title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
It is wrong to say that Russia is not an industrialised country, it is considered by the World Bank to be a high income country. [1] It is also a democracy that holds regular elections. President Putin is held in high regard by Russians 67.8% of Russians approve of Putin’s job performance [2] – far higher than any other member of the G8. [1] The World Bank, ‘Russian Federation’, data.worldbank.org, accessed 7 March 2014 [2] Luhn, Alec, ‘Ukraine crisis and Olympics boost Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia’, The Guardian, 6 March 2014 , note however the pollster is state run! | |
There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally The intention of international institutions is to bind countries together, to ensure they speak to each other and resolve differences, and to ensure they feel they cannot engage in aggressive actions. However when a state breaks these norms there needs to be a reaction. Russia has been willing to engage in aggressive acts time and time again. The recent occupation of Crimea is very similar to Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008; in both conflicts Russia used the excuse of Russians being in danger, in both cases Russia was there as a ‘peacekeeper’, and in both cases the action was in another sovereign country whose government did not wish Russian troops there. The result is an expansion of Russian influence and some form of annexation. [1] There was no action after the Russian conflict with Georgia except a mediated peace. [2] There now needs to be a response to actions in Crimea; throwing Russia out of the G8 is the least response. [1] Friedman, Uri, ‘Putin’s Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia’s Takeover of Crimea’, The Atlantic, 2 March 2014 [2] King, Charles, ‘The Five-Day War’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008 Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack, ‘Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire’, theguardian.com, 16 August 2008 | |
If there needs to be a response to Russian actions it does not need to be this response. Much more useful would be economic sanctions against Russia; either targeted freezing of state assets and the assets of leaders, or more comprehensive sanctions that would damage Russia’s economy. Such actions would provide a real cost to aggressive action, not simply a symbolic cost. [1] [1] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it’, theguardian.com, 6 March 2014 | |
Sanctions by necessity harm both sides. However Russia is a much smaller economy than either the EU or US (both of which are seven-eight times bigger). Any economic retaliation and escalation will therefore harm Russia more. The threat to cut off gas supplies is a major threat but Russia can’t simply sell the gas elsewhere because its pipelines mostly go to Europe. In the 2009 ‘gas war’ which involved supplies to Europe being restricted (though not completely cut off) for 20 days Russia’s state gas company Gazprom lost $1.1billion in revenues. [1] A more complete cut off would have higher losses. [1] Pugliaresi, Lucian et al., ‘Is it time for Gazprom to hit the reset button?’, Oil&Gas Journal, 3 September 2009 | |
Russia should never have been a member The G8 has been meant to be a group of industrialised democracies. Russia is neither particularly industrialised, nor particularly democratic. Russia remains reliant on natural resources for much of its wealth; 30% of its GDP and 70% of exports. [1] Its most recent presidential election – that voted in Putin for a third term – was not exactly free and fair. The OSCE election observers concluded “There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt”. [2] Its qualifications for membership have been questioned from the very beginning, when Russia joined the G7 were able to argue inclusion would bring it closer to the west. Yet Russia remains essentially an outsider in the group, it does not share western values and goes its own way. [3] [1] Aron, Leon, ‘The political economy of Russian oil and gas’, American Enterprise Institute, 11 April 2013 [2] Eschenbaecher, Jens-Hagen, ‘Russia’s presidential election marked by unequal campaign conditions, active citizens’ engagement, international observers say’, OSCE, 4 March 2012 [3] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Judy Asks: Is Russia Relevant in the G8?’, Carnegie Europe, 19 June 2013 | |
The biggest action the west can take without sanctions European states, which make up half of the members of the G8, have been reluctant to take stronger economic steps against aggressive Russian actions. Russia has warned the US “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.” [1] The European countries have more reason to be concerned because they rely on Russia for their gas supplies; 39% of German gas and 9% of total energy consumption is reliant on Russia. [2] If Russia were to retaliate to sanctions it could seriously damage the European economy. This means that throwing Russia out of the G8 or other institutions is the biggest sanction that does not have any risk of economic retaliation and escalation that damage everyone. [1] RIA Novosti, ‘Putin Adviser Urges Dumping US Bonds In Reaction to Sanctions’, 4 March 2013 [2] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10 | |
But Russia, as with any country – particularly any powerful country – is interested in symbolism and international prestige. Many analysts suggest that Putin’s takeover of Crimea may be about revenge for having ‘lost’ Ukraine, or out of a desire to set up a new greater Russia. [1] In each of these cases it is about prestige as the practical gains to Russia are small. Russia wants to be seen as a great power, kicking it out of one of the globe’s top clubs damages that ambition. [1] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Opinion Putin planning ‘Soviet Union lite’’, CNN, 4 March 2014 | |
The address by Putin was before Russia’s illegal intervention into Crimea and as such ‘settling regional conflicts’ almost certainly refers to Syria, not Crimea. Russia’s role in Syria has hardly been constructive, it has until recently stopped any resolutions on Syria [1] , but not so onerous as to require throwing the country out of the G8. With Putin in charge of the summit and so setting the agenda we can be sure that discussion of Crimea will be kept off the agenda so ensuring that any discussion is purely informal. Putin is hardly likely to make concessions at his own summit. [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014 | |
Allows strength in numbers Russia was originally allowed in to the G8 to encourage it to reform, or rather to provide a place where Russia’s leader can be backed into reforming. The G8 is a western institution, a forum in which an aggressive Russia has no natural allies. This means that it is the perfect place for the western democracies to voice their concerns; Russia will find itself isolated at the table and on the back foot. While at its own summit it will be even more likely to give concessions in the interests of making its own summit a success. At the last G8 summit Putin hosted in 2006 Russia made some concessions to the US in order to try and obtain WTO membership. [1] [1] Rutland, Peter, ‘Russia and the WTO: deal, or no deal?’, National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report no.12, March 2007. Pp31-36, p.32 | |
Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant The G8 has been losing its relevance with the rise of other countries economically. It can no longer claim to be the top eight economies as Canada is the world’s eleventh largest economy with India, Brazil and China all bigger. It is even lower (14th) if done by Purchasing Power Parity. [1] Newer more inclusive institutions such as the G20 that include other vital economies like China have been taking over its primacy on the economy. The G8 is no longer the best grouping to steer the global economy as was recognised during the 2008 financial crisis where the G20 took the lead. [2] Throwing out Russia would simply be making the G8 narrower and less important globally so reducing the institution’s influence. [1] The World Bank, ‘GDP (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, 2012 figures [2] Cooper, Andrew F., ‘The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world’, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.3, 2010 pp.741-757 | |
Will make no difference to Russia Throwing Russia out of the G8 to punish the country – whether for aggressive acts in its near abroad, for human rights violations, or simply for corruption and economic crimes – is unlikely to make any difference to Russia. [1] Being in the G8 provides very little tangible benefit; it is all about the symbolism of it being the top club. Russia however has created its own top club in the BRICS conferences that are very similar to the G8 as a series of informal gatherings of major world leaders. Russia could rightly argue that despite having fewer members it is broader and more inclusive as it includes members from the Americas (Brazil), from Africa (South Africa), and the important players from of Eurasia (Russia, China, India). Since these powers are the rising countries why would Russia want to be associated with the declining west? [1] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014 | |
There needs to be a place to talk German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argues that "The format of the G8 is actually the only one in which we in the West can speak directly with Russia". [1] Russia’s proposed priorities for the G8 summit included “fighting the drug menace, combating terrorism and extremism, settling regional conflicts, safeguarding people's health, and establishing a global management system to address risks associated with natural and man-made disasters” [2] since Russia is clearly willing to discuss regional conflicts then it makes sense to use the summit to discuss Ukraine. Since Russia has not turned up to other suggested talks, such as a meeting of the Budapest agreement group [3] (UK, US, Ukraine, Russia – the agreement guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity [4] ), it makes sense to go to Russia’s summit which Russia can’t avoid. [1] kms/ccp, ‘Putin agrees to Ukraine 'fact-finding' mission after talk with Merkel’, Deutsche Welle, 2 March 2013 [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Address by President Vladimir Putin on Russia assuming the G8 Presidency’, en.g8russia.ru, 1 January 2014 [3] G uardian Staff, ‘Only talks between Russia and Ukraine can solve crisis, say US and UK’, theguardian.com, 5 March 2014 [4] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994 | |
Getting rid of Russia would not make the G8 irrelevant; it would simply return it to its core. The remaining members would me much more likely to agree and actually come up with meaningful outcomes to the summits. It might be a less effective steering committee for the global economy but at the same time it could ensure greater unity between the western powers. | |
While strength in numbers may seem to be useful when there are conflicts between Russia and the other G8 members this is not what the G8 should be about. Using the G8 in such a way will simply encourage Russia to dig its heels in and encourage the growth of other rival institutions. An example would be the BRIC summits between Brazil, Russia, India and China; would these have happened at all if the G8 has been more inclusive and recognised that these nations need to be involved in the G8? It is notable that the very first summit included discussion of the desire by India and Brazil to play a greater role in world affairs. [1] [1] Presidents of Russia, Brazil, China and Prime Minister of India, ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders’, kremlin.ru, 16 June 2009 | |
This is claiming exactly the opposite of the previous point on U.S. demand for drugs; is not Mexican demand for guns as much to blame for guns in Mexico as U.S. supply? The US has put considerable effort into making sure that the Mexicans are able to counter cartels armed with guns with U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers training Mexican army commandoes. Similarly the Marine Corps also is working on an exchange program with the Mexican Marine Corps that will include sharing experiences on urban warfare. The US also arms the Mexican armed forces to prevent them being outgunned by the gangs. [1] [1] Bowman, Tom, 'CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode?' NPR. | |
U.S. supplies the guns used by drugs cartels While the US complains about the Mexico’s inability to stop drugs flowing north the USA seems equally unable to stop guns and weapons flowing south into Mexico. As Clinton says “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” Clinton argues that one problem is that the bad guys outgun the law enforcement officers and so is supplying Mexico with better equipment such as night vision goggles, [1] however at least in the short term the only result can be an arms race and more violence as shown by the increasing violence in 2010 and 2011. [2] So long as the cartels are able to easily buy guns then the problem will not be solved. Here again the United States is to blame. The United States has 54,000 licenced gun dealers while Mexico only has one heavily guarded compound so the cartels smuggle their weapons in from the U.S. [3] [1] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009. [2] AFP, ‘Mexico drug death toll rising again in 2011’, Fracne24, 11 January 2011. [3] Beaubien, Jason ‘At Mexico’s Lond Gun Shop, Army Oversees Sales’, NPR, 24 June 2009. | |
There will always be two ways to solve the problem of illegal drugs, focusing on demand and focusing on supply. Focusing on supply is a valid strategy, as the US pushes the price of drugs on US streets up so it pushes the drugs beyond the ability of most people to afford the drugs and will as a result mean less drug addicts in the United States. This in turn could result in a drop in supply. | |
U.S. demand for drugs It is the rich US that creates the demand for drugs in the first place. Without this demand the price of drugs would be low and the profits of drugs trafficking through Mexico to the USA would disappear. In 2010 an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or over were illicit drug users. [1] And this immense drugs market was estimated to provide Mexican cartels with earnings between $13.6 and $48.4 billion. [2] Drugs are therefore a problem that is best dealt with from the perspective of reducing demand. Hillary Clinton accepted this when she said “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade”. However the US' answer to the drugs problem has so far been the 'war on drugs' concentrating massive investment on trying to reduce supply and this includes funding the Mexican government in its war as well and at the same time as making this admission Clinton was giving $80 million to provide Mexico with Blackhawk helicopters. [3] [1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. [2] Cook, Colleen W., ‘Mexico’s Drug Cartels’, CRS Report for Congress, 16 October 2007, p.4 [3] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009. | |
Mexico has its own problems with drugs consumption so the demand problem can’t all be blamed on the US. Mexico City's former chief of police, Gertz Manero has said there are now 4.5 million crimes a year committed in Mexico. "90% of those are stealing or are related to stealing. And 90% of those are for less than 8,000 pesos (about US$727). Mostly this is for drugs." Unemployment due to liberalisation of the economy has led to mass drug consumption so drugs would continue to flow into Mexico and enrich the cartels even if the U.S. drugs market dried up. [1] [1] Evans, Leslie, 'Electoral Democracy Has Yet to Shake Mexico's Corrupt Bureaucracy', UCLA International Institute, 16 March 2005. | |
These were alien criminals who should never have been in the United States in the first place. The blame for these people being able to create drugs cartels in Central America should not lie with the United States for deporting these people but with the Central American states for not then monitoring and controlling these returnees. | |
U.S. anti-drugs policy focuses on the supply of drugs not the root problem of demand For the last two decades the USA has been focused on the supply side of reducing the drugs trade. Making it a 'war on drugs' forces a fight back from the drugs cartels leading to gunfights and instability in the countries en route. This happened in Columbia, in Peru and now in Mexico. The focus on supply, or else the containment of drugs in Mexico, is shown by the Obama's US-Mexico border policy press release that devotes a lot more space to extra boarder security to catching the drugs as they reach the US compared with one small paragraph on demand. [1] The U.S. war on drugs focusing on supply and transit routes has clearly failed and has been failing for decades. Back in 1992 Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori declared the war a failure while claiming that between 1980 and 1990, when the U.S. was engaging in military efforts to stop production and transportation, coca production increased tenfold. [2] [1] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response & commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009. [2] Williams, Ray B., ‘Why “The War on Drugs” Has Failed’, Psychology Today, 6 June 2011. | |
U.S. policies have helped create the cartels A change in US immigration law in 1996 meant that non-citizens and foreign born citizens sentenced to more than a year in jail are deported. This moved the problem from the USA’s cities to cities in Central America creating new gangs that were already bound by ties created in the US. Effectively gangs created in the US thrived in central America where they were able to overwhelm the local government and spread north to Mexico and back into the USA helping create the network of gangs and drugs traffickers that plague Mexico today. [1] Similarly the problems in Mexico represent the success of the US in cutting of the routes through the Caribbean used previously by drugs traffickers. Colombian criminals as a result simply switched routes and began smuggling cocaine and heroin through the Central American isthmus and Pacific routes. Both smuggling routes led through Mexico. The successes of the war on drugs in Columbia has reduced the size of the drugs groups in Columbia reducing their ability to control the whole route to the USA making room for the Mexicans to take the role of middleman through Central America. [2] [1] Wolfe, Adam, 'Central America's Street Gangs Are Drawn into the World of Geopolitics', Power and Interest News Report, 25th Aug. 2005. [2] Logan, Samuel, ''Mexico's Internal Drug War'', Power and Interest News Report, 14th August 2006. | |
As Mexico’s biggest trading partner the United States always has a major role in the state of the Mexican economy. The United States is also partially to blame for the Peso crisis. Wall St in particular played up a ‘Mexican miracle’ helping to create a bubble, and idea that was also boosted by the US government which was making the case for the North American Free Trade Agreement at the time. [1] We should also not be too quick to blame the economy as there is always some uncertainty in the figures; using different statistical methods you get different results. A study implies a growth rate of household income for Mexico of 4½-5½ percent per year in 1984-2006, which is substantially higher than the 2 percent implied by standard methods. [2] If this was the case then a poor economy could not be seen as much of a factor in the increase in violence and drugs trafficking. [1] Edwards, Sebastian, ‘The Mexican Peso Crisis: How much did we know? When did we know it?’ NBER working paper series, Working paper 6334, p.4 [2] Carvalho Filho, Irineu de, and Chamon, Marcos, ‘The Myth of Post-Reform Income Stagnation: Evidence from Brazil and Mexico’, IMF working paper, (Aug. 2008), p.27. | |
Mexico’s government is no weaker than any other government. The country in Central America which has the lowest homicide rate is Costa Rica, [1] a country which has no standing army. [2] Yet it suffers from many of the same disadvantages that Mexico has, for example, like Mexico it is on the drugs route to the United States. This implies that at the very least having a weak government is not the whole cause of Mexico’s conflict. Yes there is a weak government in Mexico, particularly at the local level, but we need to ask ourselves how the government becomes so subverted. The answer is money. There have been allegations that President Vicente Fox allowed the most powerful drug lord to escape prison in 2001 in return for $20 million. [3] If the very top of the governmental hierarchy can be subverted for money then the rest is as well. [1] Schwarz, Isabella Cota, ‘Homicide rate drops to lowest in region’ The Tico Times, 8 June 2012. [2] ‘Costa Rica’, The World Factbook, 24 May 2012. [3] Rohr, Mathieu von, ‘A Nation Descends into Violence’, Spiegel Online, 23 December 2010. | |
Violence creates a downward spiral of violence Just as the United States cannot be blamed for weak governance in Mexico it cannot be blamed for the spiral of decline that occurs as a result of that weak government. Once the police and local government are infiltrated it becomes very difficult to stop the violence. The gangs gain enough control and power that they can no longer be stopped without a massive investment by the central government. Any who do stand up to the traffickers are killed as, for example, was Alejandro Domínguez when appointed to serve as the city police chief of Nuevo Laredo. Domínguez made it clear that he would not negotiate with the cartels. As he was leaving his office on June 8 2005, his first day on the job, he was ambushed and killed by gunmen. [1] A culture of fear exists in Mexico, as in other countries where the government fails to suppress gang warfare. Fear within the government and police force paralyses both into inaction Municipal and state officials insist that the problem is not theirs to solve, since drug trafficking is a federal crime, or they engage in denial, claiming that the situation is improving and that the violence will soon end. While journalists report the death and violence they fear to report on who caused them, the background or the causes of the violence; the media self-censors itself. [2] [1] Althaus, Dudley, and Buch, Jason, ‘Nuevo Laredo police chief killed on street’, Houston Chronicle, 3 February 2011. [2] Laurie Freeman, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), pp.5-7. | |
Mexico is poor; it is the economic conditions that drive conflict not the U.S. Declining real income drives social unrest and instability. Real incomes for workers in Mexico's manufacturing sector declined by a cumulative 2.6 percent between 1995 and 2005. It is likely that the decline in the informal economy is larger. The Government keeps a tight control over the minimum wage preventing it from rising. Although this does not affect many Mexicans directly a lot more have their wages set at a multiple of the minimum wage. At the same time there has been high unemployment and lower benefits. [1] In 1994-5 Mexico was hit hard by a financial crisis known as the ‘peso’ or ‘Tequila’ crisis. The peso depreciated by 47%, inflation went up to 52% and GDP fell by 6% not reaching its 1993 level until 1997. Unsurprisingly household income fell substantially; by 31% between 1994 and 1996, those in poverty rose from 10.4% of the population to 17% [2] Since 1996 although Mexico has experienced growth not only has it been slower than most developing countries this has been significantly cut into in real per capita terms by population growth. Mexico has large disparities in income between urban and rural areas and the gap between rich and poor has been widening. [3] The inequality leads people to be more willing to engage in the potentially lucrative drugs trafficking and the informal economy. Unemployment meanwhile makes them more likely to take drugs themselves as an escape. [1] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report. [2] Baldacci, Emanuele, Luiz de Mello and Gabriela Inchauste, Financial crises, Poverty and Income distribution, IMF Working paper, pp.20-21. [3] Economy Watch, ‘Mexico Economy’, 24 March 2010. | |
Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S. When there is an internal conflict such as this it is almost always a weak government that is to blame for not preventing an escalation of violence. The government is to blame as it is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force, conflicts such as this drugs war occur when that monopoly on violence is broken. In Mexico the election of Vicente Fox as president may have been a democratic triumph for ending the 70 year one party rule by the P.R.I. but in terms of the effectiveness of the central government it was not a success. The National Action Party has been weak in the lower house and senate so unable to advance a legislative agenda. [1] An inability to legislate significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to respond to the drugs crisis. This reduces the ability of the Federal government to step in and sort out local problems. There has been an upsurge of social unrest of all types, not just drugs violence but protests, riots and strikes as well. [2] Drugs traffickers have taken over many local areas, the local government, police and even some of the army has been penetrated by the drugs traffickers. This leaves the local government unable to do anything against the traffickers. It was not the drugs traffickers who created the institutional problems that allowed the government to become penetrated in the first place; corruption, inefficient police forces and a weak judiciary were already a problem. [3] [1] The Economist, ‘The siesta congress’, 21 January 2012. [2] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report. [3] Freeman, Laurie, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), p.2. | |
The United States can be blamed for the downward spiral. There would not be a downward spiral of fear and violence if the United States was not a source of arms for the cartels. | |
Language politics exist, and this is a consideration for any politician, not to be ignored. States may find it politically wise to encourage multilingualism. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy wants France to be a bilingual country. This is indeed a tall order, but we must not dismiss and avoid challenges simply because of the effort they entail. Sarkozy’s desire to make such efforts is commendable and other EU Member States should follow suit by becoming multilingual. | |
The status quo is impractical, because we expect MEPs to be multilingual in order to be effective. It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU. | |
Working through many languages in the European Union costs money that could be spent on EU’s projects rather than unnecessary conversation. It is very expensive to employ translators and interpreters, and to publish all documents in French as well as English. Ireland Business News reported that the EU’s translation (excluding interpreting) costs were 800 million Euros in 2006. This money is better spent on the EU’s actual practices. | |
There are often no direct translations for indispensible EU-specific vocabulary, so Member States should refer to it in their native language. The European Union uses in its debates and practices lots of technical jargon. For such vocabulary, there is often not a direct translation. The Member States must be able to speak about such important issues effectively and, while there exists no direct translations for much EU jargon, the best way to do this is through their native languages. | |
There already exists a pan-European identity across all EU Member States, and a single working language would help to strengthen that identity. There is no need for any prefixed or specified Europeans anymore. Given that the continent of Europe is merging into one single identity, there is no need to have more than one working EU language in operation; this could create divisions and even tensions within the overall identity of ‘European’. The Euro coins are no longer specific to each nation, goods are bought and sold between EU nations without restrictions. The seams between the European nations are fast disappearing as they merge ever closer together. Therefore, one singe language for managing all the EU Member States’ communal affairs makes perfect sense. | |
The EU ought to make English its working language in order to be a more transparent democracy for the rest of the world. If the EU uses the global language of English as its working language, other governments, parliaments and Unions will be able to understand its activities and methods of operation. 27% of the world’s population speak English. In the EU Member States alone, there are 61, 850,000 native English speakers and 168,000,000 non- native speakers of English. [1] It is a medium that could reach so many people and through which the EU can influence other governments to take similar positive action. So many of the world’s large problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often the result of two sides being unable to communicate and mediate, and so violence is resorted to. It is often described as ‘the only language the enemy understands’ because of a failure to work out differences in a non-violent way. When fighting breaks out, it brings with it all manner of other issues such as famine and trauma. English is a global language and the EU should use this to its advantage. The EU brings democracy and should serve as a great example thereof for the rest of the world. Populations of all other countries need to be able to understand the EU’s activity and the way to operate a democracy as demonstrated by the EU, and the way to achieve this is for the EU to use the global language of English so as to render transparent the running of a democracy, so that it can spread. If the EU can communicate its good ideas successfully, it can influence other organisations, providing them with the antidotes to their own problems. [1] Wikipedia, List of countries by English-speaking population, en.wikipedia.org | |
So many of the world’s problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often a result of two sides unable to mediate, and one side often refers to resorting violence as ‘the only language the opponent understands’. This is what prompted Sir Winston Churchill to say ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war’. [1] He meant that communication and compromise are always better than resorting to conflict, not least of all because it brings with it new problems of poverty, mentally scarred people and famine. However, communication works both ways: what is said and how well it is heard. The EU cannot simply assume its activities will be well listened to. Its own issues and actions have little in common with the governments in the developing world who truly need help and improved strategies. For example, the EU deals with those problems facing a developed world; health, education, governmental services. By contrast, those governments in the developing world are faced with a whole array of problems that bear no resemblance to these, and far more serious ones; child soldiers, the setting up of schools, as opposed to making improvements therein. Therefore, listening to the EU will not inspire, advise or help the governments of those countries who really need it, regardless of how easily accessible and understandable the information is. [1] Platt, Suzy ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, 1989. | |
Europe is only an umbrella identity; the diverse elements that form it must not be ignored. European identity is comprised of many elements, these being the many different countries within the continent. These different countries assert their individual identities through culture, people, traditions and languages. These must be acknowledged so that the EU is aware of the identities of the very Member States that comprise it. Keeping languages alive in the face of language death is a very emotive issue. Such response to one’s own language is what makes us human. To deny people affection for their own language is to dehumanise them. In the whole, if the EU tried to strengthen its identity by choosing one language, it would harm its true identity, as a group of diverse states, joined together. | |
It is favourable that the EU employs people and one large way it does so is by hiring linguists and translators. Unemployment needs to be kept down and is an issue the EU claims to take seriously. The EU has the largest translation unit in the world. It employs some 1, 650 permanent onsite linguists and 550 support staff, as well as freelance translators all over the world. [1] A Connect Euranet debate took place in France in which the EU representatives and ministers spoke of the urgent need to address the pressing issues of employment and unemployment. It is unjustifiable for the EU to fight unemployment and also render a large proportion of its staff- the linguists- out of work. [1] Nitobe Centre for language democracy, ‘FAQ – Translation/interpretation’. | |
Politics touches on emotional issues. Emotional issues specific to a country are best expressed by that country in their native language. If the EU Member States must communicate through a foreign language, this means there is a barrier between a) what is said and the emotion contained therein and b) the act of actually communicating it. When forced to express one’s true opinions through a foreign tongue, its true meaning or the level of its importance may become diluted, misinterpreted or otherwise compromised. It is better for EU Member States to communicate using their native languages, for this way there is a much closer emotional proximity between a) what is said and b) the emotion contained in saying it. Thus, the emotions and desires of the people are more faithfully expressed. | |
It is more practical to work through one language that all Member States understand in order to ensure the effectiveness of communication. Multilingualism could lead to several breakdowns in communication, which only give rise to further problems. This is especially likely between French and English where there are many ‘false friends’. For example ‘actuellement’ in French translates into English as ‘currently’, not ‘actually’. Using only one working language will eradicate confusion and reduce the number of errors. This is especially important in the realm of international politics, where small errors can breed long-term consequences. | |
One working language understood by all Member States is a more practical way of communicating often untranslatable yet vital EU-specific vocabulary. The EU does use technical jargon for which there is often not a direct translation. Therefore, it makes more sense to only have one name for each concept, by which that concept shall be known, in order to economize effort and to not waste time creating translations for EU-specific jargon. It is not chauvinistic, or even a matter of preference, to use English as a working language over other languages; it just so happens to be a language that is understood throughout the EU Member States. It is better and more effective to spend the time addressing the issues rather than deciding by which names to call these entities that give rise to issues within the EU. | |
Prioritising translation may well have negative results. A mistranslation can lead to severe confusion and when such sensitive information is being handled, this is not at all desirable. Further, confusion can result if one entity becomes known by two different names. The practice of translation may only create tensions and divisions between bodies within the EU. Some may be angered that their literature is not being translated, when another organisation’s literature is, and is thusly getting a higher profile and receiving more attention. Therefore, one single WORKING language makes sense. | |
Press freedom is a separate issue from EU language politics. The press must have reasonable freedoms, and so they are perfectly within their rights to express anti-Europe opinions; provoking debate and discussion on political issues is essential to a well-informed readership. The anti-EU arguments get more coverage than pro-EU ones, but there are many arguments in favor of the EU within the British press. Freedom of the British press to express anti-EU opinion is their right and should not affect the use of English as the single working language within the EU at all. It should not impinge upon improving the strength and effectiveness of communication within the EU at all. | |
Translation is an intercultural activity that the EU must embrace if it continues to hold “United in diversity” as its motto. Ernst-August Gutt observes the use of translation “across boundaries”. [1] As a body dedicated to being “United in diversity”, the EU should practice translation in order to affect this intercultural activity. The linguist Laurence Venuti observes this: “Translation is the ‘trial of the foreign’. But in a double sense. In the first place, it establishes a relationship between the Self-Same (propre) and the foreign by aiming to open up the foreign work to us in its utter foreignness …And this trial, often an exile, can also exhibit the most singular power of the translating act: to reveal the foreign work’s most original kernel, its most deeply-buried, most self-same…most distant”. [2] Governmental bodies such as the EU have to mediate and compromise when discussing issues and debating. Translation is simply another type of mediation. The linguist Laurence Venuti describes it as “a bilingual mediated process of communication”. [3] Translation in a political setting is therefore simply an extension of this political mediation strongly present in the European Union. [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.378 [2] Ibid p.284 [3] Ibid p.161 | |
If the EU ‘elects’ a single working language, it will be deliberately contributing to the narrow-minded, anglicising of the entire world, despite being a union of diverse cultures with the power to fight it. A “single working language” implies English, a global language, and already one of the two key EU languages, the other being the lesser understood French. That English could be the default language worries the French where they fear the rise of what the French call anglosnoberrie ; the anglicising of the world at the expense of other languages including French. The EU would become one more example of English dominating the world at the expense of the many cultures and languages of Europe. This is indeed an extremely hypocritical stance to take, when the EU is a body that seeks to strengthen intercultural activity and give all the cultures within it a voice. This cannot be done when the overwhelming majority- twenty-six- of the languages, ‘voices’, of the Member States are silenced and only one is given a platform on which to speak. | |
There is no need to translate absolutely everything, but prioritising translation is favourable. EU citizens do not have to translate everything; to keep the costs of interpreters and translators down, we can just interpret and translate the most important information. This policy of ‘prioritising translation’ has been adopted by the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly translates into Welsh only the information and literature that is most relevant and will actually be read. Translation IS a realistic solution and should be considered over the EU working through one single language. | |
Britain is the country of Euroscepticism, and its official language is English. For English to be the medium, the mouthpiece for the EU communications is wholly wrong. English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.” [1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined. For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst. [1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999. | |
To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States. | |
The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”. [1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression. [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344 | |
Vernet sought the permission of the British consulate before establishing his colony – clearly even he thought there was ambiguity over the status of the islands. Moreover the British and Spanish settlements ended not because of commercial failure but because of indirect pressure caused by war. If Argentinian sovereignty survives expulsion through war then presumably British sovereignty could survive temporary abandonment due to war. It is also difficult to describe a settlement as permanent when it was on the point of collapse when the British took it over. | |
Argentina created a permanent settlement Argentina formally took posession of the islands in 1820 and established permanent settlements in that decade. Previous settlements by Spain and Britain had been military in nature (garrisons). Britain did not protest to these acts of sovereignty. The Argentinean settlements were only ended by illegal military force, the first strike by an American warship, acting on its own initiative and encouraged by the British charge de affairs in Buenos Aires, and the second and last blow by a British taskforce. | |
If military costs are excluded, the islands are self-supporting. They are of great value because they bring rights to fishing and oil exploration. If the oil that has been detected in the islands’ territory can be extracted economically, the islands will be an even greater asset to Britain. [1] Strategically, they provide NATO with an airbase in the south Atlantic. Port Stanley was used as a supply base for the Royal Navy in WW1, resulting in the Battle of the Falkland Islands. [2] Moreover ‘value’ means more than products and services – the value of the inhabitant’s right to self-determination is priceless [1] Swint, Brian, ‘Oil Grab in Falkland Island Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy’, Bloomberg, 25 January 2012, [2] | |
International relations Returning the islands would vastly improve Britain’s relationship with Argentina and Latin America as a whole. This would help Britain’s diplomatic and economic ties with the region. It would also be consistent with Britain’s post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina. | |
Argentina inherited Spain’s claim to sovereignty Both Argentina and the islands were under Spainish sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory – doing so free of British intervention (or complaints) from 1770 until 1811, i.e. 41 years. Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory, a principle that would latter be known under international law as uti possidetis juris. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1820, when David Jewett claimed the islands for Argentina, or in 1825, when the first treaty between the new country and Britain was signed. | |
The fact that Spain never formally renounced sovereignty is irrelevant – when Britain asserted its territorial claim Spain acquiesced. Additionally if Spain’s claim did not lapse when it evacuated its colony then surely neither did Britain’s. Nor is it obvious that Argentina should have inherited the Spanish claim to the Falklands – they lie 250 miles off the coast of mainland South America. Britain was of course not going to immediately contest the 1816 claim as she did not yet recognise Argentina so far as Britain was concern the Argentines were not sovereign and did not have sovereignty over any of their territory – at the time the UK recognised Spanish sovereignty over the mainland that Argentina claimed. | |
Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict. [1] The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands. In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively. The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, indeed Britain’s Prime Minister has gone so far as to say the Argentines are the ones who are sounding colonial. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Blair’s historic Argentina visit’, 2 August 2001, [2] BBC News ‘Argentina outraged at Cameron’s ‘colonialism’ remarks’, 19 January 2012, | |
Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic. [1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government. They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary. The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands. [1] R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983, | |
Value The islands are of minimal value to Britain. In an era of satellites and long-range ships and aircraft, the islands no longer have strategic value. Maintaining a garrison there is an unnecessary expense. Jorge Luis Borges (an Argentinean writer) likened the 1982 conflict to ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’. [1] [1] ‘Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)’, | |
Distance The Falkland Islands are 8000 miles from the UK – in the modern age it is absurd that one country can claim sovereignty over land halfway across the globe from it. The needs and wishes of the Falkland islanders would be much better served if the government responsible for them was local. | |
Britain sent its soldiers to fight an unjust war. Their sacrifices do not make British occupation of the islands legal. | |
The British colony was established only though the expulsion of the Argentinian colony. It does not matter how long ago this happened - as the legal maxim goes ‘title does not pass with theft’. Colonists do not have a right to self-determination. It would be absurd if a group of people could invade some land, drive off the people living there; and then state that they have acquired the right to decide for themselves to stay there. The natural consequence of that principle would be that anyone could gain property through ethnic cleansing and long enough adverse possession. | |
Moral Hazard Returning the islands would imply that violence and threats are legitimate ways to conduct diplomacy. Britain would be giving in to the invasion of 1982 and Kirchner’s more recent rhetoric. This would set a dangerous precedent that Britain will abandon its interests if threatened.R | |
The islanders are the only ones who can decide. It is the Falkland Islanders themselves who have to decide whose sovereignty they should fall under; British, Argentine or even potentially their own. The Falkland Islands are a democracy with a democratically elected Legislative Assembly and Executive Council (made from members of the Legislative Assembly). Similarly it has its own courts. The self-determination of the islanders is prominent in their constitution. [1] The Falklands have therefore been recognised by the British government as a nation just like the Scots, Welsh and Irish. This means that the decision on any change of sovereignty in the future will be up to the islanders alone to make. [2] It is no longer up to Britain to simply cede the islands even if they wanted to. [1] The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, Statutory Instruments, 2008 no. 0000, [2] Ivanov, Lyubomir, ‘The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People’, February 2003, | |
Length of occupation The primary means of acquiring title to territory is through the effective exercise of the functions of a state within that territory. This means that Britain has a right to the territory under either ‘occupation’ (if Argentina is not considered to have occupied previously) or ‘prescription’ if it has. [1] The ICJ has stated that the claim must be I, the possession must be exercised in the character of a sovereign II, the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted III, the possession must be public IV, the possession must endure for a certain length of time. [2] Britain would not have difficulty arguing that it has continuously exercised sovereignty for over 170 years. It has also been peaceful (no attacking native tribes, no unrest etc). It would seem silly to transfer sovereignty to Argentina on the basis of Argentina having only occupied the islands for at most five years compared to the long period of British occupation both after and before the Argentine colony. [1] Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.155, [2] International Court of Justice, ‘Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)’, 23 December 1999, p.62/1103 | |
Blood has been spilt If Britain returned the islands, it would be a profound insult to the soldiers who fought and died to liberate them in 1982. The campaign was honourably fought in defence of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own future. It was fought against a military dictatorship which used the campaign in a cynical attempt to divert domestic attention away from its oppressive, corrupt and incompetent rule. One of the positive consequences of British victory was that the military junta fell from power and Argentina became democratic. So Britain, Argentina and the Falkland islanders all have cause to celebrate the outcome of the 1982-83 war. | |
If Britain did not have legitimate sovereignty over the Falklands to begin with then it is illegitimate for Britain to hand that sovereignty over to the islanders. | |
Popular sovereignty The people of the Falklands are an established community with a right to self-determination. They are not a transitory population – many of them can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th Century. They are the only successful colonists of the Falklands. The Argentinian claim of sovereignty through inheritance of the Spanish title (uti possedetis [1] ) is not accepted as a general article of international law, and even if it was it would have to be subordinate to the Islander’s right of self-determination. It is absurd that Argentina claims that the Islanders do not have a right to self-determination because they replaced an indigenous Argentinian population 200 years ago when Argentina consists largely of Spanish colonists who replaced the indigenous Native American population in roughly the same time period. [1] That newly independent nations inherit the claims of the old colonial states along the colonial boundaries. Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.163, | |
It would not be possible for the UK to argue that it has a claim through prescription and the length of occupation because the original taking over the Argentine colony was not legitimate, as the islands were not res nullis. In the Chamizal Case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States because "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents." [1] [1] The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 15 June 1911, Vol.XI, pp.309-347 | |
Returning the islands would not be a sign that violence and threats are legitimate. It would be recognition of the justice of Argentina’s claim and the illegality of Britain’s occupation of the islands. In fact, it would show that illegal acts of violence, like that of 1833, will eventually be overturned. | |
Fundamentally, the topics raised by Nollywood are commercialising accepted views. The industry is building a business founded on distributing images of witchcraft, abuse, and domestic violence. First, a majority of the films are politically incorrect and provide negative portrayals of women and sexuality. Gender roles are reinforced as women become sexualised objects, male possession, and the source of trouble - required to be put in their ‘place’. In the case of LGBT representations, homosexuality has been represented as Satanic in films such as 2010’s ‘Men in Love’ [1] . Second, in the case of witchcraft, dramas have made society more accepting of, and open to, sorcery. The films show how it remains prevalent in society and can provide a tool to access riches. With the audience interested in watching stories on witchcraft the industry is feeding such demands. Witchcraft sells; and continues to remain a prominent theme justifying why people make their decisions and action. This is not the kind of perception change Africa needs. [1] In Nigeria homosexuality is illegal and continues to be criminalised. | |
A new perspective, raising topical issues The first film created in Nollywood - ‘Living in Bondage’ - raised fundamental issues concerning marriage, wealth and spirituality. The film indicates the need to be aware of cults and what they can drive individuals to do. Furthermore films such ‘Street Girls’ and ‘Mama’s Girls’ provide insight into the lives of prostitutes and the sex industry. ‘Street Girls’ is enabling awareness of why girls are forced into prostitution and why they may be forced to commit criminal offences. Poverty is identified as a key driving factor. The range of topics covered - from immigration, women, witchcraft, corruption, terrorism, and infrastructure deficits - counteract historic silences in the public sphere. The films are raising awareness to viewers by presenting the stories in a new light - understandable, humorous, and relatable; and will encourage citizens to demand change. Nollywood is showing the limits of believing in a single perspective, the Western perspective, to stories on Africa. | |
Although the industry has encouraged entrepreneurialism we need to recognise it is also promoting risky businesses. Firstly, the individuals working in the industry are required to produce a quick turnover. The fact that no security and support is provided by the government or state means the risk of failed entrepreneurial strategies falls on the individual. The producers and directors may be forced to borrow money from loan sharks and at high interest-rates to get capital quickly; and need to be able to ensure profits are generated rapidly. Such a tenuous industry is clearly not in a position to change opinions of Africa and may instead be creating a negative perception of risk-taking and cutthroat capitalism. | |
Development from within Nollywood is showcasing Nigeria’s capability to sustain, build, and finance its own economy. Recent estimates suggest around 50 films are produced weekly, selling between 20,000 to 200,000 units, and creating jobs for around one million individuals (Moudio, 2013). The industry is initiating vital development, enabling Nigeria to have capital to change perceptions. Nollywood is following previous cultural industry paths. Hollywood developed from low-budget films, and in 2013 the entertainment industry generated around $522bn in revenue, and is continuing to be one of America’s biggest sources of tourism (Statista, 2013). In Nollywood’s case, the industry is already proving to be of vital importance for regional and domestic tourism. | |
Opportunities for development are limited as the industry continues to function informally. The informal structure means there is no legal institution controlling transactions, there is no governing body ensuring taxation is paid and revenues collected, and finally, there is little security to the workers within the industry. Financial records are limited in the industry, which makes it hard to predict the developmental scope of Nollywood and the real revenues produced. Informality prevents legitimacy; capability to assist national development; and fundamental capital losses. It also prevents it becoming a force for changing perceptions of those outside Africa. Formalisation is required for the industry to assist developmental potential [1] . [1] See further readings: McCall, 2012. | |
First, the narrative of whether Africa is 'rising' has been debated, and requires reflection. Second, if Africa were rising will Nollywood push Nigeria to rise in the wrong direction? Nollywood is a private-sector organisation, with concentrated profits. Inequality in Nigeria has continued to rise since 1985 as shown by the GINI coefficient (Aigbokhan, 2008); and with lavish lifestyles being created for famous actresses and directors who hit ‘big money’ will Nollywood only act to benefit elites and create a new elite class? Economic growth and revenue production cannot solve the issue of poverty without tackling inequality. | |
Encouraging film entrepreneurs The Nollywood industry is providing solutions to pressing issues - including high rates of unemployment. The dynamic industry provides an opportunity for youths to explore interests and invest in their talents and creativity. The recognition gained for Nollywood has shown how Nigeria's youths can initiate, and develop, a sustainable industry. Rather than seeing the rising young population as a potential threat [1] , the rise of Nollywood showcases the talent of the young population and helps overthrow perceptions of Africa just being about natural resources. Additionally, the growth of Nollywood is continuing to encourage individuals to enter the creative industry – whether to work in production, acting or distribution, the rise of Nollywood is creating an entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and motivation to create change. Individuals are no longer relying on the government or international community to provide funds, support and infrastructure, but moulding their own futures. [1] See further readings: Urdal, 2006. | |
Epitomising rising Africa Nollywood epitomises Africa, and life in African spaces. The fast-pace nature of production shows how quickly things changes and everything is on the move. The structure of production shows the dynamic nature of everyday life, action, and flow of ideas. As Rem Koolhaas’ (2002) film documentary - Lagos - showed the congestion, informality, and buzz of the city needs to be viewed positively and a sign of entrepreneurialism. The documentary suggested African cities were setting a new trend to be followed by the West, and developing a rising economy. Africa is not simply in need of assistance, but rather a fast-pace environment that needs greater understanding. Africa is rising [1] and Nollywood acts to reinforce this reality. With more films being produced, bigger revenues made, and new investors emerging, Nollywood shows Africa's economies are changing, growing, and emerging. Interest and collaborative investments being made by the World Bank shows the industry will continue to rise. Nollywood’s growth provides an alternative to the dominant Afro-pessimism. [1] See further readings: The Economist, 2013. | |
New funding sources are emerging. The diasporic community for example are playing a central role in funding the long-term growth of the industry. Recognising potential, and being a major consumer base for the films produced, the African diaspora is investing in Nollywood. | |
The issue of piracy is being tackled. Recognising the potential benefits Nollywood can bring to Nigeria and the scale of the piracy problem, investments are being made to stop piracy in the growing industry. Investments have been proposed by the World Bank to tackle piracy, and ensure profits are not lost. Further, Nollywood UP, the Nollywood Upgrade Project, is providing funding to control piracy. Nollywood UP is improving the capacity of the innovative industry - by providing solutions for distribution and vital training in high-quality film making. | |
Small audience viewings In reality, Nollywood’s audience is constrained - questioning the extent to which stereotypes can be changed. First, language acts as a barrier. 56% of Nollywood films are produced in local languages - such as Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa (UNESCO, 2009). Although English accounts for 44% of films produced, the linguistic diversity may limit who sees which film and what issues are therefore discussed. Second, a majority of the films are sold in hardcopy - whether on cassette or pirate DVDs. Finally, the industry is characterised by fast and cheap production. Quantity over quality limits popularity and audience viewings. Further, the limited attention to quality means Nollywood remains at the bottom of the global value chain for film production. It is difficult to change perceptions with poor quality films. | |
Short term hype Despite the boom in Nollywood’s industry it remains hard to get investment. With funding issues prevalent the hype surrounding Nollywood is temporary. The difficulties in getting funding, mean films produced are often safe and politically popular - aware that funds can be gained for backing. For example, the controversial film – Boko Haram – aimed to provide an alternative perspective into the Islamist extremist group. The core subject matter was to explore terrorism; however, following the controversial story and topic, marketers dropped out, fearing a political backlash. Titles had to be changed and the film adapted to be more sensitive. The ideas behind the films, and the stories told, are being altered due to funding constraints [1] . Perspectives, on and in Africa, cannot be changed if the topics raised are altered to meet sensitivity regulations. Hegemony will persist. [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2013. | |
The problem of piracy Pirated copies of Nollywood films are a key issue. Piracy emerges as an issue for two key reasons. First, the lack of the lack of legal structure - the lack of formal regulation. Legal systems and strict copyright controls are needed to ensure piracy is stopped. Second, the production system is slow - therefore alternative means of production are used to meet the growing demand for films released. New methods for distribution are required. Calls have been made for the government to take action against piracy. However, with corruption prevalent little action has been made. Half of the film profits are lost through piracy (CNN, 2009), and piracy acts to reinforce the image of bad governance, and inadequate structures, within African states. The industry is being undermined and undervalued, through the piracy market, with high costs to the entrepreneurs. | |
Nollywood films are viewed globally. Channels are dedicated to the films - such as South Africa’s MultiChoice and BSkyB’s Nollywood Movies. BSkyB distributes programmes and films directly to airlines, instantly broadening the audience. Furthermore, YouTube subscribers have sought to enhance the global viewing popularity; and recently developed iROKO Partners is ensuring internet users can access Nollywood films. iROKO Partners shows the biggest markets are based in the US, UK, Canada, Italy and Germany (Kermeliotis, 2012). New partnerships are being formed with Hollywood and global film festivals [1] , which show the future shift of broadcasting Nollywood films in cinemas. A recent film produced by Pat Nebo - ‘Dead broke’ - is set to be premiered in Lagos, Accra, and London. [1] Cannes (2013) recently showcased ‘La Pirogue’; and in the summer of 2013 France hosted its first Nollywood Week in Paris, showcasing seven of the best Nollywood films. | |
This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently. The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people. [1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal” | |
The United Nations needs the United States. The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1] [1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011 | |
UN money is spent responsiblyOf course the American taxpayers' money should not be spent promiscuously, but that's not the case. The United Nations spends the money it gets on solving global problems and helping the needy, both of which are useful to the United States as it is a role the US would otherwise have to perform.Furthermore international organizations such as the UN are highly advantageous to the US and its population. Sarah Margon and John Norris argue "Withholding funds from the United Nations would fail to reap significant savings, make it more difficult for our nation to lead, and seriously undermine our highest foreign policy and national security priorities …restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.” [1] [1] Margon, Sarah; Norris, John. “Withdrawing from the United Nations: A Misguided Assault” 2/05/2011 | |
There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget. The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1] Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn? [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008 | |
While it is true that the United States pays a substantial portion of the UN’s budget, it does so for historical and pragmatic reasons. Its economy and budget are significantly larger than other member states. It holds a veto over actions taken in the UN Security Council. It benefits from its size and position. As much as the UN is an influential player, this influence is transferred to the US automatically. ”There is nothing that restrains the United States from using the U.N. to defend and promote American interests abroad… As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council , the U.S. holds veto power over 70% of the U.N. budget. As a country with citizens in senior U.N. leadership positions, we work to shape and influence U.N. activities.” [1]. Therefore the US has only to gain from its rather big contributions to the UN budget. Furthermore this allows the US to insist on some UN decisions, which it feels are important such as the Palestinian issue – “… The United States has the leverage to prevent this diplomatic disaster if the Obama Administration wants to use it: we are by far the largest donor to the U.N., financing roughly a quarter of its entire budget.” [2]. [1] Danfor, John. Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business” 27/05/2011 [2] Kleefeld, Eric. “Gingrich: Cut Off U.N. Funding If They Recognize Palestinian State” palestinian-state.php | |
No-growth budgets actually undermine fiscal accountability and discipline. While the USA has held the line on growth, it and other nations have simultaneously asked for the UN to do more in areas such as peacekeeping and nation-building. As the demands on the UN grow, and the budget does not grow with it, UN administrators are forced to move money around the budget to pay for basic overhead (even electric bills) and cover shortfalls in one program or another. Thus the basic goal-setting and accountability the US strives for is undermined. For example there have been complaints about taking money from the peacekeeping fund. The United Kingdom has objected "Resolution 50/218 on the Working Capital Fund did not give the Secretary-General a "blank cheque to fund the deficits of major contributors through enforced borrowing from peace-keeping accounts". Borrowing from peace-keeping funds to finance the regular budget is unacceptable,and if a memberstate goes so far as to refuse to pay the accumulation of more arrears could only increase the financial risk to the Organization. Cuba also felt that "the spirit that guided the founders" of the UN had not been reflected in the new budget. Instead, it had responded to the "hegemonic" and political interests of the major contributor and could be "the first in a series of measures leading, in essence, not to the reform but to the destruction" of the UN."1 1 "Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997" 1996 | |
The US has a right to expect that its taxpayers' money is spent responsibly. The United States has made a significant investment in the institution. Not only was it a founder, but it plays host to the body in New York and makes the largest contribution of any nation each year. "The debate over whether the United Nations will continue to overcharge American taxpayers is over — and the U.S. wound up on the losing end. In a dramatic turnaround from steady declines since 2001, the percentage that the U.S. will be charged for U.N. peacekeeping has been sharply increased for the next three years, and U.S. taxpayers will end up paying roughly $100 million more each year than they would have if the 2009 assessment rate had been maintained.” [1] This is not acting responsibly in a time where Americans are feeling the pinch from the economic downturn. American taxpayers recognize that their society faces a great many problems that could be addressed with the dollars that are annually spent on the UN. While Americans are generally supportive of the institution, they have a right to know that their investment is used appropriately and pays dividends in good policy. [1] Schaefer, Brent. “U.N. Dues: Obama Lets American Taxpayers Down” 6/01/2010 . | |
No-growth funding policy results in better operation of the finances and will improve financial discipline. UN reform has been a major objective of the United States, and government leaders assert that six years of no-growth budgets and pressure from the United States have resulted in reforms of the General Assembly, budget preparation procedures, the creation of sunset provisions for UN programs and improvements in staff security. It is argued that these reforms could not have been accomplished without the carrot and stick approach of the no-growth policy. The UN has a budget in the billions of dollars which it can spend more efficiently if it sets goals and priorities, evaluates outcomes and eliminates waste and corruption. This has already been proven in 1996-1997 –"…Although this budget is not as lean as my Government originally proposed, it is perhaps the most austere ever adopted by the General Assembly", the United States representative said. The budget included a number of significant reform measures and marked "another in a series of significant steps towards a more effective, efficient and accountable United Nations", he declared, calling the Organization "unique and indispensable".” [1] The fact that the US has succeeded in keeping the UN to a no-growth budget for the past six fiscal years is indicative of the workability of the approach. [1] “Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997” 1996 | |
It is not clear who is a debtor to whom. First of all "The United Nations' Tax Equalization Fund (TEF) owes the United States nearly $180 million" [1] Furthermore Cliff Kincaid, a journalist who writes frequently on UN affairs states: "Claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion are false. No legal debt exists or can exist. The UN Charter does not empower the organization to compel payment from any member state. Even the notion that the United States owes money in the sense of a moral obligation is fallacious. It ignores the military and other assistance that the Clinton administration has provided the UN and for which the United States has not been properly credited or reimbursed. Over the past five years, that assistance has amounted to at least $11 billion, and perhaps as much as $15 billion. The administration has been diverting funds from federal agencies, especially the Department of Defence, to the United Nations. " [2] We cannot claim the US does not pay enough to do the UN and therefore it "threatens" it. 1 Shaeffer, Brett. "The U.S., the U.N., and a $180 Million Debt" 9/02/2011 2 Kincaide, Cliff. "THE UNITED NATIONS DEBT Who Owes Whom?" 23/04/1998 | |
In times of big environmental crises or military conflicts it is true that more funding is necessary. However this funding must come on a voluntary ad hoc basis, rather than from the regular budget of the UN. Because otherwise this would mean even a bigger financial burden on developed countries and especially on the US. The UN determines how much more money it needs in a certain operation in extreme unexpected situations. As the general secretary Ban Ki-moon appealed for more financing to tackle Haiti's cholera epidemic – “Mr. Ban told a conference at the UN headquarters in New York that Haiti was in desperate need of more medical supplies and personnel…He appealed for he international community to dig deep to help stem the cholera epidemic in Haiti" 1. Inflation is an economic matter and in most of the cases it is taken into consideration when determining the UN budget. However in hard financial times – as they are since the financial crises (2008) and the complicated problems the US has with its public debt (2011) increasing the budget is simply unrealistic. 1. “UN appeals for more money to aid Haiti’s cholera epidemic” 3/12/2010 | |
The current global problems constantly require more funding. The UN is in a fiscal (budget) crisis that can only be alleviated by regular contributions from the US. Growth in funding has not met the demand for growth in programs—including demands placed on the UN by the US and its allies. During the Cold War, the UN was a largely impotent institution. With the Cold War over, and faith in multilateralism growing, the need to recruit and organize vast organisations to run many new programs has proven to be far more costly than the UN budget is able to handle. Today major problems occur in a global level, which cannot be solved without extra funding - Somalia famine, reproductive health in Africa, Pakistan floods, Myanmar cyclone and many others. Global issues are constantly expanding and they demand more attention. Expanded commitments also require expanded funding so the UN needs “robust financial support from the United States” to carry on its global-security, development, education, and health work, Mr. Ban told reporters on a day of meetings with congressional leaders. In order for the UN to continue fulfilling its duty and primary role it needs the relevant support and financial assistance. | |
US inflexibility diminishes its leadership role in the world body. The potential exists for the United States to appear as a bully to the other UN member states by demanding the institution bend to its will or lose support. An appropriate analogy can be found in a country's taxation policy. Individuals cannot simply withhold their taxes because they disagree with a government's policies. That usually lands them in jail. The US faces no such threat for non-compliance and thus makes a show of its leverage over the UN. Such an attitude potentially undermines the desire of other nations to be receptive to serious US needs, resolutions and reforms. The US therefore needs to be very careful when exercising its power in the UN and deciding how much money to set apart; otherwise countries may start to question the role and importance of such a big international organization. | |
Non-payment of dues is an infringement of international law. Members of the UN are obligated by treaty to contribute. In fact, ten nations (all in Africa, Central Asia or the Caribbean) are being threatened with the loss of their General Assembly votes for arrears this year. These states are required to make far smaller contributions in total than the gaps often left unfilled by the USA. As of 2009 the US debt to the UN exceeds $ 1.5 billion [1]. Therefore the UN is more or less dependent on US payments. While the US does eventually contribute its dues, and the UN voluntarily complies with its demand to keep a level budget, the threat they hold over the UN is essentially a breach of treaty and should be treated as such. [1] | |
A no-growth budget for the UN lacks flexibility Circumstances can change rapidly. In one year there might be a significant need for peacekeeping or humanitarian needs, while in another, these needs might be less pronounced. This is the case in 2011 with conflicts in Africa “The United Nations refugee agency warned today that a lack of funding could undermine its ongoing efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to tens of thousands of people displaced by the unrest in Libya, saying it has so far received slightly over half of the funding it requested for the operation.” [1] In times of serious political unrest the UN assistance is of essential importance. Therefore it needs sufficient funding, which cannot be unalterable since the situation and conditions alter. Furthermore pressures like inflation affect the UN as much as they impact the consumer in the streets of New York. Especially when inflation rates are rising. The current US inflation (as of 2011) is nearly 4% [2]. Inflation has meant a real-terms decrease in the UN budget—not a level budget. It is not realistic to assume that the same level of funding as six or more years ago is truly adequate for today or tomorrow. [1]) “Libya: UN warns funding shortfall could slow aid effort for victims of conflict” 15/04/2011 [2] “Current Inflation Rates: 2001-2011” | |
US leadership is enhanced when it asserts itself in the UN. America has the potential to shape developments in the world for good through its involvement in the UN. However, the UN is a representative body, and at times in its history smaller non-aligned states (with notably minimal contributions to the UN budgetary pie) have been able to trample on policies the United States feels are in its and the world's best interests. Inflexibility by the US shows these states that they need to toe the line with the US so enhancing the US leadership role. While Smaller states play an important role in the United Nations, as they represent a large majority of the membership. In recent years, they have emerged as important players in the international community. Their influence is not determined merely by the size of their territory, economy or military power, but also by their ability to achieve their goals. If these rising states wish to achieve their goals having the United States and the UN helping towards these goals, or at least not thwarting their attempts, is necessary. A passive approach by the United States to issues of reform would not serve the interests of either party. | |
Again - in order to meet the financial demands of the UN, a growth budget doesn't need to be set. Even if there are problems, whose solving costs a lot today, this doesn't mean that it will continue to be so in the future. Every year problems of the status quo are different. A UN budget is determined to an extent that it can be met by the state parties. There is not an unlimited amount of money, which can be allocated to international organizations. Of course in times of deep global challenges, the more advanced and developed part of the world will try and do the best they can to help the ones in need. But a continuous increase of the UN budget is not the way to cope with the problems. It just creates a fund-consuming machine, which is becoming more and more expensive. Furthermore the US already donates too much money to the UN - "The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013. The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund."1 1 Williams, Paul. "President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations" 6/10/2010 | |
Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground. They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility. The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering. If those conflicts ended then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway. | |
The difficulty of removing Landmines far outweighs their usefulness The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians. [1] A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not. [1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.