Datasets:

BeIR

/

arguana

like 2

validation-international-gsidfphb-pro03a

Undermines US position on internet freedom The United States, along with Europe, has been the key voice arguing for freedom on the internet and in particular that the internet should not be controlled nationally. Russia and China in particular have been advocating for much more control over the internet by states with Russia’s proposal advocating that “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet” and “Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy… on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment”. [1] Essentially every state should have the right to censor and surveil their chunk of the internet. With the United States already doing this countries that have previously been wavering may be much more inclined to support these proposals over US objections. [2] The US would stand to lose out as it is currently the country with most control over internet governance. [1] Russian Federation ‘Proposals for the work of the conference’, International Telecommunications Union, 17 November 2012, [2] Dourado, Eli, ‘So much for America’s internet freedom agenda’, theguardian.com, 7 August 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-pro04a

Damages US commercial interests The United States is the preponderant power in internet commerce; most of the big internet companies, the big software companies, even many of the hardware companies are companies that are based in the United States. This both enables US use of these systems for spying as occurred with PRISM because it happens that most web traffic passes through the United States, and makes the United States vulnerable when the world’s consumers think these companies have been betraying their trust. If consumers don’t think US companies can guarantee their data and privacy it should be no surprise that they will consider transferring their business. [1] Cloud computing is particularly affected, among the revelations has been that Microsoft helps the NSA with access to its cloud storage service skydrive. [2] According to a survey by the Cloud Security Alliance 10% of non US responders had cancelled a project with US based providers since the leaks about NSA projects and 56% say they would be less likely to use a US based service. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation estimates this could cost the US cloud computing industry between $21.5 and $35bln in revenues over the next three years. [3] And this is just one part of the computing and software industries, other areas are likely to be less affected but may well still lose business. [1] Naughton, John, ‘Edward Snowden’s not the story. The fate of the Internet is’, The Observer, 28 July 2013, [2] Greenwald, Glenn et al., ‘How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages’, The Guardian, 12 July 2013, [3] Taylor, Paul, ‘Cloud computing industry could lose up to $35bn on NSA disclosures’, FT.com, 5 August 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-con03b

While this is clearly a benefit of spying it is not so much of a benefit of the kind of indiscriminate spying such as the PRISM program. Tapping diplomats mobile phones and setting up fake internet cafes is clearly not indiscriminate, far from it this is targeted surveillance.

validation-international-gsidfphb-con01b

No one disputes that some surveillance is necessary, the question is how much. Is the use of bulk catch all surveillance useful? In the case cited it seems not – this was the monitoring of specific individuals who were already known to US intelligence services; Ayaman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s leader and Nasser al Wahishi the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. [1] Normal intelligence methods without the broad based surveillance would have caught the same messages. Monitoring the communications of known terrorist leaders was done long before the internet was on the scene. [1] Associated Press, ‘AP sources: Al-Qaida chief’s intercepted m,essage to deputy in Yemen caused embassy closures’, The Washington Post, 5 August 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-con02a

Broad web surveillance prevents terrorist attacks Over the last ten years, and right up to the present day, the most important national security interest of the United States has been preventing terrorism. A fight against terrorism requires a large amount of resources invested in tracking terrorist networks and in finding those who may turn to terrorism. Intelligence gathering cannot just focus on those we already know to be terrorists as people can easily become radicalised while not meeting any individuals already considered to be terrorists. This means that there needs to be a broad brush intelligence gathering operation that finds those who are on the path to terrorism. This is why operations like PRISM and xkeyscore are so important; they allow the United States to find people who are being radicalised by material online or those who are just working out how to launch an attack themselves. The NSA Director Keith Alexander has stated that the surveillance has helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.”, with PRISM contributing to 90% of the information on these plots. As only 10 were domestic the surveillance is a benefit to other countries as well as the United States. [1] [1] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots’, The Washington Post, 18 June 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-con03a

Allows monitoring of foreign governments Governments expect to be monitored by other governments and do so themselves as well. Monitoring other governments provides major advantages even when those governments are ostensibly friendly as no government is going to tell even its allies everything there need to be other ways to learn such information. Surveillance can provide advantages in negotiations; it can let you know how far the other side is willing to go. GCHQ for example engaged in intercepting communications by monitoring phones and even setting up fake internet cafes during the G20 meetings in London in 2008. [1] [1] MacAskill, Ewen et al., ‘GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits’, The Guardian, 17 June 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-con01a

Surveillance is necessary to protect national security The primary concern of the state is the protection of its people from foreign powers. This usually means physical protection but this physical protection relies upon knowing what others are doing; where the threats are coming from. That means surveillance. There needs to be monitoring of groups that potentially pose a threat to the state or to its citizens. In a world where terrorism is as much a threat as other states there is a clear need to be watching as many people as possible around the world. Threats such as that to western interests in Yemen at the start of August 2013 demonstrate the need to be watching out for threats as intelligence picked up high level threats to western interests so allowing the United States and others to take pre-emptive action by closing embassies and evacuating personnel. [1] [1] Hicks, Josh, ‘Chambliss: Threats ‘very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11’, The Washington Post, 4 August 2013,

validation-international-gsidfphb-con02b

Clearly the intelligence efforts on such a scale must provide some return in terms of stopping terrorism or they would not be worth the cost. However it is open to question whether the impact has been nearly as big as had been cited by the intelligence agencies. We clearly don’t know if these terrorists would have been detected through other methods. Additionally in at least one case where the FBI and NSA have stated that electronic surveillance has played a key role it has turned out not to be the case. FBI deputy director Sean Joyce has claimed that an attack on the New York Stock exchange was foiled by electronic surveillance; “We went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his co-conspirators” yet the emails involved were perfectly ordinary – the only information gained from the broad brush surveillance was that the plotter was in contact with al Qaeda leaders in Yemen. Something which surely could have been caught the other way around – by looking at the al Qaeda leaders communications. [1] Other cases such as that of Basaaly Moalin who was convicted of sending $8,500 to support Somali terrorist group al Shabab that have been highlighted by the NSA have similarly not required such broad surveillance. [2] [1] Ross, Brian et al., ‘NSA Claim of Thwarted NYSE Plot Contradicted by Court Documents’, ABC News, 19 June 2013, [2] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘NSA cites case as success of phone data-collection program’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2013,

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro02b

If Ceuta and Melilla were to be given to Morocco, then immigration would not halt. The higher standard of living in Spain would still attract immigrants who would face greater perils than restriction of movement and employment. Irregular migrants and refugees already attempt to travel from Morocco to Italy and Malta (the strait of Gibraltar is too well guarded)1 and numbers would only increase if the land route were dismantled. Hundreds of irregular migrants will hide on inadequate boats trying to reach Europe and thousands die every year in the attempt2. One boat which sunk off the Italian island of Lampedusa resulting in more than 300 deaths3. Despite these risks, high risk migration continues which that immigration numbers would continue even without a land border. 1) Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011 2) Herman,M. ‘From Africa to Europe: A Surprisingly Dangerous Journey for Migrants’, 3 December 2013 3) BBC, ‘Italy to hold state funeral for shipwreck migrants’, 9 October 2013

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro02a

Decrease immigration to Spain The Spanish possession of Ceuta and Melilla has resulted in an influx of illegal immigrants. Due to their positioning and membership to the EU, the two cities are subject to numerous attempts by immigrants to gain access to Europe1. In Melilla this has resulted in a social experiment with dire implications. To discourage illegal immigration, non-Moroccans who illicitly gain access to the country will not be permitted to move on from the city. They are trapped in Melilla without legal rights and generally live in extremely poor conditions with no means of legal work2. If the Spanish relinquished control of the two cities then these then there would be no permeable land border for illegal immigrants to gain access to. 1) Ribas,X. ‘The Border Fences of Cueta and Melilla. A Landscape for the Future’ 2) Davies,N. ‘Melilla: Europe’s dirty secret’, The Guardian, 17 April 2010

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro03b

Spain claims that there is a difference between Gibraltar and its own territories. While Gibraltar is an overseas territory, otherwise known as a colony, Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain and maintain the same semi-autonomous status which other regions in Spain have1. The United Nations maintains a similar view, recognising Gibraltar as an ‘overseas territory’ which is reviewed annually by the Committee on Decolonisation2. 1) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’ 10 August 2013 2) United Nations General Assembly, ‘2231 (XXI) Question of Gibraltar’, 20 December 1966

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro01a

The dispute damages Morocco-Spain relations The dispute over the two cities only serves to harm co-operation between Morocco and Spain. Bilateral disagreements have prevented the resolution of other issues and generally heightened diplomatic tensions between these geographically close countries. When the Prime Minister and King of Spain both visited Morocco to resolve the Perejal crisis and Western Sahara issues, relations periodically improved. However a subsequent visit by the PM and King to Ceuta and Melilla in 2006 and 2007 reversed the progress made due to Moroccan outrage1. If Spain ceded these cities to Morocco then relations would improve, which could lead to increased co-operation on other issues. 1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro01b

The disagreements between Morocco and Spain over Ceuta and Melilla have had minimal impact on diplomacy between the two countries, which generally remains positive. Co-operation on counter-terrorism, counternarcotics and illegal immigration all continue to progress in a productive manner1. Joint operations between the two countries’ military forces continue on the strait of Gibraltar and a joint police panel has been proposed2, implying relations are still constructive. 1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011 2) Benmehdi,H. ‘Morocco, Spain partner against terrorism’

validation-international-aehbssccamm-pro03a

Spain is being hypocritical Spain refusing to cede Cueta and Melilla to Morocco is inconsistent with its policy towards Gibraltar. Whilst the Spanish refuse to cede their two cities to Morocco, they expect the British to return the circumstantially similar Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a British overseas territory which is located in southern Spain, taken from the Spanish by an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1704. Spain asserts a claim to this territory as it was once part of its own lands, despite signing the Treaty of Utrecht and relinquishing the land ‘in perpetuity’1. The claim that a state should return exclaves which rightfully belong to the nation which originally owned them is therefore inconsistent with their policy towards Ceuta and Melilla2. If Spain expects to reclaim Gibraltar then they should also expect to relinquish control over Cueta and Melilla. 1) ‘Treaty of Utrecht’ April 1713 2) Tremlett,G. ‘A rocky relationship’ 14 January 2014

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con03b

While they were not a recognised state in the same sense as Spain is, [1] Berbers have lived in Morocco for thousands of years; making Ceuta and Melilla part of their history as well. The presence of the Berbers in Morocco can be traced back 4,000 years, with today’s Berbers maintaining a similar language and customs1. Their association with this territory means that many Berbers see these cities as their land and feel they have a stronger claim to it than Spain. 1) Morris,C. ‘Who are the Morocco Berbers?’, Journey Beyond Travel, data accessed 21 January 2014 [1] This should not be surprising; our current notion of the state is a Western European invention.

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con01b

The wishes of a population are often overlooked by governments when deciding upon territorial sovereignty. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to the German alliance. The majority of citizens were French, or preferred French to Prussian leadership1. This factor was disregarded however, as it usually is in the redrawing of boundaries. Morocco does not appear to have addressed this argument as they do not deem it relevant against their territorial interests. Spain has also been hypocritical by its claim to respect the people’s decision on sovereignty, particularly while observing the situation in Catalonia. As of early 2014, the Spanish government has stated it will not allow any form of referendum concerning the independence of the Eastern Spanish state, despite the population’s wishes2. 1) Wikipedia, ‘Alsace-Lorraine’, date accessed 21 January 2014 2) Vilaweb, ‘The Spanish Government “will not allow” and “will not negotiate” on Catalonia’s self-determination vote’, 13 December 2013

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con02a

The cities are a source of revenue for Spain Ceuta and Melilla are economic assets to Spain; it is in Spain’s interest to maintain them. Spain was particularly damaged by the 2008 economic recession which left many of the richest countries in decline1. With no sign of rapid recovery in the near future, it is within Spain’s interests to hold on to two cities which have strong economies2. The ports of Cueta and Melilla are of particular importance as they provided a large portion of the cities’ income, catering to many luxurious boats. The low tax zones also encourage a lot of financial activity3. Spain’s economic position therefore dictates that they should not cede them. 1) Cala,A. ‘Why is Morocco Picking a Fight with Spain?’ 15 August 2010 2) Sotogrande, ‘Ceuta and Melilla’, data accessed 20 January 2014 Ibid

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con03a

They have been Spanish possessions for centuries The cities of Ceuta and Melilla have been an integral part of Spain’s territory and to cede them would be a compromise of territorial integrity. The two cities have been part of Spain for almost as long as the country has existed. The marriage of Isabelle I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon united two major regions of Spain in 1469. The conquest of Granada finally joined the South of the country with the North in 1492. The capture of Melilla was only five years later, and Ceuta was merged in to the country less than a century afterwards. These cities are an integral part of Spain and should therefore remain Spanish. 1) Snelling,N. ‘The history of Spain, Spain’s unification and elevation to world power’, Culture Spain, data accessed 21 January 2014

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con01a

The citizens do not want to be ceded Many of those living in Ceuta and Melilla do not want to join Morocco, to cede them would be unjust. Walzer, in his book Just and Unjust Wars, claims that the only people who should decide who has sovereignty over a territory are the population of said land1. If the people associate themselves with Spain, then it is only right that Spain continues to rule over them. This is the case with Ceuta and Mellia, where there is a nearly universal feeling of belonging to Spain2. Morocco and Spain should therefore respect the wishes of the population. 1) Walzer,M. ‘Just and Unjust wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations' 2) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’

validation-international-aehbssccamm-con02b

The financial future of the two cities is uncertain. It has cost copious sums of money to protect the border against immigrants who travel from as far as India to reach EU territory. In 2011, €30 million was spent on fortifying the border fences of Ceuta and Melilla1. Not only was this a financial burden, but it served to worsen relations with Morocco who temporarily halted trade with the cities in 2010, leaving Melilla’s market stalls empty. The development of the Moroccan ‘super-port’, known as the Tanger Med project also financially threatens the ports if Ceuta and Melilla2. Built on the straits of Gibraltar, it is designed to intercept shipping traffic which would usually go to Ceuta and Melilla. 1) Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011 2) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 June 2011

validation-international-ggsurps-pro02b

The UN’s own failures in the past should be a warning, not a motivation, regarding involvement in a conflict where it has limited power to implement an outcome. The UN’s goal needs to be the creation of a stable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. This policy would in reality encourage the exact opposite. While it would do little to help the Palestinians, delegitimizing Israel’s creation would be a tool in the hands of figures in the Arab world and elsewhere whose interests in the region are not in peace with Israel but in its destruction. It seems likely Iran at the very minimum would seize on a claim that Israel’s license to exist has been withdrawn. In turn, if Israel interpreted the UN’s move as a an attack on its legitimacy as a state, it would be likely to interpret the move as having anti-Semitic overtones, strengthening the hands of those in Israel who see the UN as a stalking horse for anti-Semitism, and thereby reducing the UN’s ability to play a future role in resolving the conflict.

validation-international-ggsurps-pro02a

Such a move is historically and morally justified There is significant justification, both for recognition of a Palestinian state and for the UN recognition in particular to carry more weight than it otherwise might. For one thing, Israel was created by a resolution of the UN General Assembly, and to the extent Israel denies the legitimacy of the UN’s actions and its right to engage in them, it is implicitly questioning the legitimately of its own creation and continued existence, leaving them both a product of “blood and iron.” Secondly, the UN has a responsibility to help resolve a situation its own failures helped create. By passing a partition plan, and then doing nothing to prevent first its collapse into wholesale war, and then the Jordanian occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank , the UN has a an obligation to the Palestinians. [1] [1] Palestine Facts, ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’,

validation-international-ggsurps-pro03b

In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.

validation-international-ggsurps-pro01a

Independence Matters – there are real legal and diplomatic consequences to such a move Going to the UN would transform the legal status of Palestine. While this would not immediate change the physical contours of the conflict – Israeli incursions, the occupation, the existence of settlements, it would transform the context in which they take place. For one thing, there would no longer be ambiguity about the status of the West Bank and the settlements on it. [1] The UN would be making clear that in the eyes of international law they would be illegal. This might not force an immediate withdrawal from the settlements, but it would incentivise the settlers themselves to crave the legal legitimacy of a settlement that could confirm them in possession of their property. After all, who would want to invest as much in land that might have to be abandoned? This in turn might make Israel more likely to make concessions elsewhere, because the Palestinian signatures on an agreement recognizing the legality of settlements would have real value in the future. Furthermore, while no new physical force would be preventing the Israeli army from engaging in military operations in Gaza or the West Bank, the legal optics of marching in and out of a recognized state would present difficulties. In addition, one of the great banes of Palestinian existence is that they are stateless. For all practical purposes Palestinians need Israeli permission to travel abroad. A recognized passport would allow them alternative means to travel and work in countries which do recognize Palestine even if those are a minority. Finally it would put pressure on governments that voted for a Palestinian state to put their money where their mouth is and actually respond to the fact that a legal state is being occupied. Otherwise they might well face popular pressure at home. [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?’, The Independent, 29 May 2009,

validation-international-ggsurps-pro01b

The UN proclaiming Palestine an independent state would do no more to advance the cause of peace than the UN proclaiming a Palestinian and a Jewish State in 1948 did. The day after the declaration the Israeli Army would remain, the settlements would still be there, and the Israelis would be determined to prove exactly how little the UN’s actions means to them. As a result it’s likely that military incursions rather than declining would increase. Israel already has a bad reputation, and has long since given up any ambition to be loved by its neighbours in the short-run. On the contrary in some cases it has deliberately fostered a sense of fear, perhaps best illustrated by its non-denial policy regarding its officially non-existent nuclear program , [1] and the Mossad’s efforts to build up a reputation for invincibility as well as the motive for fear of Iranian nuclear weapons. [2] Bowing to the world community would badly damage Israeli’s deterrence in this respect. The best way of maintaining that fear would be to launch a new series of incursions and settlement expansions in the face of UN protests to demonstrate Israel’s willingness to ignore the UN. Israel furthermore is unlikely to be threatened by international support for Palestinians. If countries are hostile enough to cut off aid in event of UN recognition, they probably have minimal relations with Israel in the status quo. If anything, the main consequence legally is likely to be for Israel to expel UN agencies and observers which might very well worsen the human rights situation. [1] Baliga, Sandeep, and Sjöström, Tomas, ‘Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Proliferation’, NorthWestern University, [2] Roth, Ariel Ilan, ‘The Root of All Fears Why Is Israel So Afraid of Iranian Nukes?’, Foreign Affairs, 24 November 2009,

validation-international-ggsurps-pro04b

While issues like the “Right of Return” might benefit from an international approach, it’s hard to see why international recognition would make neighbouring states more likely to pay for or allow the settlement of, Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, a “sovereign” state may feel less inclined to compromise on its rights, especially if the International Community seems to have just conceded the legitimacy of those claims.

validation-international-ggsurps-pro03a

The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places. [1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011,

validation-international-ggsurps-pro04a

A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times. The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme. Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.

validation-international-ggsurps-con03b

Israel’s concerns are not with sovereignty per se, but with the willingness of Palestinians to behave in a legally responsible manner becoming of an international state. Adopting a policy of seeking legitimacy at the UN and then asserting their rights legally is probably the best Palestinian strategy in this respect, as it makes clear that they wish to move the conflict from one of either violent or nonviolent resistance to one of legal arguments under international law. Rather than denying Palestine sovereignty Israel instead should be seeking to gain guarantees within treaties that Palestine will not allow any foreign bases on its soil. Russia does not want NATO bases in the former Soviet Union but this does not mean it denies these states sovereignty.

validation-international-ggsurps-con01b

The problem of expectations exists on both sides. The Israelis also have an expectation that they can continue the status quo indefinitely, that the Palestinian “problem” is a containable security issue, especially after the success of the “wall”, and that the international community is all bark. UN action, especially if the US were to allow it through an abstention rather than a positive vote would indicate that both international and American patience are not infinite and probably have as great an impact on Israel as the recognition would have on the Palestinians.

validation-international-ggsurps-con02a

Israel remembers past failures of the international community when it came to Jews and doubts the UN’s Impartiality Regardless of whether some degree of outside impetus might be of benefit, the UN is a particularly bad actor for pressuring Israel. For one thing, the UN is not viewed as an impartial entity. Israeli government officials have repeatedly claimed it is biased against them, and the UN has not tried particularly hard to dispel these impressions with its recent conferences at on racism, most prominently at Durban in South Africa, dissolving into denunciations of Zionism and holocaust comparisons. [1] Reinforcing this is the persistent feeling that the world did nothing for the Jews when they were facing annihilation, which feeds into the narrative that while the international community may talk endlessly about Palestinian rights, they would do little for Israelis if the balance of power ever shifted. When Israeli politicians can state that they know exactly what would happen (a second Holocaust) if Arabs were to ever defeat them they are likely to see this action on the part of the UN reinforcing all of their negative impressions. This in turn may well produce a siege mentality in which they view themselves as on their own and become unwilling to make any concessions. This would be especially true if the United States were to seem to abandon them by at least abstaining on UN recognition. [1] Braun, Elihai, ‘The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa’, Jewish Virtual Library,

validation-international-ggsurps-con04a

Even a successful move for statehood would place the United States in a challenging position, and alienate American opinion which the Palestinians are dependent on Any UN Recognition of Palestinian statehood would require at the very least US abstention. Even if this were to be achieved, it would only come after the request had placed the United States in a very awkward position. Vetoing Palestinian statehood at the UN would force the US to alienate world opinion, while abstaining or supporting the Palestinian demand would mean a clash with Israel with all the US domestic costs that entails for any American politician. [1] Barack Obama’s less than stringent support of Israel was seen as contributing to the defeat of his Democratic party in a 2011 special election in a heavily Democratic and heavily Jewish seat in NYC. It is likely a future US President would face worse. Furthermore, allowing the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood explicitly brings the UN into the Peace Process, undermine the United States’ role as the preeminent outside actor. Even if the United States were to acquiesce in such, it’s hard to see it appreciating the consequences. Therefore it can be assumed that the Palestinians, in exchange for cosmetic benefits, would likely alienate the United States, which at the end of the day is the only outside actor whose opinions Israel values, and therefore the only outside actor that can genuinely make the creation of a Palestinian state a reality. [1] Staff, ‘Did the First President Bush Lose His Job to the Israel Lobby?’, The New York Observer, 17 July 2006,

validation-international-ggsurps-con03a

An attempt to build up international support reinforces Israeli fears of a Palestinian state being used as a platform for attacks against them Among Israel’s prime security concerns about a prospective Palestinian state is that it might become a base for Israel’s other enemies to attack it. Israel is particularly vulnerable strategically from the West Bank, and the distance between East Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is barely 15 miles. [1] The great fear therefore is that a legitimately independent Palestinian state might well allow the basing of Iranian weapons on its territory, or provides a base for Israeli Arab dissidents to launch an attack. While there would be little practical change in the ability of Israel to stop foreign forces being allowed into Palestine the Palestinians would be able to claim that they are within their sovereign rights to allow foreign basing rights just as many other countries around the world do. Repeated efforts to bring in International support, and a focus on legal sovereignty to the exclusion of actual concrete steps to reassure Israel such as disarming Hamas, will only reinforce these concerns on the part of Israel. [1] Gold, Dore, ‘Military-Strategic Aspects of West Bank Topography for Israel's Defense’, Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace, 2005,

validation-international-ggsurps-con01a

Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent One of the major obstacles to peace has consistently been the unrealistic expectations which have existed on the Palestinian side. From 1994 onwards, the Palestinians have confused the Peace Process with a process by which “wrongs will be righted” and their “rightful demands” met, rather than a compromise process of give and take. This has been fed by leaders like Yasser Arafat who have told Palestinians for so long that they will have a state with a capital in Jerusalem, with a right of return, etc. that it has become impossible for them to then go back to their constituents and sell concessions. The fact is that no viable Peace Deal with satisfy everyone, and Israel has minimum demands of its own – some settlements will be maintained, millions of Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel proper, and Israel will not allow an armed Palestinian state. The problem with UN recognition is that while at best marginally improving the Palestinian negotiating position it will dramatically increase popular expectations, making it next to impossible for the Palestinian leadership to take advantage of any gains they achieve vis-à-vis Israel through recognition. In this sense you may well have a much greater gap between the Palestinian minimum and Israeli maximum than before recognition.

validation-international-ggsurps-con04b

One reason why the United States would find a push for UN Recognition of a Palestinian state so awkward is because it has so many other concerns it has to value against the conflict. Whereas relations with Israel are the dominant issue in Palestinian foreign policy, and a leading one in Israel’s, the US has to maintain its position and interests else ware in the world. This means that the United States has to balance domestic considerations with the need to appeal to world opinion. It also means that the United States has an interest in a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if the US were inclined to allow the Palestinians to suffer in punishment for bringing up the issue, the dynamics of UN Recognition would raise the price of the continuation of the conflict for the United States. That is because it would be increase the interest of every other country in the world in the conflict, if for no other reason than rather than an internal affair, there would now be a principle of national sovereignty involved.

validation-international-ggsurps-con02b

Israelis have a low opinion of some UN organs, and with a good degree of justification. But they are also remarkably pragmatic. They understand that while they need to protect their own interests, they also need friends, and Israeli voters will turn on their own leaders with a vengeance if they ever think they are jeopardizing the relationship with the United States. This can be seen in the reaction to the decision of the Bush Administration to freeze loan guarantees to Israel in 1991 due to the repeated refusal of the government of Yitzhak Shamir to halt settlement construction. The result, despite outrage on the American Right and in sectors of Israeli opinion, was the crushing defeat of the Shamir in the 1992 elections by Yitzhak Rabin . [1] If the US abstains on UN recognition of Palestine, which would be necessary for such recognition to pass, it will send a message to the Israeli public and likely severely impact the next election. [1] Rosner, Shmuel, ‘When US doesn’t meddle in Israeli politics, it strengthens the right’, JewishJournal.com, 9 December 2011,

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro02b

This is exactly why simply giving money to the poor is a bad idea; not everyone who is poor will have a bank account. Indeed those who are the poorest are by far the least likely to have one. In India only 21% of the poor have a bank account. [1] [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro02a

Government money can go directly to bank accounts Direct cash transfers can obviously be done very simply through simply handing out cash but this is clearly open to corruption. Instead money should be sent directly to the poorest’s bank accounts. In India the proposal is that the payments will be linked to the new biometrics based ID system that assigns a unique number to everyone based upon physical traits [1] (although this is not yet fully implemented) this will reach the whole population including those who currently have no identity papers. [2] This will enable those who get these ID to set up a bank accounts to enable the cash to be transferred to them as it will in effect be giving them with new ID. [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013 [2] Majumder, Sanjoy, ‘World’s biggest biometric ID scheme forges ahead’, BBC News, 13 February 2012

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro03b

Providing money may in the long term reduce corruption for the reasons outlined but in the short term it may mean more corruption. With India’s program there have been accusations that the government is only enrolling people in districts that support the ruling party. [1] [1] Thakur, Pradeep, ‘Why divide india into UID, NPR states?’, The Times Of India, 6 January 2013

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro01a

Giving money to the poor is the fairest way of eliminating poverty One of the reasons why poverty does not get eliminated is that it is governments who provide the subsidies that are intended to do just that. Many countries spend their money for subsidies poorly, for example in Indonesia before fuel subsidies were combined with cash subsidies in 2005 the top income decile received more than five times the amount of fuel subsidy as the bottom decile making the policy highly regressive despite it being politically sold as a subsidy to the poor. [1] No matter the intention such subsidies are clearly not fair. When the government provides lots of different subsidies for different things; fuel, food, housing etc., and especially when some of them are universal, it is clear that it will never be possible to distribute the money fairly on the basis of need. [1] ‘Winds of Change East Asia’s sustainable energy future’, The World Bank, May 2010, Pp93-5

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro01b

Subsidies are much fairer than providing cash. Subsidies can be directly targeted to provide the things that the poor need rather than letting the poor buy what they want. The government should not be providing money that is then being spent on cigarettes, instead it should be spent on food, heating, or the children’s education. Yes some subsidies are poorly targeted but this simply shows that these subsidies are poorly implemented, not that they cannot be the solution to poverty.

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro04b

When it comes to the use of cash transfers on a large scale this is so far just wishful thinking; it may work but we don’t yet really know. How can the proposal of all subsidies being changed to cash be compared to a small stipend for sending the children to school?

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro03a

Providing money directly is efficient and eliminates corruption Most methods of attempting to eliminate poverty through state intervention are bureaucratic and inefficient and therefore inevitably are not very helpful. The subsidies India has previously provided to the poor is a case in point. In reference to food subsidies that provide for a 50% subsidy for those below the poverty line a 2010 study by the Asian Development Bank found that in rural areas 73% of recipients were above the poverty line so should not have been receiving the subsidy. [1] Providing money directly into bank accounts on the other hand is efficient as it is transferred electronically and can be set up to transfer without any human intervention. For the same reason it is very difficult to embezzle because it is going straight to a bank account from central government funds without passing through anyone’s hands. [1] Jha, Shikha, and Ramaswami, Bharat, ‘How Can Food Subsidies Work Better? Answers from India and the Philippines’, ADB Economics Working Paper Series, No.211, September 2010, p.13

validation-international-aghwgcprp-pro04a

Providing money directly works. All the evidence is that providing money directly to those who need it works much better than providing a mishmash of subsidies and credits decided by government. Providing money directly has been working with limited programs around the world, most prominently with Brazil’s Bolsa Familia which has meant millions of children get primary education because of a small cash incentive. [1] In India the state already spends a huge amount on inefficient poverty reduction programs. If all the money that is spent on these programs was transferred to providing for the direct cash payments equally among the 70million households below the poverty line then it would provide a monthly transfer of 2,140 Rs; more than the poverty line income for rural households. [2] [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010 [2] Kapur, Devesh, et al., ‘More for the Poor and Less for and by the State: The Case for Direct Cash Transfers’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 April 2008, p.3

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con03b

There are of course some occasions where the individual may use their money unwisely, but if they do then this is their choice. Those who receive aid are as deserving of being free to choose how to use their money as any wage earner. This choice only comes from providing cash rather than subsidies. [1] [1] Glaeser, Edward, ‘Cash Is Better Than Food Stamps in Helping Poor’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2012

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con01b

Dependency is potentially a problem for any form of transfers with the intention of eliminating poverty while it is slightly different to be dependent on transfers of food the effect is the same. Direct transfers can however be made conditional upon the recipients doing what the government wants them to. In Brazil for example small cash transfers have been made conditional upon parents keeping their children in school. [1] There is little reason the conditions could not include earning some money from other sources if it is suspected that individuals are becoming dependent. [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con02a

Money cannot be targeted to meet specific needs Governments have accepted, in documents like the universal declaration of human rights, that one of their primary roles is to provide a basic standard of living for their citizens. When the state simply hands out some money this responsibility is not fulfilled. The state is simply leaving the poor to fend for themselves with a little extra money. Governments provide subsidies in kind or for specific products and services for a reason; those are the things that are necessities rather than luxuries. If money is transferred directly then the person who is getting the money can use the government’s money on anything. Some may use it on the things the government was providing before but others will spend the money badly on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Subsidies however can be targeted at the things that the poor really need. This means the state provides subsidies for food, free or cheap housing and healthcare, fuel for cooking and heating etc.

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con03a

It is wrong to assume that the individual always knows best With subsidies at least the government knows what their money is being spent on. This is not the case with cash; it just gets taken and can be spent on anything. As already mentioned the most obvious examples are where the individual uses the money they are given on drugs or other harmful products not what they need. Yet there are times where individuals may simply not have their own best interests at heart for various reasons, particularly because they know no better. This does not just happen in economic situations but also in public heath. For example development agencies know that cooking on open fires in homes leads to thousands of deaths every year and is costly in terms of fuel. So thousands of clean smokeless stoves have been given out yet they are not being used despite them being cheaper to run and potentially a life saver. [1] [1] Duflo, Esther, et al., ‘Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves’, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No.12-10, 16 April 2012

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con01a

Giving out money does not encourage people to take responsibility The beauty of direct cash transfers is that it simply adds a new income stream but this is also its Achilles heel. Providing direct cash transfers will create dependency upon the transfers and reduce the incentive to be earning money from elsewhere. There are several reasons for this. First because the transfers from the government will be reliable, unlike much of the income the poorest have, the transfers will become the recipients main form of income. This will mean that there is less incentive to be earning money from other sources, which would often mean hard work, so as a result both harming the individual as they do not earn as much and the economy as they will not be contributing to the economy. Secondly people will take up less work in order to qualify for the transfers; there is no reason to work more if that is simply going to mean that money you would have got from the government is taken away. The advantage of in-kind transfers is that they help avoid expectations of long term assistance or the state essentially providing everything. [1] Dependency has happened with food aid in Ethiopia where more than five million people have been receiving food aid since 1984; far from getting better the food security situation has if anything been declining during this time and there could be much better use made of Ethiopia’s own resources; only 6% of the country’s irrigable land is used for agriculture. [2] [1] Holmes, Rebecca, and Jackson, Adam, ‘Cash transfers in Sierra Leone: Are they appropriate, affordable or feasible?’, Overseas Development Institute, Project Briefing No.8, January 2008, p.2 [2] Elliesen, Tillmann, ‘Imported Dependency, Food Aid Weakens Ethiopia’s Selfhelp Capacity’, Development and Cooperation, No.1, January/February 2002, pp.21-23

validation-international-aghwgcprp-con02b

This is simply creating individual responsibility. A few will spend the money badly but most will realise that they need it for necessities. The whole point of the system is that it is flexible rather than limiting in the way other subsidy systems are. It should be considered that while some may misspend their money as suggested on drugs others may find ways of investing it so that they make more money and pull themselves out of poverty which then saves the government in the long term. Ultimately however it is the government that controls the flow of money; if someone is misspending it they can always halt the transfers.

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro02b

It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu . [1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also [1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro02a

The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example. [1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does. [1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro03b

There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU. [1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European. [2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens. [1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001, [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro01a

A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon [1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy. [2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy. [3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform. [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008, [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro01b

While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. [1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.” [2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures. [1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011 [2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011,

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro04b

Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision. [1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ. [1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010,

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro03a

A EU constitution will foster a “European identity” Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.

validation-international-ephbesnc-pro04a

The ECJ has often been accused of over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties. [1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe. [1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1,

validation-international-ephbesnc-con03b

Any constitution need not be a step towards a European superstate or even a federal European state. It may simply be rationalising current treaties and making the EU more accessible with little in the way of real changes to the location of power. None the less such a change would not be all bad as Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland argues “The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function as a fully fledged actor in the world.” [1] The EU as a great power would be more effective in solving conflict and promoting development in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and even Latin America as well as providing economic benefits for its own members. [1] Free Europe, ‘Building the EU SuperState: what leading EU politicians say about it’, 26 September 2005,

validation-international-ephbesnc-con01b

Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.

validation-international-ephbesnc-con02a

Adopting a European Constitution and failing to abide by it would be a big and challenging failure The European Union should be wary of adopting a European Constitution as many states may not be able to abide by its terms. The reason why Greece is in so much financial trouble is its unwillingness to abide by the European Growth and Stability Pact, however others, Germany and France had already broken the pact. [1] Such a failure to abide by the rules with a constitution, something which is meant to be at the heart of the state, would greatly damage European credibility and would practically rule out the possibility of more comprehensive change in the future. Accession countries have shown little interest in the Constitutional Treaty overall, given a series of other more immediate concerns. Therefore a constitution is unneeded in order for the EU to develop, enlarge or prosper. It can only lose if it created a constitution which turned out a disaster. [1] Aznar, José María, ‘Europe must reset the clock on stability and growth’, FT.com, 16 May 2010,

validation-international-ephbesnc-con03a

A EU Constitution will lead to a superstate, which is undesirable at the moment A European constitution is a first step on a slippery slope towards a United States of Europe. Such a European superstate is widely opposed by citizens of all EU members, not least because it would be undemocratic, unaccountable and remote. Many EU citizens already believe this is the case. In Britain polls regularly show that far from wanting deeper integration the country is in favour of leaving the EU. [1] As has already been shown members do not consider themselves ‘European’ nearly as much as they do their own national identity. [2] [1] The Democracy Movement Surrey, ‘The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.’ 2007 [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,

validation-international-ephbesnc-con01a

There already are constitutional documents We already have such constitutional documents – the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and most importantly the Lisbon treaty from very recently (2009). The powers of, and relationships between the different institutional actors are clearly defined in the existing treaties. Just because the EU has expanded to incorporate new member states does not mean it needs a constitution. The Treaty of Nice was meant to have made the necessary amendments to facilitate enlargement. If it has failed, then we can simply amend the existing treaties again.

validation-international-ephbesnc-con02b

A failure of not having a ratified EU constitution will actually represent a more significant blow to the EU’s image abroad and at home. Talk about the decline of the EU is not helping the European economy, or the way in which the EU is perceived. The failure to reform could potentially lead to an actual collapse of the EU as we know it, which would have disastrous effects for the region as well as the world. The failure of the Constitutional Treaty would also result in powerful disillusionment in the countries that have recently entered the EU or are applying to enter. This could significantly slow down further enlargements and put their domestic reform agendas at risk.

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro02b

This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921. [1] Which was the real colonial border? [1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013,

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro02a

Uti Possidetis The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius. [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960,

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro03b

The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent. [1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views. [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro01a

Mauritius is far closer The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius.

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro01b

If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius. [1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge. [2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands. [1] Both distances taken from google search. [2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527, Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro04b

With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.” [1] [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012,

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro03a

Self determination The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". [1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.” [2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians. [1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, [2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013,

validation-international-ahwrcim-pro04a

A human rights black hole The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”. [1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous. [1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011, p.496

validation-international-ahwrcim-con03b

The establishment of the MPA is clearly an attempt to strengthen UK control over the islands. A State Department cable leaked by wikileaks states “He [Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Director Overseas Territories] asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.” [1] Moreover the UK, or rather the US occupation, is not good for the environment either. The US base at Diego Garcia has accommodated nuclear-powered submarines opening the potential for radiation leaks as has happened before in Japanese ports. Similarly a large amount of air and sea traffic creates the possibility of oil spills; there have been at least four major spills at Diego Garcia, the one in 1991 involved 160,000 gallons being lost. [2] [1] Mills, Richard, ‘HMG floats proposal for marine reserve covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Wikileaks, 15 May 2009, [2] Carey, Sean, ‘The UK’s role in Diego Garcia: green fingers or red faces?’, New Statesman, 7 September 2009,

validation-international-ahwrcim-con01b

There is no national interest in the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. If there were true national interests then Diego Garcia would be a British base not a US one, handing such security over to the US clearly shows that the UK does not have sufficient national interests at stake to maintain a base on the islands themselves. Moreover if it is in the national interests of the United States to have a base there is little reason to assume that the US could not negotiate similar terms from the government of Mauritius as that of the UK to secure those interests.

validation-international-ahwrcim-con02a

Chagos islanders don’t all want to belong to Mauritius Many of the people of the Chagos Islands don’t want to belong to Mauritius. They want the right to return to their homeland, but also that the Chagos Islands should remain British. Allen Vincatassin, a leader of the Diego Garcians in the UK, argues “We were second-class citizens in Mauritius and if they govern the islands, we will be second-class citizens in our own land… We are British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, which we are proud to be. We believe we are part of this country. In a normal situation the people would come first but it seems the state of Mauritius comes before the rights of our people.” [1] The islands when resettled could survive very well as a part of the UK just as other territories such as the British Virgin Islands do with administration done locally but sovereignty remaining with the UK. [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,

validation-international-ahwrcim-con03a

Marine protection The UK government has turned the Chagos islands into a Marine Protected Area. This would cover 544,400km2 around the islands with a no take zone preventing any fishing in the zone. The MPA will protect 60-80,00km2 of reefs and eight endangered or critically endangered species. [1] As the biggest such protected area in the world this will be making a critical contribution to protecting global biodiversity. While the Chagos Island’s seas are almost pristine Mauritius has been overfished with the overfishing further damaging coral suffering from coral bleaching. [2] Mauritius has objected to the establishment of the MPA [3] clearly showing that they wish to engage in exploiting the resources of the islands rather than engaging in marine protection. [1] Sheppard, Charles, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot, 2011, p.33, 35 [2] Harris, Ed, ‘Warm seas and overfishing his Mauritius lagoon’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, [3] ‘The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed 29/1/2014,

validation-international-ahwrcim-con01a

National interests It is in British and US national interests that Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands stay under UK control with the UK continuing to allow a US base on the islands. Diego Garcia is clearly strategically located as a base in the middle of the Indian ocean a base that may be useful for action in any direction. The military base has a significant runway, satellite tracking facilities, and is one of only five control bases for the GPS. It has been used in every US military operation in the Middle East since 1973. [1] The island is therefore a necessary base for combatting terrorism and maintaining a US presence in the region. The UK has said that it will keep the islands until it is no longer needed for defence, with the Middle East as unstable as it ever has been now is not the time to be giving up the islands. [1] Salter, Mark B., and Mutlu, Can E., ‘Securitisation and Diego Garcia’, Review of International Studies, 2012, , p.6

validation-international-ahwrcim-con02b

If there is concern with the Chagossians becoming ‘second class citizens’ then this can be addressed in negotiations to return the islands to Mauritius. The British have not in the past been willing to take the views of the islanders into account, there seems to be little reason why they now should just because the UK might now stand to benefit. Regardless a poll of all Chagossians might equally lead to the islands being handed over to Mauritius.

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro02b

The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1] The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments. [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro02a

Voice of Europe The European Parliament is the only pan-European, directly elected institution in the EU. As such, only the European Parliament can authentically ‘speak’ for Europe on any issue. It should consequently be a more privileged institution in the EU decision-making process. As a step in this direction, the Parliament should have equal powers of co-decision with the Council on all legislative matters in the EU. [1] This would turn the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a body which can affect real change by providing a balance to the Council of Ministers. By having a directly elected body making decisions on a par with the indirectly chosen body, better decisions will be made that will benefit all Europeans at once, turning the council from a body that focuses on implementing European policy instead of the council being a means for sovereign governments to negotiate based on partial considerations of what their electorates want. This would prevent leaders from being able to come up with deals in their famous all night meetings that the public are opposed to. At the moment European governments can afford to make unpopular decisions in Europe confident that the issue will never be high enough up the electorate’s priorities, which is topped by issues such as unemployment, the economy, inflation, healthcare and crime, [2] so they will not be punished for the decision. The European Parliament which is elected on European issues would prevent be much more responsive to their electorate. [1] Young European Federalists, ‘Political Platform of JEF-Europe’, XIX. European Congress in Copenhagen 21 October 2007, [2] TNS Opinion & Social, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, Eurobarometer 75 Spring 2011, P.21,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro03b

The argument that we should increase the European Parliament’s powers in order to increase people’s interest in it is as flawed as it is well-rehearsed. This argument has been used to repeatedly expand the competencies of the Parliament. However, far from becoming more interested in the Parliament, fewer and fewer people at each election have bothered to vote, turnout was a much higher 61.99% in 1979 (although the average is partially reduced by newer members on average having lower turnouts). [1] This argument merely signals the failure of the Parliament as a democratic institution and unhappiness with the increasingly federal European project. Rather than rewarding the EU Parliament for failure, we should consider seriously its abolition. There is already a democratic check on the Commission – the Council of Ministers made up of democratically elected national governments. It is the Council that sets the agenda for the Commission to implement. The fact that the Commission acts on the behest of democratically elected bodies makes the Parliament superfluous in its present form. [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro01a

Democratic Deficit The European Parliament’s powers need to be expanded because there is a widespread perception that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit: national parliaments have lost much of their power vis a vis national governments through the committee based decision-making in the Council of Ministers. This loss of national parliamentary influence has not been matched by a proportional increase in the power and influence of the European Parliament. To reduce this deficit the European Parliament must be given parity with the Council so that it can provide checks and balances in the system. This becomes particularly pertinent given other developments such as the creation of the Single Currency, which has imposed monetary policy upon varied economies without the necessary oversight from democratic bodies. In the worst case scenarios that have befallen member states such as Greece and Italy, unelected apolitical governments lead by technocrats Lucas Papademos in Athens and Mario Monti in Rome have been imposed by Brussels upon countries that have failed to toe the line, in this case over keeping their debts down. [1] This has shown the damage that the deficit between policies at a supra-nation level and the lack of truly popular mandate has had. If the European Parliament had a greater say and control over the European Central Bank – where Germany has been stopping the use of the ability to print Euros and be a lender of last resort to stem the crisis [2] - then difficulties in the euro zone would have been countered with constant reference to a directly elected body representing the interests of all Eurozone Nations rather than action benefiting the interests of only some creating damage to democracy in others. [1] Editorial ‘Europe: the rise of the technocracy’, guardian.co.uk, 13 November 2011, [2] ‘Schaeuble: Will Block ECB Becoming Lender of Last Resort’, Market News International, 22 November 2011,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro01b

The democratic deficit is a myth. National governments have a strong democratic mandate from national elections. Therefore, their decisions are already imbued with considerable democratic legitimacy. National governments also rely on national parliaments to enact their legislation at home. As a result it would be extremely foolish of a government to pursue a course of action in the Council which was opposed by national parliamentarians, or which would be unpopular enough to lead to a future electoral defeat at home. Democracy is protected sufficiently by the Council already; there is thus no need to increase the powers of the European Parliament. The current crisis is also not a good example as the policies that led to the ultimate undermining of democratic mandates in Eurozone nations were supported by the voters in the respective countries. Had those countries voted for more realistic fiscal policies then there would be no need for the drastic measures required to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the status quo can and does work, with the Council of Ministers being made up of National Governments elected by the people.

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-pro03a

Relevance The levels of turnout in elections for the European Parliament are worryingly low, in 2009 the average EU turnout was 43% and the lowest was in Slovakia with a turnout of only 19.64%. [1] EU citizens clearly feel that the European Parliament is not important enough, does not have enough power over their lives, to justify them voting in European elections. Therefore, we must increase the powers of the European Parliament to increase its relevance to ordinary people. By making it more powerful we create an incentive for people to vote. People view the EU as being dominated by the Commission, unelected bureaucrats who can change millions of people’s lives with little oversight from elected bodies. This corrodes people’s faith in the European Parliament to make change, thus affecting turnout. If the Parliament had the power to truly influence the commission then it would seem much more relevant, encouraging increased turnout. [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con03b

It is because the Parliament is not the primary body in the EU that it cannot be truly able to split along the traditional ‘left-right’ cleavage as is the case many of the member states domestic politics. A consensus had to be acquired for decision-making in the Parliament in order to be on par with the council, which for all its flaws sought to operate in a similar manner. Even though there has been consensus between the two largest groups, it has still been able to effectively scrutinize the Commission with the powers it currently has. Giving more powers to the European Parliament would ensure that this remains the case. Indeed, increasing the importance of the Parliament within the structures of the EU will give greater impetus for consensus between all political groupings, resulting in better decision making.

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con01b

Instead of facilitating greater European federalism, granting the Parliament more powers may actually do much to prevent it. By having a body directly accountable to the people directing the Commission, instead of the indirect Council, there can be greater room for criticism of what the Commission does and advocacy of alternate policies for the Commission. As the Parliament is directly accountable to constituents, the Parliament has a clear stake in representing their interests, which may be preventing ‘federalism’ which is agreed upon by national governments that make up the Council of Ministers for the sake of expediency. Parliamentary control of the Commission gives people a direct say in how it is run, preventing accusations of ‘federalism’ in future.

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con02a

What Parliament currently does Proposition likes to maintain that the European Parliament does not do anything to hold the Commission to account. However, this is not true. The Parliament has the power to reject appointments to the Commission as well as force the entire Commission from their jobs in the event of maladministration (While extremely rare, it has happened in the past such as the rejection of Rocco Buttiglione) [1] . As well as having the power to reject resolutions proposed by the Council and Commission. [2] The status quo places Parliament in a co-equal position in relation to the Commission and Council, respecting the importance of the role national governments have in dictating Europe-wide policy. If the Parliament is made superior to the Council, then the risk is run of giving it supremacy over the national governments. The status quo can be seen as appropriate as there is a fine balance between the Parliament and Council in dictating matters to the Commission. No change is required. [1] Gow, David, ‘MEPs reject anti-gay commission candidate’, The Guardian, 12 October 2004, [2] European Parliament, ‘Parliament’s powers and procedures’,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con03a

Ineffectiveness of Parliament While the Parliament is able to hold the Commission to account in a somewhat limited manner, the institution as a whole is rendered ineffective by its structure. As the parliament is largely elected by Proportional Representation, compromise is required in order to pass resolutions. In most parliaments the two largest groupings would square off against each other and try to dictate policy with the help of smaller groups, thus allowing for varied opinions to come to the fore. Instead in the European Parliament, the Socialist and the Center-Right groupings have dominated proceedings since the first elected Parliament sat in 1979, with the success and failure of resolutions being contingent upon these two groups being able to find compromise, they even share the presidency. [1] This means that once the compromise has been reached, the resolution passes with a large majority and smaller groups such as the Greens and the Liberals are unable to voice opinion on the matter effectively. This reduces the ability of the Parliament to function effectively as a scrutinizing body, preventing a full discussion of issues with a view to establish as close to a full consensus as possible with as many groups agreeing as possible. The development of a ‘Grand Coalition’ has hamstrung debate in what Proposition hopes to be the primary body in the European Union. If more powers are awarded to the Parliament in its current form, then policies affecting many millions of people will be decided on account a pre-arranged agreement between two major groupings that tend to share very similar aims with the Commission, not affecting real change in how the European project works. [1] Taylor, Simon, ‘Deal on Parliament’s presidency holds firm’, EuropeanVoice.com 11 June 2009,

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con01a

Creeping Federalism Awarding more powers to the European Parliament would signify a shift in the Parliament – and by extension – the European Union’s relationship with its member states. If the Parliament is the body in primary control of the Commission the following harms would be created: 1) The democratically elected national governments that make up the Council of Ministers will be side-lined, creating the precedent of a central European body determining the actions of the Commission, thus effecting European citizens. 2) This creates a situation where sovereign nations end up being tied to one particular policy as dictated by the central Parliament, undermining the sovereignty of National Parliaments and making it difficult for a nation to go against said policy (See the controversy over the Common Fisheries Policy, for instance). These dual phenomena caused as a result of the Parliament gaining more powers will further centralisation within the European Union, creating what critics would call a ‘federal superstate.’

validation-international-ehwmepslmb-con02b

Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest. Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole. [1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward. [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’,

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro02b

The wall would also entail a large overall of current border checkpoint protocol. This disrupts the routine of the cartels and makes it harder to smuggle drugs across the border and it will take a while before the figure out the new system.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro02a

Cartels can maneuver past checkpoints The current 650 miles of wall has done nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Cartels heavily study checkpoints and find their weaknesses and exploit them. Checkpoint officers can also be corrupted and/or ineffective. Most drugs also come through ports of entry, not the border according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Drugs is the biggest danger that comes from the free flow between the borders, yet a wall would not effectively stop the flow of drugs. If it does not stop the bringing of drugs into the US then the wall does not fulfill its purpose.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro03b

Preventing terrorism is not the primary goal of the wall, only an added benefit. The primary goals of the wall is to stop the flow of undocumented people and illegal drugs. Any prevention of terrorism is an added benefit to the utility of the wall, however small the added benefit may be.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro01a

A lot of undocumented workers are already in the US According to data from Department of homeland security most of the people who are here illegally arrive here legally and then overstay their visa. Over 400,000 people whose Visas expired in 2015 were still living in the country in 2016. That's about the same as the number of people who cross the southern border every year (328,00 - 479,00). The wall would do nothing to the people that are already here.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro01b

There are still a large number of people that do cross the border every year that would be affected if a wall was constructed. Even if the wall does not stop illegal immigration all together, even stopping some of it does make it effective.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro04b

The state of the economy does nothing to change the effectiveness of the wall at keeping drugs and people from crossing the US-Mexico border.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro03a

Terrorists are not undocumented 80% of terrorists than have been apprehended since 2001 in the US are homegrown. Only one of 154 terrorists in the US since 1975 has been Mexican.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-pro04a

Economic downturn would cause a surge of immigration People leave Mexico because of poor employment opportunities, the wall would likely hurt the economy of Mexico and create a surge of immigration. Building the wall has a negative effect on natural resources as well as businesses in the area. Also it would discourage investment in Mexico because it would look like a serving of the partnership between the US and Mexico. Any hit to the Mexican economy would likely increase illegal immigration, despite the wall’s construction.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-con03b

This is a large time jump and can be attributed to other exogenous factors, not just the construction of the prototype wall.

validation-international-ahbwsuambwb-con01b

US is currently enduring a construction labor shortage. So the jobs that would be created would not likely to be filled by American worker and not have a very large effect on the unemployment rate. All the people who want a job in that sector likely already have one due to the shortage. Also border security agents make up a huge portion of the Department of Homeland Security’s budget so this would cause a huge increase in spending.