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 othe... | |
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 b... | |
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 ... | |
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 elsew... | |
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 e... | |
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 unreliab... | |
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 pre... | |
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 th... | |
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... | |
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 Po... | |
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... | |
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,... | |
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 ensur... | |
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... | |
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 soldier... | |
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 cr... | |
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 ad... | |
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 ... | |
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... | |
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 th... | |
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. Th... | |
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 ... | |
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 w... | |
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 S... | |
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... | |
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 large... | |
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 ... | |
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 t... | |
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 shoul... | |
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 (e... | |
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 sp... | |
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 on... | |
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’... | |
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] ... | |
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. Thes... | |
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 st... | |
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 actuall... | |
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 ma... | |
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 c... | |
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 tension... | |
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 tha... | |
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 intercu... | |
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, th... | |
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 bee... | |
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... | |
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 throug... | |
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... | |
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 sovereig... | |
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 we... | |
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 prov... | |
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 al... | |
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 S... | |
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 ... | |
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 w... | |
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... | |
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’. [... | |
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 of... | |
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... | |
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... | |
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 dictatorshi... | |
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 ... | |
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 prescri... | |
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... | |
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 Gir... | |
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 entrepreneu... | |
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 vit... | |
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 in... | |
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 b... | |
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 y... | |
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 documentar... | |
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, No... | |
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 pr... | |
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 examp... | |
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 s... | |
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 popularit... | |
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 toda... | |
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 po... | |
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 perf... | |
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 an... | |
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... | |
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 administra... | |
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 Natio... | |
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, ... | |
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... | |
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 U... | |
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 w... | |
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 w... | |
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 small... | |
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 tod... | |
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 pi... | |
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 ... | |
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 wou... | |
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 af... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.