BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The one child policy is needed for population control

The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1 The reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century. Given that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4 1   "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm 2    People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200109/01/eng20010901_79027.html 3    Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/an-end-to-one-child-families-in-china/ 4    Yardley, Jim. "China Sticking with One-Child Policy." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/world/asia/11china.html
One child benefits women

It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education. Within many Chinese communities, women have traditionally been the primary caregivers for children; however, with fewer children, they have more time to invest in their careers, increasing both their personal earnings and the national GDP.1,2 1  “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm 2  Taylor, John. “China-One Child Policy,” Foreign Correspondent. 02-08-2005. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2005/s1432717.htm
Single child families are economically efficient

The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP. This has allowed the standard of living in China for the average Chinese citizen to improve significantly since the policy was implemented. Specifically speaking, since 1978 the income of the urban population in China has increased tenfold.  Per capita housing space has also increased both in towns and in rural areas allowing Chinese people to enjoy a higher standard of living. Further, the individual savings rate has increased since the introduction of the One Child Policy. This has been partially attributed to the policy in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future. On top of this, the one child policy has also been instrumental in the eradication of poverty in China. Often, the greatest problem with poverty is that families grow to unsustainably large sizes and as such the entire family is forced to be hand to mouth. However, the one child policy prevents this from happening and as such allows for the single child to be educated properly without providing too much strain on the family. Hence, by improving educational attainment and by reducing the financial pressures bearing on poor families, the one child policy has contributed significantly to reducing poverty within China.1 1   “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm
The one child policy skews gender demographics

The Chinese authorities are getting better at preventing selective abortion of females since it was banned in 2005. Whilst the demographic changes resulting from the one child policy are regrettable, they are ultimately what the Chinese authorities are seeking from the one child policy. 40 million men who cannot marry are unlikely to have children and contribute to China’s population problems. Whilst there is harm to society from these men being unable to marry, the problem of overpopulation in China’s future which is being prevented by the one child policy outweighs this harm significantly.1 1   Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800405/#.TrhsabJVO90
The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations

The Chinese authorities outlaw forced abortions. The violations of human rights are outliers and rarely occur. When they do they are punished badly. Such violations are regrettable; however the one child policy carries a number of benefits for the vast majority of Chinese families. Since the implementation of the policy family planning in China has become significantly better and thus the overall benefit to all of China outweighs the harm that is incurred by a tiny minority of people. 1 Without population control measures, quality of life in China would decline for all citizens who must compete for limited jobs, healthcare resources, and access to social services, particularly in rural areas.2 1  Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800405/#.TrhsabJVO90 2  "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm
The one child policy is needed for population control

Interventions and contraceptive techniques such as condoms and sex education have proven to be more effective than the one child policy in aiding population control. Thailand and Indonesia for example achieved the same ends as China in reduction of their population just using these methods of birth control and family planning. Further, the benefits of one child in population control are often exaggerated. From 1970 to 1979, through education and an emphasis on having smaller families and more time between pregnancy the Chinese government was able to reduce its birth rate from 5.2 to 2.9. Population growth within China at a stable rate, which a replacement fertility level of 2.1 would bring, might actually be beneficial. The extra man power will be useful to China, it would mean that instead of having its population decline from 1. 341 billion today to 941 million by 21001 as is currently projected there would be a more stable population which would result in less problems with an aging population.2 Other critics question the assertion that the One-Child policy is effective at achieving population control in the first place. Fertility levels dropped between 1970 and 1979 due to government policies that pushed for later marriages and fewer births.3 Additionally, economic growth and social programs are likely to encourage smaller family sizes -- this phenomena has been observed in other countries without similar government policies.4 In cities and wealthier rural areas, surveys indicated that women on average wanted to have fewer than two children, which is below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per couple.5 It is difficult to isolate the One-Child policy as the primary cause of declining birth rates when other socioeconomic factors also affect families' decisions. 1   ‘China Population (thousands) Medium variant 2010-2100’, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010 revision, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm 2   “The most surprising demographic crisis.” The Economist.  05-05-2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18651512 3   Feng, Wang. "Can China Afford to Continue its One-Child Policy?" Analysis from the East-West Center. No. 77. March 2005. http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/api077.pdf 4   Engelman, Robert. "What happens if China's 'one child' is left behind?" Worldwatch Institute. 03-03-2008. http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/32162 5   The Economist. "The child in time."  10-08-2010. http://www.economist.com/node/16846390
Single child families are economically efficient

The Chinese economy may well have grown anyway; correlation is not causation. It was not the one child policy that has caused China’s incredible economic growth but the opening up of the Chinese economy to the market. Moreover the economic benefits from the one child policy do not come without costs. “An associate professor of economics at Columbia University, Lena Edlund, found that a 1% increase in the ratio of males to females equates to an increase in violent and property crime of as much as 6%, "suggesting that male sex ratios may account for 28% to 38% of the rise in crime.” Further to this, the economic benefits of the one child policy do not outweigh the harms to human rights that the one child policy causes.1 1    “One-Child Policy, Chine Crime Rise Linked by Study.” New Yorks Sun. 19-11-2007. http://www.nysun.com/business/one-child-policy-china-crime-rise-linked-by-study/66657/
The one child policy skews gender demographics

Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s. It is for these reasons that often when a Chinese family finds out that they are set to have a daughter they attempt to selectively abort it and try again for a son. This is technically illegal in China, however, this has only led to back alley abortions which often carry a much higher chance of mortality for the mother. Further, it has also led to parents abandoning female children or leaving them to starve so that they may try again with a son. In China’s rural provinces it is much more difficult for the authorities to deal with every case given the sheer number of people over such a large area and as such these crimes often go unprosecuted or punished. This process not only leads to human rights violations, as mentioned, but it also skews the gender balance of the Chinese population. Specifically, since the implementation of the policy in 1979 many men are finding there are simply no women to marry. By 2020 it is estimated there will be 40 million men unable to marry in China simply because of the lack of females.1 1   Baculino, Eric. “China Grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls.” MSNBC. 09-14-2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ns/world_news/t/china-grapples-legacy-its-missing-girls/#.TrhyCLJVO90
Russian and US economic interests conflict

No countries economic interests exactly match yet that does not lead to conflict. The European Union and United States have had several trade wars, for example over the EU giving preferential treatment for Caribbean producers of Bananas,[1] but are still close partners in NATO. The reset is having an effect in bringing Russia and the US closer together economically, Vice President Biden argues that trade between the two countries has a long way to grow and economic interests will get closer. “One way to realize the potential of that relationship is to bring Russia more fully into the international trading system. That is why we strongly support Russia’s effort to join the World Trade Organization.”[2] This would reduce and help manage any economic conflicts between both powers meaning that they will not get in the way of good relations. [1] Business:The Economy WTO approves banana sanctions, BBC News, 19/4/99, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/322938.stm accessed 6/5/11 [2] Joseph R. Biden Jr., ‘The Next Steps in the U.S.-Russia Reset’, The New York Times, 13/3/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14iht-edbiden14.html accessed 6/5/11
Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.

In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.”[1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether there should be cooperation. Military transparency, particularly on nuclear weapons is necessary. “Russia and the United States matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our interactions matters to the rest of the world. The two of us control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and our leadership can do more than anyone else’s to help secure nuclear material globally and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.”[2] This continued cooperation on nuclear issues in particular has been demonstrated with the signing of the ‘New START’ treaty on 8th April 2010. There are many other areas where cooperation between the America and Russia is vital as well. As is demonstrated by the geopolitical situation “Russia sits astride Europe, Asia and the broader Middle East – three regions whose future will shape American interests for many years to come. And in an era in which common challenges” so cooperation is necessary for the United States, but also for Russia as it would not want the US acting without its cooperation. According to Undersecretary of State Burns there are also many issues “non-proliferation, climate change, energy security, the struggle against terrorism, and many more – demand common action more than at any other period in human history, the United States and Russia have a lot more to gain by working together than by working apart.”[3] [1] Barak Obama, Obama’s Speech in Moscow, President addresses New Economic School graduation, 7/7/09, http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/July/20090707062839abretnuh3.549922e-02.html&distid=ucs#ixzz1K4z0wqG3 accessed 20/4/11 [2] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset",  Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010, http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2010/140179.htm accessed 10/4/11 [3] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset",  Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010, http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2010/140179.htm accessed 10/4/11
Shared experience of terrorism

A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans.[1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.”[2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.”[3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger. [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212 [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001 [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001, http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/text/news/2001/09/136023.shtml accessed 20/4/11
Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives.

Russia has been suspicious of most US actions fearing they are directed against Russia. This suspicion is in part born out of the cold war, Russia is much weaker than the USSR was and is worried about any US expansionism. The expansion of NATO to include former Soviet states such as Lithuania has resulted in one Russian news organisation declaring "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion."[1] The United States’ missile defence proposals have been a continuing sore in relations. In 2007 then President Putin compared the proposed siting of anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe with the Cuban Missile Crisis, “The situation is quite similar technologically for us. We have withdrawn the remains of bases from Vietnam and Cuba, but such threats are being created near our borders.”[2] It is clear from this that Russia will not be able to cooperate with many things that the United States considered to necessary. Things like NATO expansion and missile defense which the United States considers to be defensive Russia believes are aimed at Russia, either to encircle it or to negate Russia’s main strategic asset; its nuclear arsenal. [1] Russia Today "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBbq7O9w4mw&feature=player_embedded [2] President Putting quoted in Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson, ‘Missile Defence Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defences in Europe Will Not Work, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol.22, No.1, (Spring 2008), http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/22_1/special_report/001.html#_ftnref7 accessed 6/5/11
Russia’s near abroad

Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent American intervention in Central Asia therefore it was sensible to make sure it was co-opted to serve Russia’s own interests, namely to be against international terrorism, rather than being directed against Russia herself. By doing so Russia could preserve her influence in the region. As America was willing to take on the costs of maintaining the security of the region Russia could retrench and cut costs.[1] Yet Russia began to force the US out as soon as was possible, for example forcing the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan.[2] Russia has sometimes seemed to purposefully take the opposite side to the US in Eastern Europe. An example of this occurring was over the possibility of independence for Kosovo almost a decade after the conflict that forced Serbian forces out of the country. According to Charles Kupchan “on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board.”[3] [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), pp.172-174 [2] Schwirtz, Michael, ‘Kyrgyzstan Insists U.S. Base to Close’, The New York Times, 11 June 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/world/asia/12kyrgyz.html [3] Bernard Gwertzmann, ‘Interview Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’, Foreign Affairs, Dec 2007, http://www.cfr.org/kosovo/kupchan-russian-opposition-kosovo-independence-perplexing/p15093 accessed 27/4/11
Russian and US economic interests conflict

Good economic relations are possible only as long as long as The USA believes that Russia is genuinely trying hard to bring its economy into line with the Western world. Both Putin and Medvedev have emphasised that the country’s economic interests will always determine Russian foreign policy. Most particularly foreign policy has been driven by oil and natural gas. This has involved a conflict with the United States over the construction of pipelines. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) gas pipelines are specifically built to diversify European energy supplies away from dependence on Russia but were only built due to unequivocal US support.[1] Building these pipelines is directly against Russian interests. Russian economic interests include, amongst other things, close trade links with autocratic regimes, particularly in the former USSR, and exporting weapons and nuclear technology to China and Iran. In the example of Iran Russian economic interests have meant that Russia has blocked US efforts to get sanctions.[2] An area of particular conflict with the US is the Russian building of an $800million nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Similarly Russia sold Iran $1.7 billion of arms between 2002 and 2005 including anti-aircraft systems so making any potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States much more dangerous.[3] Thus, close economic cooperation between two states whose economies are driven by very different goals is improbable. [1] ‘Pipeline politics? Russia and the EU’s battle for energy’, EurActive.com, 20/8/09, http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/pipeline-politics-russia-eu-battle-energy/article-177579 accessed 6/5/11 [2] Tony Karon, ‘Iran Diplomacy: Why Russia and China Won’t Play Ball’, Time, 22/3/06, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1175573,00.html accessed 6/5/11 [3] Mark N. Katz, ‘Russian-Iranian Relations: Functional Dysfunction’, Mideast Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2009, http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0907/0907_5.htm accessed 6/5/11