Britain should refuse to take her former colonies back

And the chief might suspiciously ask: "What could you possibly want with rocks and dirty water? " And the British representative would reply: "Well, the streets of England are paved with gold and they get very slippery when it rains so we crush the rocks and spread them on the roads to stop people from slipping and sliding around, and we want the sludgy water to rub into our white skin to make us look nice and tanned just like you lucky swarthy types. " And the chief would think ‘this white man must be crazy – huge quantities sparkling jewellery and colourful ornaments just in exchange for a few rocks and some putrid water! Yes, he must be mad but still…' and so the deal was struck. Sadly, negotiations are not so straightforward these days: many tribal leaders have access to radios and televisions and even the Internet and they are consequently aware of the value of crude oil and gemstone- and precious metal-bearing ores, and they have the cheek to ask the market price for any such natural resources that they may have in their possession, which makes the whole operation a lot less profitable. 2 – Military and Economic Clout Once again, times have changed. In days gone by, a British recruitment sergeant would offer to supply a native with a smart uniform complete with a bright red tunic, shiny brass buttons and an impressive-looking helmet; equip him with a powerful and noisy firearm and feed him three square meals a day – plus pay him enough money to purchase Western consumer items such as matches, needles and even footballs for their kiddies. In those days the natives grasped the opportunity with both hands – being a British soldier was certainly better than spending every day foraging for berries and grubs in the bush. These days, however, most boys in the developing world get a football and an AK-47 for the 10th birthday and the only thing red they want to wear is a Manchester United home shirt. Furthermore, the economic benefits of imperialism seem behind Britain now. For example, in the 19th Century, Britain decided to raise cash by trafficking hard drugs into China. The drug in question was opium, the predecessor of heroin, and like most heroin today, it was produced from poppies grown in Afghanistan. Now, neighbouring Pakistan and India were already part of the Empire so the British used them as a platform to invade and occupy Afghanistan and thus secure their supply of drugs. These narcotics were then transported across the Indian sub-continent to be shipped to Hong Kong, which, at the time, was a small Chinese fishing village that the British had seized and developed into a port and operations hub for the distribution of opium accross China. Despite the objections of the Chinese government and two ensuing Anglo-Chinese ‘Opium Wars', the British made vast sums of money from trafficking drugs, but would it be possible to embark on a similar operation today? These days Britain no longer exports recreational drugs, rather it imports them on a wholesale basis through the black market, and although British troops are back in Afghanistan once again, this time they are not there to facilitate the supply of drugs but rather to disrupt it. I suppose Britain could amend the terms of the military deployment in the region but, unfortunately, Britain's North American and European allies in Afghanistan are likely to take a dim view of British troops loading Army Chinooks with bales of heroin resin to be airlifted to Kabul Airport for onward shipping to an international network of ruthless drug dealers. 3 - Good Governance My opponent correctly points out that British rule would bring stability and order to countries in political or economic disarray. Unfortunately, a sizeable minority of the citizens of these countries do not know what is best for them and often resist what they see as an occupation by a foreign power. For example, British forces have recently been deployed in Iraq, which used to be a British Mandate and the ensuing insurgency there caused more than "minor local difficulties" and it cost the British taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to subdue the uprising. Similarly, if the Government of the United States were to see the error of its ways and beg the Queen to reassume her rightful role as the American Head of State, I think it is reasonable to expect some opposition from the less enlightened citizens there – and because they have the "right" to carry guns, resistance to British rule could be fierce and bloody. 4,5 – Global Influence My opponent makes a very good point by stating that the British Commonwealth is of great benefit to member nations providing, as it does, a framework for the exchange of cultural ideas, technology, political best practice and also platform for multi-national trade agreements. I also agree that without the Commonwealth member nations could be susceptible to the unhealthy and undemocratic influences of rogue nations, so I concede these two points. However, overall, I still maintain that Britain should not accept responsibility for running failed former colonies. Thank you. * This was in the days before there was any concept of ‘political correctness'!