title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control ove... | |
One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the... | |
States seek nuclear weapons not primarily in order to use them, but in order to take advantage of the security they offer. If states existed in a world post-disarmament, the incentives to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of security would not have disappeared, in fact they would have increased as no other state woul... | |
The purported efficacy of nuclear deterrence drives nuclear proliferation and therefore increases the risk of nuclear weapons being utilized By claiming the efficacy of nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be... | |
The abolishment of nuclear weapons does not reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some three hundred sites ... | |
Nuclear weapons can be abolished through the co-operation of nuclear powers and the establishment of an independent verification system The co-operation of the United States and Russia, demonstrated in their regularly-renewed START treaties, confer the ability of nuclear powers to work towards a reduction in nuclear s... | |
States should not possess such destructive, cataclysmic weapons Nuclear weapons are, by their very nature, indiscriminate and disproportional; any weapon which could not possibly be used in a responsible manner should not be permitted. Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare ... | |
States have the right to possess any weapon that will materially support their ambitions of survival, regardless of their destructive power. There is no greater principle than that of self-defence, and a state is entitled to develop any means by which it improves its position vis-à-vis an enemy and subsequently promote... | |
The process is implausible, primarily because whilst the actual weapons can be dismantled, the technology remains and the only effective means to deter the development of a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Even if this were not the case, such a gradual and incremental process of disarmament does not account for the ... | |
The Count was only asked to provide an advisory opinion; their adjudication had no subsequent basis in law. Anyhow, the very same jury voted unanimously that ‘there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such’ (In... | |
Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly prevalent in an environment whereby there are extremist groups actively seeking to cause instant, egregious harm to their ideological and political enemies. Such groups do not lack... | |
Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons are illegal The disproportionate and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons use renders their possession illegal under international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice in 1996, asked to provide an advisory opinion, declared unanimously that any use or thre... | |
Nuclear weapons provide the source of the greatest possible barbarity in warfare; therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that their abolishment would only exacerbate conflicts. States do not start wars with major powers contemporaneously merely because those major powers happen to have nuclear weapons; traditional det... | |
The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies – the United States would not be deterred from attacking a newly nuclear Iran because the U.S. would have a first strike capability so would be able to wipe our Iranian nuclear weapons before they could be used. While it is true that political leaders on bot... | |
Abolishment is an unrealistic goal The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a ... | |
Abolishment would be counter-productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare Nuclear weapons have a restraining effect on warfare, preventing escalation through fear of their destruction. To abolish them is therefore to act counter-productively: ‘it will not advance substantive progress on non-proliferation; ... | |
Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war. By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent discourages... | |
In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in imp... | |
It is clearly too early to condemn Erdoğan’s desire to change Turkey to a presidential system. We do not yet have much idea what this actually means and there is no clear reason why this could not be a step forward. Erdoğan clearly wants a powerful presidency but there is no saying that this is what he will get once th... | |
Attempts to change into an executive presidential system Turkey has been heading towards being a one party, even a one person, state. Erdoğan is intending to change the constitution is an attempt to institutionalise this. His new presidency would have the power to issue decrees with force of law, dissolve parliament a... | |
Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as... | |
Decline of secularism The AKP is not just making Turkey authoritarian it is making it an Islamic authoritarian state. Since a 1928 amendment to the constitution Turkey has been a secular state. Recently Turkey rushed through restrictions on the sale of alcohol prohibiting sale overnight. [1] More worryingly than minor... | |
Turkey does not have the freedoms associated with democracy The rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and the provision of personal rights are key to any country being considered to be a liberal democracy but these are being undermined in Turkey. This is most noticeable when it comes to freedom of the press. ... | |
Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journali... | |
Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to v... | |
This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solv... | |
One party state Under the AKP Turkey has effectively become a one party state; this means that there is not the competition necessary to make Turkey a genuine liberal democracy. Yes alternative parties exist but this does not mean they are going to get any power any time soon if the government can help it. The AKP has... | |
Railroading without consultation The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the gov... | |
We do not yet know if this is a false dawn when it comes to peace with the Kurds. Erdoğan could simply be using the process for his own ends; either to secure the Olympics for Istanbul or to secure a powerful presidency for himself. Alternatively he may simply be seeking to divide the Kurds so making them easier to def... | |
High electoral turnout is in large part a result of turkey having compulsory voting so it is difficult to see how this statistic is an indicator of the democratic health of the country. There is also a big difference between having a liberal democracy and a ‘tyranny of the majority’ Turkey under AKP has been much more ... | |
Less army influence – no coups There has now been more than thirty years without an army coup but it has only been during the AKP government that the army has finally been cowed with the army being forced to defend its actions in court. [1] The AKP has brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship bet... | |
Turkey has an effective and legitimate government It is clear that the government is legitimate; it received 49% of the vote in the 2011 elections, an increase. By comparison Tony Blair’s ‘landslide’ win in 1997 was achieved with 43.2% of the vote. [1] And it is a legitimate government in large part because it is an e... | |
Ending the conflict with the Kurds – inclusive government Democracies are only truly democratic when they accept that their minorities have rights and deserve a place in the political system even if those minorities themselves want a separate state. Only then does the country truly represent and work for everyone with... | |
Turkey has elections, it is a democracy The most fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to influence their government. In almost all democracies this is done through elections to parliament. This is the case in Turkey. There was general acceptance that the elections that the AKP won were free elect... | |
Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be equated with economic growth even if most people see the economy as the main issue when it comes to voting. The economy is important but there are plenty of countries which have used economic growth to buttress undemocratic regimes; China being the obvious example where the state’... | |
While coups were frequent during the twentieth century each time power was quickly returned to civilian hands meaning that even including the coups Turkey had a vibrant democracy. [1] [1] Baran, Zeyno, ‘Is Kemalism Dead in Turkey?’, Defining Ideas, 13 December 2010, | |
This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout. Even if Propositions conte... | |
Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections. An Open Prim... | |
The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without the... | |
Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration. In safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same pa... | |
Increasing voter engagement A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each par... | |
People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media ... | |
Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members an... | |
Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye t... | |
Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention... | |
Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to mani... | |
This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more... | |
Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving ... | |
Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties Primaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is m... | |
Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties Primary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is clo... | |
Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are ... | |
Open primaries are open to manipulation Because political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election. We have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ cand... | |
Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the elec... | |
Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just t... | |
There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple... | |
While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections. Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abunda... | |
The referendum is not an example of progress. It is not hard to see why many of those who demonstrated in Tahrir square were in the no camp for this referendum. “The president remains extraordinarily powerful. The amendments do nothing about due process and neglect other authoritarian aspects of the state” [1] The refe... | |
Progress has been made. Egypt as the biggest Arab state and one of only two so far that have had largely peaceful revolutions is perhaps the best example of the progress that has been made. There was a referendum in Egypt in March on amending the constitution that passed with a yes vote of 77.2%. That there was a refe... | |
While these examples prove that in some iterations Islam can work with democracy, it is likely that other factors made democracy viable in Inodnesia and Turkey. Indonesia is free of the hostile relationship with the West that often undermines the stability of the Middle East, and has benefitted from a strong trade rela... | |
There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries. Many middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional ... | |
While the presence of pre-existing institutions is an advantage in transitioning to a democracy, that advantage may be compromised when these institutions are largely seen as illegitimate and have not fostered a democratic political culture. Key to the development of a democratic political culture is confidence in inst... | |
Islamic parties have led governments before The economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and... | |
In the Libyan case the dictator remains (as of 20th April 2011) but cannot sell oil even if he retakes the refineries. The rebels cannot sell oil either (legally) even though they control most of the infrastructure. The sanctions imposed against Gaddafi apply to the whole of the country. [1] Therefore the desire for oi... | |
The question is as much whether once a democracy has been established it can sustain itself as a system through multiple changes in government without reverting to dictatorship by coup. Notionally at least Lebanon has been a democracy continually since 1932, if the interruption of the brutal civil war is ignored. While... | |
The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view. Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2... | |
Rentier economies lead to dictatorships. Most economies in the middle east are oligarchic with the wealth in the hands of a few. Oil has created rentier economies. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations b... | |
Outside powers want oil so support dictatorial regimes who can deliver it. Oil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will da... | |
Factionalism is too strong Since the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in ... | |
For these states perpetuating the resources that give their regime its legitimacy, as a provider, is absolutely vital, the regime needs to be able to fulfill its side of the bargain with the people. [1] This is exactly what Egypt and other Middle Eastern states have been failing to do for the last couple of decades. In... | |
The western reaction to victories by Hamas or Hizbollah while on one level hypocritical do not show that the west would be unsupportive of Arab democracy. Both parties are opposed because they are perceived to be both anti-democratic in nature and, through their opposition to Israel, agents of instability. Opposition t... | |
NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partne... | |
NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Ira... | |
NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in... | |
Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic pol... | |
Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creati... | |
NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a l... | |
NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and... | |
NATO costs too much Maintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves. [1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still stru... | |
The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, becau... | |
Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance wi... | |
NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability When in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective sup... | |
NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members For many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allo... | |
NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called ... | |
NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear I... | |
NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of... | |
NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, again... | |
The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party. [i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient. There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates... | |
The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting some... | |
Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme. For anyone seeking reelection th... | |
One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of... | |
Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials. Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of a... | |
Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up fo... | |
The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working. Their intervention in 1984 to ... | |
In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign. Equally the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that pa... | |
It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign. It would be unfair to all concerned if they ... | |
The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the m... | |
It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal The superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was t... | |
There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so. Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems... | |
If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. ... | |
Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism. It is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.