BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reparations would be an effective way of righting the economic imbalance caused by colonialism. Muc...

Reparations would be an effective way of righting the economic imbalance caused by colonialism. Much of the justification for colonialism, although it may have been given other excuses, was essentially economic in nature. It concerned colonising countries identifying countries with rich natural resources or human resources, and little ability to defend themselves. They would then seek to colonise such countries as a way of providing natural resources and sometimes cheap labour for their own markets, as well as possible a market for their goods. Given that colonial powers such as Britain and France gained much of their present prosperity in this way, and that colonised countries continue to suffer economically from the legacy of colonialism, it is both appropriate and logical that the economic imbalance ought to be corrected. As the word “reparations” suggests, this is exactly what reparations would do – they would rebalance the economic relationship between the two countries in a way that sought to correct the historical wrongs.
Reparations represent a concern for the developing world independently of colonial-era wrongs. Even...

Reparations represent a concern for the developing world independently of colonial-era wrongs. Even alongside all of the colonialism-based arguments for reparations, we might argue that there are strong other justifications for reparations. The developed world in many cases recognises the dire poverty and social challenges faced by the developing world today. Yet simply giving aid as an act of charity can be embarrassing and demeaning, both for the donor and the recipient in different ways. A system of reparation can facilitate the same partial transfer of wealth from developed world to developing world, but in a way which is more sensitive to these concerns. It allows aid to be given to the developing world in a way which is dignified but not spurious.
Colonial-era activity was morally wrong and indefensible. Colonising countries justified their acti...

Payments to developing countries or others would not be actual reparations. It is possible to accept the case for historical wrongs having been committed without accepting that this creates any reasonable justification for reparations. Reparations are something that is given to a victim to correct a past wrong. Very basically, for example, if a house was firebombed, getting the arsonist to make reparations to the homeowner would allow the latter to build a new house. However, how can the term reparations be applied to colonial-era wrongs? The victims of those wrongs are long since dead. Those in favour argue that we can use modern governments or the descendants of colonial-era dwellers as a sort of proxy for those who suffered. Yet there is no precedent for doing this after such a long period. Additionally, how would one judge who these people are? Some of them now live very pampered lives in developed countries – is it justifiable to pay money to such people which has come out of tax paid by people who in some cases are less well off than them today?
Reparations would represent an important demonstration of the closing of colonial scars. Many of th...

Such reparations would be symbolic only but would do little for the developing world. The west might feel better about itself, but it might then wash its hands of Africa, believing that it had already discharged its responsibilities. Instead of a one-off act, it would be better to develop a long-term engagement between developed and developing countries (e.g. fairer trade rules, debt relief). This would allow aid to be focused on those countries most in need, whereas reparations for the past would give as much to countries such as Malaysia, South Africa and India, as to poorer states with similar colonial histories. The symbolism of reparations would also reinforce the position of dictators such as Robert Mugabe, who blame colonial powers for all the present problems affecting their countries, often as a way of shifting attention from their own failings.
There are precedents for paying reparations to states or peoples in compensation for historical wron...

Distributing any reparations would be problematical. We have already seen that there are question marks over who would be the appropriate recipients of reparations. Even if we presume that such a group could be identified, it would be very difficult to distribute the reparations effectively. Claims to reparations would likely be competing and there is very little if any documentary evidence to support such claims in many cases. The wrongs referred to are deep in history. The countries within which reparations would be made in many cases have deeply corrupt and inefficient infrastructure and yet it seems likely that only this infrastructure would serve to distribute the reparations. There would also likely be problems with disbursing cash reparations suddenly to people in some such countries where a sudden cash windfall can make one a target for banditry.
Reparations would be an effective way of righting the economic imbalance caused by colonialism. Muc...

Reparations punish today’s taxpayers, who are not implicated in colonial-era history. There is a disconnection on the benefit side, in that the reparations for wrongs inflicted on historical people go to their descendants. This is also true on the payment side of the equation. The reparations could not be funded from the direct profits of exploitation, as that was spent long ago (indeed, some historians believe countries such as Britain actually spent more on their colonial possessions than they received in return). Instead, they would need to be funded by taxation levied on today’s taxpayers in developed countries. These people had nothing to do with colonial-era wrongs and no guilt for them, and so it is wrong to burden them with the obligation of payment.
Reparations represent a concern for the developing world independently of colonial-era wrongs. Even...

Reparations are a form of neo-colonialism. For many of the reasons outlined above, it seems likely that if governments of former colonisers agreed to reparations programmes, they would do so only under certain fairly strict conditions. So they would make payments, but direct to whom, how and possibly the ways in which such payments could be used. This could clearly amount to a sort of socio-economic engineering tool. It would allow the donor government to exert some influence over policy areas within the recipient country. This has the hallmarks of the very colonialism for which the reparations are supposed to atone.
Colonial-era activity was morally wrong and indefensible. Colonising countries justified their acti...

Colonial-era activity was morally wrong and indefensible. Colonising countries justified their actions on the basis of cultural and racial superiority. This ethnocentric approach overvalued western traditions and undervalued those of the countries which were colonised. They undermined the property and social rights of the countries that were colonised and also promoted the success of military might in ordering world affairs over more peaceful resolution. These are all core elements of a colonial mindset. They are not simply a by-product of colonialism, but rather they form part of the very nature of colonial thinking. They are completely out of step with what is now regarded as appropriate or desirable behaviour in world affairs and in terms of indigenous property and social rights. Reparations would provide a meaningful act of apology for such wrongs.
Reparations would represent an important demonstration of the closing of colonial scars. Many of th...

Reparations would represent an important demonstration of the closing of colonial scars. Many of the problems that now face former colonies can be traced in part or in whole to the actions of colonial-era masters (e.g. the ethnic tensions in Rwanda and Burundi). In order to move on from the damaging legacy of that era, it is therefore necessary for former colonial powers to make some tangible show that they have closed the colonial chapter of their history and they are seeking a new, more co-operative relationship with developing countries which were their former colonies. It is also important to demonstrate that they now recognise the needs of former colonies rather than simply the economic opportunities that are offered by them. In this way, reparations would be an effective way of demonstrating a coming together across the ages.
There are precedents for paying reparations to states or peoples in compensation for historical wron...

There are precedents for paying reparations to states or peoples in compensation for historical wrongs. Germany pays an annual amount to Israel and Japan paid reparations after World War II to former colonial possessions such as Korea. More recently, Britain has paid some compensation to the Maoris of New Zealand for damage done in colonial times, and the USA has similarly compensated Native American tribes for broken treaties. Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during its invasion and occupation of 1990-91. Why shouldn't former colonies in Africa be similarly trusted to use reparations money wisely? Distribution would be complicated given the large number of countries involved as colonisers and colonies, but that is no reason not to attempt it. One suggestion for Africa has been that reparations should pay for free universal education. Another is that proper North-South and East-West railway links be constructed to improve trade within Africa.
The creation of a global parliament would end all wars. The interplay of political life would engen...

It is utopianism at its absolute worst to dream of perpetual peace being brought about by a World Parliament. It is difficult to see how the power balance of international relations will be altered. States that are big enough and powerful enough will continue to pursue aggressive and oppressive policies in defiance of resolutions demanding them to cease. They will do so because they have the material and military capacity to ignore attempted restraints on their actions. To give two examples, Tibet would not enter this Parliament as a full member but as part of China, Chechnya would still be part of Russia. What dictates whether wars are prevented is realpolitik; action is taken when it is in the interests of those states which are powerful enough to act. When war can be prevented and it is strategically useful to prevent it then action is taken (the Gulf War). But where action would involve incalculable losses and serves no immediate self-interest (Chechnya and Tibet) it will not be taken.
Currently there are several important international institutions not under the control of the United...

The current system of multilateral institutions works quite well and we should not put the strengths of these organisations at risk by ideological meddling. Not every state chooses to join the World Trade Organisation so it would not be correct to place it under UN authority. Nor would doing so make it more democratic; decisions are now taken by representatives of (generally elected) member governments on a basis of unanimity and consensus, not imposed by a distant world government by majority vote. As for the IMF and World Bank, they rely upon funding from rich nations so it is entirely appropriate that these stakeholders retain their influence upon policy-making.
Many of the most serious problems in today’s world are international, whether they are of an environ...

Many of the most serious problems in today’s world are international, whether they are of an environmental or a political nature. To attempt the solution of these problems through the negotiation of nearly 200 individual sovereign states is futile. Even if any agreement is possible (and agreement is by no means guaranteed) it will be characterised by insufficiency because of compromise between the many different power interests of the separate sovereign states. Consequently, nation-states should cede sovereignty over very important international issues so that effective action can be taken.
Nationalism is an outdated and discredited ideology. National differences are unimportant when comp...

Nationalism is an outdated and discredited ideology. National differences are unimportant when compared to the similarity of every nation’s position with respect to the environment and basic human rights and dignities. We should be prepared to address these issues from a cosmopolitan perspective; there is no peculiarly Welsh, Spanish, Swiss or Zambian perspective on the melting of the polar ice caps, human rights or the elimination of world hunger. These are universal issues that demand universal solutions.
World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal proble...

World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal problems of human rights and the environment obviously cry out for universal solutions. But gradually, we can foresee other issues such as taxation-policy, education and law and order being decided at international level. The principle behind this is that humans are fundamentally similar. Ethnicity, religion or other cultural considerations can add variety and spice to daily life but they should not be obstacles to the recognition of globally shared interests and, consequently, to the introduction of global decision making.
We live in a market world. Financial transactions and trade are conducted trans-nationally. Every ...

We live in a market world. Financial transactions and trade are conducted trans-nationally. Every state is in competition with every other state. This reality has necessitated trade-partnerships, such as NAFTA, and even movements towards social and political union, such as the European Union. The next step is to enfranchise people on a global scale. If many of the trends, transactions and phenomena that affect their lives are global, then people should have a direct say in global decision-making. There would be no better way to ensure this than by creating a Global Parliament.
The creation of a global parliament would end all wars. The interplay of political life would engen...

The creation of a global parliament would end all wars. The interplay of political life would engender and reinforce an attitude of community and shared goals. Armed conflict is anathema to such a mindset. Just as the history of consensual, shared decision-making via the parliamentary process has virtually removed violence from the menu of political action in Western liberal democracies, so would a practice of parliamentary debate and decision effect such changes on a global scale.
Currently there are several important international institutions not under the control of the United...

Currently there are several important international institutions not under the control of the United Nations, for example the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These organisations have a huge influence upon global development but are unaccountable to those they are supposed to serve and often appear to be serving the interests of a few rich nations, especially the USA. Such economic power should not remain without democratic checks and the global policy framework that the United Nations can provide.
Many of the most serious problems in today’s world are international, whether they are of an environ...

The issue of human rights is indeed universal. To that end, intergovernmental cooperation has secured the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous subsequent conventions. There are many intergovernmental conferences on human rights and other global issues such as the environment. And where agreements are not reached, or are not satisfactory, this reflects the genuine difference of interest and opinion amongst the different nation-states; it would be wrong for a global government to impose a single policy in these circumstances.
Nationalism is an outdated and discredited ideology. National differences are unimportant when comp...

Aggressive nationalism is not a necessary component of the nation-state. Many states, most notably the Scandinavian states, pursue dedicated internationalist and humanitarian policies. Using the nation-state model as the method of political organisation does not commit people to ultra-nationalism. New political models such as the European Union, NAFTA and ASEAN show the possibilities of voluntary cooperation and pooled sovereignty in particular areas without requiring a global body.
World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal proble...

World Government should not be our ideal because it is blatantly less democratic than government on the nation-state model. The smaller the political unit, the more powerful is the individual vote. Individual citizens will always have more influence over local authorities and nation-state governments than they will over putative supranational entities. We value democracy and therefore oppose World Government because it dilutes the strength of an individual’s influence over policy. Voting rights would also be impossible to arrange fairly in a global parliament. If the current one-state, one vote system was retained then a coalition of small nations would be able to impose policies upon those states with a large majority of the world’s population. If representation was on the basis of population, then China and India would often be able to act together to impose policies upon the rest of the world.
We live in a market world. Financial transactions and trade are conducted trans-nationally. Every ...

National or regional identity is a real phenomenon; people identify themselves with their neighbours. This doesn’t have to be in a cultural or shared-historical way, it can be as simple (and as telling) as shared a socio-economic position. Conflicting, vested interests will remain and will be defended. To presume otherwise is utopian dreaming. It is entirely pointless to dream about such entities as World Parliaments because powerful, prosperous nation-states simply will refuse to cede their sovereignty to such entities lest they lose any control over the maintenance of their own comfortable societies.
Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid fl...

Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.\ However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.
NGOS are better at delivering aid. Governments in those nations most in need of aid are often the l...

The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid is simply a myth. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, they are often the first to pull-out when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’ because they need to prioritise the lives of their volunteers. Major faith-based charities such as Christian Aid or Saudi educational charities, are perceived as partisan actors in African states which have tensions between Christian and Muslim populations. Most importantly, whilst groups such as the Red Cross may be able to deliver emergency aid to areas where national governments are unwelcome, typically development aid cannot be delivered to areas of civil war where projects will quickly be destroyed. Aid deliveries may even be diverted to rebel forces, and so keep conflicts alive. The kind of peace that only national governments can impose is needed before serious development can commence.
Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. The centrali...

Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. The centralization of the governmental structures which control aid distribution in many recipient countries make embezzlement relatively easy. Even linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. Recently the Netherlands has halted its $148m development aid programme to Kenya in protest at aid embezzlement in the wake of the ‘graft’ scandal there. Similarly Sao Tome’s Prime Minister was arrested for aid embezzlement in 2004. Corruption inside government means that aid is also often directed to supporters of the government when eventually spent. This is particularly likely to happen in ethnically diverse and tense nations, as has been observed in Zimbabwe under Mugabe and in the form of economic discrimination against Arab-Israelis in Israel.
Direct aid undermines local markets. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at ...

Direct aid undermines local markets. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local level, with private industry driving growth forward. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way. Government aid frequently results in the growth of large, state-owned corporations which undercut the creation of local markets, preventing the development of private enterprise. This is similar to the way long-term food aid has a hysteresis (de-skilling) effect on economies. If this is the case then giving microbanks the aid instead should create a large supply of low-cost credit which small firms can borrow to develop, furthering the creation of local markets and economic development.
Direct aid creates dependence. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no lo...

Direct aid creates dependence. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on need but on politics. The result is that the USA has consistently showed the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year, but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (ie. not that distorted by rescheduling) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately. Not only has ODA increasingly become a carrot in the war on terror, as shown by the aid provided to Pakistan for its cooperation in the stationing of US military bases, but ODA has also created dependent nations such as Micronesia where 4/5 of the population are employed in ‘aid-created’ jobs and the government receives 90% of its revenue from the USA. It encourages a culture of aid-dependency where nations such as Kenya have come to believe that aid is the only way to lift themselves out of poverty.
Direct Aid creates an international welfare trap. ODA creates an ‘incentive problem’ by making it i...

Direct Aid creates an international welfare trap. ODA creates an ‘incentive problem’ by making it in recipient government’s interest to keep their population poor in order to keep receiving aid. This is made worse by the fact that one of the primary measures of poverty is income below $1 or $2 a day (depending on the region), so governments have an incentive to channel aid to the elites whilst leaving the very poorest members of their population below this poverty line. Even if no corruption already existed, the nature of ODA means that it acts as a corrupting influence.