again. | |
Having the president out of the country undermines stability While Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto have been visiting the ICC, they should have been leading their countries. While the indictment has occurred both have remained the leaders of their countries, but have been absent while major events such as the Westgate shootings occurred. Despite the need to strong leadership in the midst of a potentially divisive event, Ruto was only granted one week away from trial. [1] Having a clear and stable leadership is important for Kenya to develop, restrict violence and ensure that policy development is able to continue, particularly given the cross-ethnic powering sharing arrangement between Kenyatta and Ruto. Absence of leadership during the fear and uncertainty surrounding this event might lead to a fresh round of violence as supporters take to the streets in protest – this election had put former enemies Kenyatta and Ruto together, easing ethnic tensions in the region [2] . [1] Ndonga, Wamubi, ‘Kenya: Ruto Can Return to Kenya For A Week Over Westgate – ICC’, allAfrica, 23 September 2013, [2] ‘Will Africa pull out of the ICC?’, BBC News, 11 October 2013, | |
In the five years since the violence occurred, very little action has occurred from the domestic forces; there have been only two murder convictions for the 1200 deaths. [1] Furthermore, these forces are working for the people they are meant to be investigating. The case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, meaning objectivity in local courts is very unlikely to occur [2] . The result of the Waki commission was to hand over alleged perpetrators to the ICC directly, showing that Kenya felt the need to rely on this international framework [3] . [1] ‘Kenya: Prosecute Perpetrators of Post-Election Violence’, Human Rights Watch, 9 December 2011, [2] ‘Perceptions and Realities:Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013, [3] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009, | |
The ICC indictment undermines democracy Uhuru Kenyatta is a sitting president of a democratic nation. This means that he was elected by the people to serve them. By indicting a sitting leader, you undermine their ability to rule the country as they will be forced to spend long periods outside their country focusing on something that is irrelevant to the governance of their country. The ICC has demanded that Kenyatta and Ruto attend the trial in person. [1] By forcing the President and Deputy President to spend long hours away from the country involved in a trial the ICC is effectively disenfranchising the people who voted from him to be their leader. Further, Kenyatta is first and foremost accountable to the Kenyan people, who have chosen him as leader despite these claims. It is clearly unwelcome interference by the ICC for the court to take the President away from his duties. [1] Statement by ICC, ‘Kenyatta case: ICC Trial Chamber V(b) reviews decision on presence of accused at trial’, whereiskenya.com, 27 November 2013, | |
It would seem to undermine democracy to allow a president accused of violence during an election to continue to serve. Elections are only one part of a democracy; another is a functioning and respected rule of law. When the president has charges to answer he should stand down, at least temporarily. It is wrong to assume that someone who is elected as representative should have some form of immunity and that outside forces should not be able to investigate him; a president has a lot of power to repress minorities. That repression being supported by a democratic minority does not make it any less wrong. Moreover Kenyatta was elected with 50.07% of the vote, not an overwhelming endorsement. [1] [1] Gatehouse, Gabriel, ‘Kenya Supreme Court upholds Uhuru Kenyatta election win’, BBC News, 30 March 2013, | |
Far from too much interference that the trial is on the point of collapse shows there has not been enough. The ICC has found itself unable to protect witnesses, with the result that there have been two withdrawals. Both the defence [1] and the prosecutor claim there has been witness intimidation in the trial. [2] [1] ‘Kenyatta lawyers demand trial scrapped, say witnesses intimidated’, reuters, 10 October 2013, [2] Sterling, Toby, ‘Kenyatta war crimes trial: Prosecutor asks for delay after witnesses withdeaw in case against Kenyan President’, The Independent, 20 December 2013, | |
Kenya can prosecute these crimes itself Kenya has a functioning judiciary and police force. They have successfully prosecuted some individuals for these crimes and it should be left to Kenya to deliver justice for itself. There have been several cases brought before the courts. [1] Kenyans overwhelmingly see the ICC is ‘imperialist’, and 61% want the ICC to terminate its case against Kenyatta. [2] If and when Kenya’s leaders should be tried should be left to the domestic judiciary to decide. [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘UN urges Kenya to probe violence after 2007 elections’, Reuters, 26 July 2012, [2] Wanyama, Henry, ‘Kenya: 61 Percent of Kenyans Want ICC Cases Dropped – Poll’, allAfrica, 1 February 2014, | |
A pointless trial that victimizes African leaders While the ICC feels free to interfere with African countries it would never dare to do so in a western country; leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy and others who have launched various armed interventions have not been put on trial. Not only is it victimization and interference the trial of Kenyatta is also likely to be pointless; it is on the point of collapse. The prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has stated “Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr. Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial”. [1] [1] AFP, ‘'Not enough evidence for Kenyatta trial': ICC prosecutor’, Google, 19 December 2013, | |
The Kenyan Parliament decided against creating a special tribunal, the court should not have then gone over the elected representatives’ head to hand the case to the ICC. The Parliament has since shown its displeasure at the ICC’s interference by voting to leave the ICC entirely. [1] [1] AP, ‘Kenya votes to leave ICC days before deputy president’s Hague trial’, The Guardian, 5 September 2013, | |
Justice can still be sought by either local courts or after Kenyatta’s term ends. Justice should be done without ICC interference in the domestic affairs of Kenya. Even so, this does not seem like the pursuit of justice by the ICC, rather a witch hunt by the ICC for African leaders [1] . [1] ‘African Union accuses ICC of ‘hunting’ Africans’, BBC News, 27 May 2013, | |
Breaks cycles of violence When violence is not punished, it tends to lead to more violence – such as the lack of prosecutions following the violence occurring after the 1992 and 1997 elections, to which people attribute to the air of impunity in the 2007 elections. This is firstly because people never heal from the initial violence – when justice is not seen to be done, they remain angry and partisan. Secondly however, a lack of retribution leads to increased confidence to repeat and exacerbate acts. | |
Kenyans wanted the investigation It cannot be unwelcome interference in Kenya’s internal affairs when it was Kenyans who invited the ICC in. It was the Kenyan government that set up the Waki commission under Kenyan Court of Appeals Judge Philip Waki into the violence. It was then this commission that decided to pass the results of its investigation on to the ICC in order to get prosecutions due to the failure to set up a special tribunal. [1] The Kenyan government may have disliked the final outcome of its creation of such a commission but it was undoubtedly asked for by the Kenyan judiciary. Moreover until it became clear that the trial could collapse Kenyans were largely supportive with more than half the country supporting the trial. [2] [1] Justice Initiative Kenya Monitor [2] Maliti, Tom, ‘New opinion poll finds rise in support for ICC; many want Kenyatta to attend trial’, Kenya Monitor, 15 November 2013, | |
Justice is important Justice is important in its own right, for the victims of the atrocities and for the development of Kenya. Victims have a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1] to have access to justice. Being elected should not be a blanket ban from being prosecuted for your crimes. In fact, the rule of law establishes the principle that leaders are subject to the same laws as all citizens. By seeing leaders being prosecuted for crimes, everyone sees the system working, allowing citizens to trust and buy further into the democratic system. As a consequence, the pursuit of justice is the most important factor above and beyond any claims of interference. [1] Article 8, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. | |
Justice for violence is not fundamental to peace, as can be seen by the comparatively peaceful 2013 elections. Having now established working relationship between ethnic communities, why stoke the fire by prosecuting community leaders? 60% of Kenyans say they do not believe that the case even if it runs to a conclusion will not help heal Kenya. [1] [1] Wanyama, 2014 | |
Israel has a better historical, moral and demographic claim to an undivided Jerusalem as its capitol than the Palestinians have a claim to East Jerusalem. This is both because Israel's historical claim is older, and indeed original, but also because Israel does govern all Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, both fairly and democratically. Moreover, the idea that Jerusalem could be is not practical. If all Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine, this would create all sorts of potential problems. If it was shared for example, would a baby born in a shared Jerusalem’s civic nationality be Israeli or Palestinian? And if an act is committed in Jerusalem which one nation's government recognises as a crime but the other doesn't, who decides what should be done? Different countries sharing a disputed territory but not dividing it is very illogical, even more so if that territory is the capital of both. Imagine what would have happened if the UK, France, and the USA decided to share Berlin with the USSR instead of dividing it! | |
Palestine has as valid a claim to Jerusalem as Israel does: The Palestinians have as valid a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state as the Israelis has a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state. At the end of 2008, the population of East Jerusalem was 57% Muslim (Palestinian) and only 43% Jewish, sowing a clear and workable Palestinian majority in East Jerusalem.(10) Both sides have important religious sites in the city. The dome of the Rock is integral to Islam to the prophet Muhammad’s night journey to the temple making it Islam’s third holiest place after only Mecca and Medina. It is equally important for Jews to have access to the Western Wall.(1) For the Palestinians Israel has made its claim over the whole of Jerusalem more illegitimate by misgoverning the East of Jerusalem. For example, because there are no Arab’s on the committee that chooses street names in Jerusalem in the telephone book maps of Arab neighbourhoods are blank, like unexplored parts of the Amazon in the 19th century. As a result mail is seldom delivered there, and having Arabs' become perceived to be invisible, non-existent or else branded as terrorists.(5) Throughout the Israeli occupation the demographic balance has served as the main consideration in Israeli decision making for both local and central government. This has been a deliberate attempt to forstall any attempt by the Palestinians to claim that they have an equal right to Jerusalem. Israeli policies have been directed to mainly serve spatial/demographic domination of "Jewish Jerusalem." There was no attempt to "integrate" the Palestinian neighborhoods' functions with West Jerusalem or the settlements built in Palestinian areas. On the contrary, the policy has been to separate and isolate them. East Jerusalem serves naturally as a metropolitan center of the entire West Bank, until the Oslo agreement in September 1993, some autonomy of Palestinian Jerusalemites was allowed especially in educational, sport, health, cultural, religious institutions and community based organizations. There has however been a movement from "United Jerusalem" to "Jewish Jerusalem." From 2000 the Palestinian demographic threat, became the reason for "getting rid" of Palestinian Jerusalemites after Israel had accomplished its spacio-political goals for a "Jewish Jerusalem." Israel of today is in the process of replacing the slogan of "United Jerusalem" with great "Jewish Jerusalem" with the Old City as its core. As a result of the Israeli policy, Palestinian neighborhoods (including the available land for future development) consist of only 17 percent of the entire East Jerusalem area and 7 percent of total municipal Jerusalem. Israel restricted the Palestinian construction and economic development, which led to the emigration of the Palestinians from the city to new areas developed as suburbs of the city. This territorial/demographic domination and restriction on Palestinian development affected East Jerusalem by deteriorating its functionality in disconnecting it from its hinterland and West Bank areas.(14) Israeli officials have also not been fair or protective of Palestinians, repeatedly being highly abusive, and Israeli security forces have been accepting of abusive Israeli civilian treatment of Palestinians.(2) Moreover, Jerusalem can be shared, and thus divided in practical terms but not "divided" per se. It has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided". This is a as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.(11) What matters is that it is recognised that the Palestinians have as valid a claim to their part of Jerusalem as the Israelis do to their part, and as a consequence Jerusalem should be divided in such a way as to give the Palestinians control over their area as the capitol of their new state. | |
The 1947 Arab invasion invalidated the "international" status of Jerusalem. The Arab non-acceptance of Resolution 181 and invasion of Israel immediately upon its declaration of statehood essentially reneged the resolution and the creation of an Arab state at the time.(15) Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian East Jerusalem would probably do. | |
Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1) Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won’t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues. French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: "There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions."(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount."(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4) | |
Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem necessarily want to be the inhabitants of the capitol of a new Palestinian state rather than inhabitants of Israel. An opinion poll of residents of all 19 Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem conducted in 2011 showed opposition to a transfer of control to the Palestinian Authority. 40% said that they would move to Israel if their neighbourhood was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and 39% believed most of their neighbour’s preferred Israeli citizenship. On the other hand only 29% would move to a Palestinian neighbourhood if theirs remained in Israel, and 31% estimated that most of their neighbours preferred Palestinian citizenship. 35% prefer Israeli citizenship compared to 30% preferring Palestinian citizenship, with 30% not knowing or not answering. Residents therefore seem to be satisfied with their current situation of having Israeli identity cards which entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) This means that sharing Jerusalem will not be a simple solution and that the Palestinians can come to trust the Israeli government and its security services. | |
International law supports dividing Jerusalem The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own.(7) An undivided Jerusalem forces the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”.(12) Because Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it.(7) This is why most countries do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and in fact keep their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv today and do not consider Jerusalem the official capital of Israel.(15) The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory or holding on to East Jerusalem, and so international law supports the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.(8) | |
Dividing Jerusalem will not alienate Jews from their heritage. Dennis Ross writes in the book "the Missing Peace", that it is a myth: "that all of Jerusalem, including the exclusively Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, must remain Israeli lest the division of East Jerusalem rob Israel of its link to its Jewish heritage."(22) Furthermore, splitting Jerusalem will establish needed peace for economic growth. Without peace, it is impossible for Jerusalem to thrive economically as it should. If splitting Jerusalem is the best way to establish peace, then it is also the best way to stimulate economic growth. Finally, even if it would be damaging to Israeli society or culture to lose East Jerusalem, the fact that Israel illegitimately acquired it in a war means that this is a burden the Israelis should bear, instead of forcing the harm on the Palestinians. | |
The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour. ” added Rabbo.(18) Moreover, Jerusalem has been psychologically and religiously divided since 1967. The walls may be invisible, but they are high and thick. Many Israelis never go to the Arab neighbourhoods or the Old City, because they know, even though Israel controls them, they are not welcome. Many Arabs don't go to the Jewish sections, because they too know they are not welcome. And tens of thousands of secular Israelis have fled Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, because they do not feel comfortable in a city dominated by the ultra-Orthodox.(1) Only formalizing these divisions can end the conflict. | |
Jerusalem belongs to Israel Jerusalem became a city in 1010 B.C.E. when King David defeated the Jebusites. King David made that city his seat of government. In fact, King David loved Jerusalem that he brought the sacred Ark of the Covenant into that city and stripped the so-called twelve tribes of Israel of some of their spiritual and administrative functions. The Torah is the History of Israel. Jerusalem historically was created and founded by an Israeli and therefore remains the heritage of all Israelis forever, as it is irrevocably bound up not only in their history and culture but also in the Jewish religion.(19) Moreover, Israel has fought for East Jerusalem and so has no reason it should give it up. Chris Mitchell argued in 2008: "Despite any public warnings, the private negotiations continue for the November summit...In the midst of these plans, some see an irony of history...This year, Israel celebrated the 40th anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem...The battle 40 years ago during the 1967 Six Day War reunited a divided city between Jordan and Israel. And for the first time in more than 2,000 years, Israel controlled the city of Jerusalem...Some fear that what Israel won on the battlefield could be lost at the negotiating table."(16) Moreover, Israel has not lost its legitimacy to govern East Jerusalem, as it governs it was well as it can and does so democratically. Israel is a democracy and is doing a fair job in keeping the city open to all three main monotheistic religions. Despite the Inquisition which ruined the Jews and the city, Christians today have been welcomed to the city and their holy places have been given both respect and honour by the State of Israel. Even Muslims have been given the right to maintain their Dome of the Rock - or the Al-Aksa Mosque. There is no reason why this fair religious arrangement should be changed. Even Rome, the seat of the Catholicism has accepted and appreciated the manner by which Israel is keeping Jerusalem free for all religions.(2) It is for such reasons that a 2011 poll showed that 35% of the inhabitants of East Jerusalem prefer Israeli citizenship, 30% prefer Palestinian citizenship, and 30% didn't know or preferred not to answer. This poll, conducted in all of East Jerusalem's 19 Arab neighbourhoods, shows that Palestinians are mostly satisfied with their present conditions. Their Israeli identity cards entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections, though they can still vote in municipal elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) Israel offers the opportunity for Palestinians to become representatives of their local communities, but that Palestinians reject this opportunity out of fear of being seen as sympathizing with the enemy. They shirk the opportunity to govern themselves and inflame tensions with Israel. They are, therefore, largely responsible for the poor state of East Jerusalem. Israel should not be held solely responsible.(5) Therefore Israel has a superior claim to all of Jerusalem than the Palestinians do to East Jerusalem, and so the city should not be divided. | |
Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society: Besides the aforementioned security concerns, many other harms would also result to Israeli society if Jerusalem were divided. Jerusalem is simply too important to Israeli society to be divided. Ben Gurion explain in 1937, "for the Jews, the millions of the Jews who do not know the difference between the Sharon [or the Jezre'el] and the Valley [or the difference between Rehavia and the Old City] the name Jerusalem means everything."(20) This remains true today: Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky said in 2000, "Above all, Jerusalem is the base of our identity."(21) This is why sharing Jerusalem is forbidden under Israeli law. In 1980, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed the "Basic Law". This proclaimed, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." This makes it unlawful, under Israeli law, to now divide Jerusalem and share it as a joint capital with a Palestinian state, and shows how deep Israeli attachment to an undivided Jerusalem is.(15) Dividing Jerusalem would destroy the city, Roni Aloni-Sadovnik argued in 2006: "Yet there is a truth that has yet to be spoken: Any division of Jerusalem will bring about the city's destruction. Maybe, after 3,000 years of bloodletting and destruction, the time has come to understand that the road to peace does not run through Jerusalem."(18) A divided Jerusalem would also be less viable economically. Dividing a city in two means cutting off commerce between the two sides. It means cutting markets in half, reducing the market of suppliers for consumers and consumers for suppliers by 50%. This is highly problematic for a city that aims to become an global centre, and this is even more problematic when the city involved is considered to be a holy one by three faiths, all of whom want to see it prosperous and strong. Therefore dividing Jerusalem would be too harmful to Israeli society and to Jerusalem itself, and so it should not be divided. | |
Jerusalem cannot be neatly or peacefully divided Dividing Jerusalem would simply draw up battle lines through the city. With layers of neighbourhoods so close, security is a very real concern. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed this issue: "We've seen what happens when we leave. It's not an Arab majority. It's Hamas. Let's be very clear. It's an Iranian base," he said. "If we leave here, Hamas comes here. They start rocketing. They don't have to rocket. They can use small arms fire right into every one of these neighbourhoods. Look how intertwined it is." Finally he complained, "It's hard for me to see how people cannot see that instead of being the end of conflict, it would be the beginning of a conflict we cannot even imagine."(16) Nadav Shragai, a foreign affairs analyst, argues: "The moment that we re-divide Jerusalem and divide up the Old City of Jerusalem, we're going to create chaos. Look what's happening in Iraq where mosques are getting blown up and churches are being attacked. Do we really want to put that in the heart of Jerusalem, with Hamas and a Palestinian version of the Taliban?”(17) Giving the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighbourhood" next to the Western Wall, will mean that Jews are no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews. Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away.(17) The examples of Rachel's Tomb, which the Oslo Accords turned into a half-abandoned border post on the outskirts of Bethlehem, and 19 years (from 1948 until 1967) years in which Jews were forbidden to visit their holy places, even though the armistice agreement with Jordan ostensibly guaranteed such visits, are pertinent here in demonstrating that religious rights would most likely not be respected in a divided Jerusalem.(17) Dividing Jerusalem will fail like all divided cities have failed historically. In the city of Nicosia in Cyprus, for example, they decided to build a wall to separate Turkish and Greek Cypriots, but this failed to solve the economic or political aspects of the conflict between the two peoples. And in Berlin, the wall brought no positive results, and was eventually toppled by residents themselves.(18) The idea of dividing Jerusalem between the Israelis and Palestinians presupposes that Jerusalem is capable of a neat division. But it is not. Somehow, any separation of the city into component parts has to recognize that there are myriad economic and cultural links among political adversaries. Moreover, the monuments and shrines of the Old City attract visitors from all over the world: Muslims who want to worship at al-Aqsa Mosque; Jews seeking to pray at the Western Wall; Christians keen to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or follow the Stations of the Cross. Try as one might, it is not possible to count out the lanes of the Old City so that each of them is controlled by only one faith, one ethnicity. Dividing Jerusalem, says Daniel Seidemann, a lawyer and expert on Jerusalem affairs, is "a political impossibility and a historical inevitability. It will take microsurgery, and I'm afraid the politicians will go at it with a hatchet.”(5) For all these reasons dividing Jerusalem would not be a neat, peaceful process but rather a contested and bloody one which would let forth a new conflict on the very streets of Jerusalem. | |
While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, particularly the Muslim populations, also built their own religious monuments and sights there, most notably the Dome of the Rock (the site of the Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven is Islamic teachings). Arguing this ignores the many years of control that followed the founding of Jerusalem. It ignores centuries of cultural and religious heritage that subsequent, and more contemporary, populations have developed in Jerusalem, and it ignores the equally valid claims the Palestinians groups have to Jerusalem. While it would clearly be unfair to give the capitol entirely to the Palestinians, it must also be recognized that their claim must be recognized as having equal legitimacy as Israel's. If Israel claims it deserves the city because of history and religious significance, then the Palestinians can say the same thing right back.(19) | |
An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi responded by strengthening the crackdown on protestors and preparing for an all-out assault on the Eastern town of Benghazi [1] . The intent to protect civilians in this case served only to increase the will of the leader to harm them. Furthermore, many of the nasty or failing regimes who might be fearful of intervention have a Security Council patron whom they can rely upon to prevent any action being taken against them. If the UN has an obligation to act to prevent atrocities such as genocide, then vetoes will be used to prevent the Security Council recognizing that such a situation exists in the first place. Though it has recently joined UN resolutions on Sudan, China blocked moves to impose sanctions on Sudan before 2007, largely due to favorable economic ties with the state [2] . Finally, this proposal may make atrocities more likely, by encouraging rebel groups to provoke ill-disciplined government forces into committing gross human rights violations, such as massacres, in the hope that such a response will draw in international forces on their own side. [1] Buck, T. & Clover, C. (2011), “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi”, Financial Times, [2] BBC News (2007), “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, BBC News, Al Jazeera, 'China bolsters economic ties with Sudan', 29 June 2011, | |
A strong United Nations commitment to the Right to Protect will create an effective deterrent to future atrocities. Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring swift action from the international community. Only once their ability to hide behind claims to absolute sovereignty has been removed will human rights have to be taken seriously by dictators and extremist regimes. Thus by adopting a strong UN position on the Responsibility to Protect, we can hope to make states take their own responsibilities more seriously and make the need for any actual intervention rare. For example, Omar Al-Bashir of the Sudan has committed horrible atrocities against his own people. He is complicit in committing genocide against Darfur populations, yet remains in power. There is a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, but they have little ability to act upon their threats [1] . A strong commitment to the responsibility to protect would ensure leaders like Bashir think twice before permitting such atrocities to take place, through fear for their own grip on power. [1] New York Times (2011), “Omar Hassan al-Bashir”, | |
That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the government no longer sovereign, then who is in charge? Is the UN going to set up a new government and country in the aftermath? That is a large commitment that such a large organization may not be able to execute no matter how ideal. | |
The United Nations has a responsibility to prevent genocide and mass atrocities. Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on this responsibility to protect people when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so, in order to prevent mass killings, genocide and other atrocities [1] . If we believe human rights have any meaning at all, then they must be universal and therefore our obligation to protect citizens from such horrors must apply regardless of state boundaries. Moving from a situation where the UN placed the rights of states above those of their people, to one where individual rights are given the greater priority is surely morally essential. [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, | |
There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be right for individual states, or coalitions of the willing to take action to protect innocent life elsewhere in the world, even if the Security Council refused to deliver on its promises. Under the proposition, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1998/99 was wrong, and so was Vietnam's in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania's in Uganda to stop Idi Amin's bloodshed, etc. - none of these had Security Council support. | |
Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the deep seated tensions in countries like the Sudan and Somalia [1] . Talk of prevention and of using non-military means to ensure states protect their own people properly is little different from existing UN commitments. The UN has failed in the past to head off humanitarian crises and there is nothing in the new Declarations to make it more likely to be successful in future. If the responsibility to protect means anything, it is to weaken the concept of sovereignty and make military intervention more likely. [1] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, | |
Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified [1] . For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi [2] . As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action [3] . Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down. [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News, [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times, | |
It is better to save lives than stand idly by. It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives. The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur are all horrible examples where genocide and other appalling violations of human rights were inflicted upon civilian populations while the UN failed to act [1] . Clearly in all the past cases where action might have saved lives and delivered hundreds of thousands of people from evil, no action was taken by the Security Council. Therefore those who argue that future challenges should be considered purely on a case-by-case basis must accept that this is likely to mean yet more refusals to act decisively and so more needless suffering. We must place an obligation to act on the Security Council so that they are predisposed to respond seriously and swiftly in future. If there is a known atrocity going on in the international community, the Security Council should no longer be allowed to ignore it based on their individual ties. For example China could not defend the Sudan even though they have close financial ties when intervention for human rights abuses is the norm [2] . The world responded to the holocaust saying ‘never again’, yet similar ethnic cleansing has happened over and over again, and in defense of human rights the UN needs to adopt a no tolerance policy. Countries who are not prepared for this obligation should step down from the Security Council. [1] Prevent Genocide, “Past Genocides”, [2] Aljazeera (2011), “China Bolsters Economic Ties with Sudan”, | |
The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. Without a clear global commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, the UN will always be scrabbling scrambling around to meet its needs in dealing with individual crises. Once there is clear agreement on the kind of situation which will in future prompt intervention, the UN can begin to plan ahead to build up resources, create contingency funds, and seek pledges of military units from member states, to be activated swiftly as needed. This could most easily be done regionally through the regional security organizations such as NATO and the African Union that it was originally intended would provide this kind of security. If the member states of one organization lacked some necessary equipment such as transport capacity they could borrow them from neighboring organizations. | |
The UN is the organization best equipped to deal with these types of interventions. If individual countries take action there are automatically thoughts of motive, and they can never be seen as a pure unbiased actor. Further, countries don’t want to take action because they do not want to become tied to the countries that they helped, whereas the UN does not have an aversion to commitment [1] . Having a strict framework directing intervention can prevent the UN from becoming the international government. [1] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, | |
Blanket commitment creates a slippery slope of when to intervene. A blanket commitment could lead the United Nations and the word into great dangers. It must be considered whether intervention with force is always practical. For example, in the past China's government has committed horrific human rights abuses, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacre. These surely show a state unable or unwilling to protect its citizens and would have invited intervention under this proposal. Or perhaps you feel these are purely historical examples - but what if the Chinese regime in future used horrific force to put down future risings by Uighur or Tibetan ethnic minorities? Or what about present Russian behavior in Chechnya? Would the UN really deliver on an intervention in members of the security council? Where do they draw the line? How do they decide which countries have revoked sovereignty with their actions? How many people have to die? One of the concerns with the NATO invasion in Libya is that it sets a dangerous precedent [1] . The UN would very likely be taking far too much on if they truly adopt the “responsibility to protect” particularly because it is difficult to justly define when a government has gone too far. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree (2011), “Libya and the Responsibility to Protect”, Council on Foreign Relations, | |
Actions to intervene in internal situations need to be determined on a case by case basis. We all have a moral duty to protect human rights and prevent atrocities, but we do not need to make a vague and open-ended commitment. In particular there is a big difference between a genocide pursued by a strong, centralized state victimizing its own people, and the inability of a failing state to protect its civilians in a time of civil war or ethnic unrest. For example the genocide in Sudan is inflicted by the government, yet the situation in Somalia is entirely different since they lack a government and violence stems from rebel groups in the country [1] [2] . Making decisions on a case-by-case basis recognizes that every crisis is different in character and requires a different and proportionate response be it military or humanitarian. [1] New York Times (2011), “Somalia”, [2] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, | |
The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise. The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time [1] . At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems [2] . This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to. [1] Schaefer, Brett, (2005) ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation, [2] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, | |
The UN would be turned into something that it is not. From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but the nation state has a good record of delivering responsive, accountable government to which individual citizens can feel a strong personal commitment, and which is able to meet their particular cultural, religious, environmental and economic needs [1] . International institutions are at best impersonal and remote and at worst an unaccountable and undemocratic imposition. It is right to oppose any language and commitments which would advance the cause of those who would turn the UN into a world government. [1] The Economist (1999), “Garibaldi and the 1,000”, | |
Acting on a case-by-case basis does not establish an effective deterrent. If a leader does not know for certain that their action is going to lead to an intervention, they can’t be deterred. In order for them to be deterred, they need to know by which standards their actions will be assessed and acted upon. On a case-by-case basis, there is no such consistency established. The UN needs to adopt an equal treatment of every country and situation under a responsibility to protect clause so that the least powerful in this world do not go unprotected. | |
It is not difficult to set up basic guidelines as to determining when a situation has gone too far. Even proponents of Responsibility to protect agree on certain criteria particularly right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable Prospects. [1] The last of these criteria will rule out any intervention against a great power such as China where there would not be reasonable prospects of success unless disproportionate means (something like a preemptive nuclear strike) was used. Questions like ‘how many have to die?’ are therefore not asking the right questions because the loss of life could be relatively small (it also assumes that only killing matters) if all the criteria are fulfilled. While this would regrettably constrain any ‘responsibility to protect’ it would at the same time mean that R2P would not become an excuse for starting large scale wars. [1] Evans, Gareth et al., The Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, p.32 | |
A referendum would not be a legitimate use of government money, for it would not be practical. Holding a referendum on an issue the country already approved in 1975 would be a waste of time and resources. The expense of referendums is abhorrent to the UK taxpayer; the Alternative Vote referendum held in 2011 was believed to have cost £250 million, excessive at the best of the times, irresponsible during times of financial austerity.1 Moreover, the practice of holding national referendums must be stopped as it undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the parliamentary system. Regarding public will, referendums are not hostage to the demands of the public, for dissatisfaction with the status quo rarely leads to or justifies a referendum. If 71% would vote ‘no’, but 83% admit they know little about the EU, then a referendum on the issue cannot be deemed a legitimate representation of the United Kingdom’s views on EU membership. 1PORTER, ANDREW. February 15, 2011. “Voting referendum will cost £250 million claim campaigners”, The Daily Telegraph , 201 | |
An in or out referendum would be legitimate. Parliamentary and logistic precedents indicate that holding a referendum about an issue of sovereignty is practical and practicable. There have been two successfully-held national referendums, one the direct antecedent of this one (the 1975 EEC vote) and one recently (the 2011 AV vote). The history of national referendums therefore indicates that they are both constitutional and logistically viable. Furthermore, the referendum is legitimized by public desire. A BBC poll in 2009 indicated that 71% would vote 'no' to EU membership if a referendum was held, a level of dissatisfaction which indicates the need for a public discussion and vote.1 1 MORGAN, CHARLES. January 2, 2009. "No change in British public opinion on Euro" Cafebabel | |
Referendums are not a right. Parliament has passed no law governing when referendums must be held. Because Parliament has set itself no guidelines on when to call referendums, the public has no right to one even if similar situations in the past have warranted them. Moreover, a system of representative democracy means referendums are not necessary -- it is MPs' job to make decisions. The public have the right to vote for leaders and hold those leaders accountable, not a right to vote on individual issues. | |
A referendum will create a better political climate. The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not only individuals but also parties will be appeased: the far left and right each feel strongly about this issue. Euroskeptic parties like UKIP and the BNP have agitated for an in-or-out vote for years, and disguise racism and anti-immigrant sentiment as Euroskepticism in the process. A vote either way would settle the issue and make it harder for them to disguise antisocial aspects of their platforms. Pro-Europeans like the Lib Dems also want the referendum: leader Nick Clegg said that "nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide"2 by not holding one. Both sides of the political spectrum wants this issue definitively settled. Once it has been, politicians will be able to redirect focus and work on crucial issues like the economy. 1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011. 2 CLEGG, NICK. October 15, 2003. "We need an EU referendum." The Guardian.accessed June 14, 2011. | |
A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct rebuke to their own power. Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some constituents want it. It is not the job of government to neutralize radical voices, but to offer better alternatives while preserving freedom of expression. If parties want to resolve the Europe question, they should do so through established political channels. | |
A vote will make the government look weak. The government will seem like it's avoiding a difficult issue by shifting responsibility for the Europe question to the public. Europeans will see the British government as an unreliable political partner willing to gamble EU membership at a volatile and dangerous time for the continent's economic and political future. To lose the trust and co-operation of Europe by permitting a referendum would be myopic at best, and replace long-term political co-operation and security with short-term appeasement of the general public. | |
The public have a right to a referendum. The public deserve to vote in this referendum because it regards a constitutional issue – sovereignty. Beyond constitutionality, referendums maintain democratic society when the public’s views and MPs’ clearly misalign, as they do in this case. This vote will also maintain the established precedent of holding referendums on EU issues. If the British people had to be consulted on EEC membership, as happened in 1975, they must be consulted on EU membership: the current EU barely resembles the EEC that the UK voted to join long ago, but has greatly magnified stature and power. | |
The referendum is good PR for the UK. A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the UK is not doing enough to co-operate. Europeans also will improve their view of the United Kingdom: a "Yes" vote will minimize the perception of the UK as a foot-dragging, reluctant participant in Europe; a "No" vote will be seen to end a half-hearted charade. Either way, a more straightforward relationship with Europe will minimize UK-Europe mistrust, which will benefit each politically and economically. | |
The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the people. Representative democracy makes the further basic assumption that citizens are capable of making important and informed decisions when they vote. To suggest otherwise is elitist and undemocratic. | |
Referendums are a positive democratic force. The argument that the UK has always been a representative democracy does not preclude integrating elements of direct democracy into the political process. If referendums reinforce the legitimacy of government, strengthen the social contract and keep the citizenry engaged, to reject them because they are relatively new is simply reactionary. Those who decide to call a referendum can be held politically accountable, which means that the volume, expense, and quality of referendums will be held to standards. In addition, there is no reason why referendum use shouldn't or wouldn't be codified as it continues to be incorporated into the British political process. If the coalition government deserves to stay in power, it will find ways to cooperate and coexist: if not, the country will be better off with a more functional one. | |
EU membership is too important to gamble. Membership of the European Union is too valuable to be cast aside. Prime Minister David Cameron refuses to hold a referendum for a good reason: he knows that leaving the EU would inflict great harm on the UK.1Economically, the UK is weaker on trade negotiations, especially with the US,2 as a lone entity. In international society, the country will be seen as unreliable, and the UK's already fractured relationship with Europe will sustain further damage. Keeping strong ties with Europe as well as the US is essential for UK well-being. If the UK left, the EU would be weaker and might collapse. The organization is at a crossroads given the collapsing Euro and it must weather this difficult time in order to prove its sustainability. If it lost the UK's financial support, the economic fallout in Europe would further weaken the continent's economies, which would in turn harm the UK, whose economy would necessarily remain tied to its European trading partners and financial service customers. 1 PHIBBS, HARRY. March 14, 2011. "Is Cameron worried that withdrawal from the EU would be a foregone conclusion if a referendum is agreed?" The Daily Mail., accessed June 20, 2011. 2 BOWLBY, CHRIS. November 16, 2009. "If the UK left the EU what would the consequences be?" The BBC, accessed June 16, 2011. | |
The vote will be illegitimate. The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only fosters misinformation and subjectivity on the behalf of campaigners. Racist far-right parties can easily exploit European issues by playing on public fears about immigration. The referendum lead-up would provide a megaphone for these parties' unacceptable views. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum campaign showed that the public readily believes misinformation and scare tactics and meaningful discussion of issues is drowned out. Leaving the decision to elected representatives preserves the rationality of the debate. 1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011. | |
The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about issues: the resources their position affords are a major justification for representative democracy. The UK must reverse its recent referendum trend (which only began in 1973) to avoid undermining government legitimacy and stability. In the status quo, referendums are deployed inconsistently, used as a political tool to hedge on issues, and used by parties to avoid tough internal conversations. Referendums also harm governmental accountability, which is key for a functional representative democracy because it protects voters. MPs avoid being held accountable by their constituents and fulfilling their own role in parliamentary democracy by using referendums to avoid taking a stance on politically contentious issues. In addition, the overuse of referendums causes governmental paralysis: see the US state of California’s initiative addiction. Referendums are a poor use of public funds: each costs £80-100 million 1 -- especially unacceptable since MPs can call referendums on a whim with no guidelines. In the current political, the referendum might tear apart the coalition government. Lib Dems and Conservatives are deeply divided from each other and internally over the issue. If the parties campaigned against each other the divisions formed during the AV campaign would widen. A broken coalition and new general election would interrupt government in a time of recession when the country desperately needs new policies and programs. 1 BBC NEWS DESK. February 1, 2011. “MPs reject Tory MP's call for 'in-out' EU referendum.” The BBC, accessed June 15, 2011. | |
EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3 1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011. 2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011. 3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011 | |
Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy. Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation. Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2 Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011, “War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School. | |
US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in order to prosecute the war is incredibly harmful as it undermines one of the core institutions in U.S. democracy. Further, the use of international organisations such as the UN and NATO to circumvent congress has bad ramifications for the future as in doing this the U.S. government has significantly lowered the burden required to go to war should it wish to do so in the future. This is problematic because the decision to go to war should never be one that is taken lightly. Should the U.S. wish to go to war again then it might end up in a situation such as Vietnam, the conflict that inspired the creation of the war powers act.1 Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011 | |
The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up. The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compromise sometimes in order to fulfil the responsibilities it has taken on within these organisations. Libya is simply an example of one of these compromises and this does not harm the constitution any further than the US initially did by entering into these agreements and institutions. 1, 2 Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011 Stone, Daniel. “Is the Libya War Legal” The Daily Beast. 22/03/2011 | |
The United States engaged in "hostilities" under War Powers There are multiple arguments indicating why the U.S. might be engaged in hostilities under the War Powers Act, enough so that this single argument could make an entire two person case. The U.S. has engaged in sustained hostilities in Libya which have resulted in regime change within the country. The President himself admits that causing regime change would be unjustifiable in his speech justifying the war by pledging that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”2 However, regime change was the result of the mission and NATO and U.S. played a significant role in facilitating that change. Secondly, the War Powers act covers the U.S. fighting in a supportive role in wars. "For purposes of this chapter, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”3 Hence the U.S. is acting in violation of this condition. Further, troops do not need to be on the ground to call the Libyan engagement hostilities. U.S. men and women have firstly died in the conflict, but secondly if troops were needed on the ground for a war, a U.S. president could potentially fire a thousand missiles at a country without the engagement being considered a war. Further, even though the U.S. gave powers to NATO, it maintained a lead role in this coalition force. As such, the engagement should still be subject to U.S. laws and rules. Finally, the sheer cost of the engagement to the U.S. taxpayer implies that it should be considered a war. The cost of the war has been more than $1 million per day.1 Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011 BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011, United States Congress, 50 USC CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, 7 January 2011, | |
The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1 As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is. Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2 BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011, Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011 | |
The Libya intervention lacks sufficient international authority Firstly, the UN intervention in Libya wrongly rests on NATO authority. The use of NATO to circumvent congressional approval in this situation violates the initial agreement regarding the participation of the U.S. in NATO that was ratified by congress. As such, even if the U.S. is legitimate in going to war and the circumvention of war powers can be justified, the circumvention using NATO cannot. Secondly, the use of UN approval to circumvent congress means that the UN charter and the ideals of the UN have been placed by the government at a higher level of value than of the US constitution. If this is the case then the government has undermined the validity of the US constitution and through doing that has undermined all laws within the U.S. which is harmful should the U.S. wish to project power in a way that is contrary to the UN’s wishes.1 Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011 | |
Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1 Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2 ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011 | |
The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.S. democratic system has been undermined and more powers have been given to the presidency. In the future this could lead to further bad decisions for the united states as presidents are required to prove less in order to take stronger action.1 Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011 | |
Congress was appropriately and openly consulted Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1 Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff." Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2 United States Activities in Libya, p.7, Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011 | |
Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by Gadaffi’s air forces. Such bombing attacks led to significant civilian casualties.1 Following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 the United States placed on itself a moral mandate that ‘never again’ would such massacres be allowed to continue without intervention. Had the uprising been put down, reprisals by Gadaffi would have been swift and likely resulted in many innocents being killed. 2 The United States had to step in. Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TESXT)’ AP/The Huffington Post, 28 March 2011, Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011 | |
The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules that has to be borne despite the harms such a breach might cause. Violence and insecurity within the Libyan region would negatively affect US security. Firstly through the fact that poverty and conflict often breed religious radicalism and can often result in terrorism which directly harms the US as the most visible world power. Secondly, the US intervening is necessary to show members of the Middle East and North Africa that it is willing to support the region during a time of taxing transitions from old dictatorships to often weak democracies. Further, it shows that the US is compassionate in that it is unwilling to stand by and allow regions to descend into humanitarian crises. The intervention also prevented a flood of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia.1 Egypt itself is currently undergoing democratic change and such a crisis might have forced that process backward. Tunisia is undergoing a similar transition and America needs to show support for these countries so that the governments that are established in the future will view America in a positive light. Finally such an intervention is necessary owing to the role that the US and the people of the US feel that it should take in the world. Standing aside whilst a humanitarian crisis unfolds goes against the ideals that the US stands for. Further, given this revolution is likely seeking a democratic government it seems inconsistent that the US would not help countries aiming to become more like the US. 2,3 Wauquiez , Laurent, ‘Libya/no-fly zone/sanctions/refugees – NATO intervention/Arab reaction’, France in the United States, 8 March 2011, Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011 Text of Obama’s Speech on Libya: “A Responsibility to Act.” NPR.org 28/03/2011 | |
Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1 Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2 ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941)’, ourdocuments.gov, Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011 | |
Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders [2] . Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues [3] . The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations [4] . [1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010 [2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012, [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, [4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, | |
The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany [1] . For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives [2] . France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement. [1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239, has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe [2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011 | |
While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part [1] . This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU. [1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk , 9 April 2003, | |
The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age. Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders. [1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order. [2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks. [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, p.104 [2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999), See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2 | |
As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU [1] ; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe. This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities [2] . Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole. [1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010, [2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool, | |
The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS) [1] and Europol. [1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia, | |
Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism. | |
While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.