Universal standards of labour and business are not suited to the race for development  Developing countries are in a race to develop their economies. The prioritisation of countries that are not currently developed is different to the priorities of developed countries as a result of their circumstances and they must be allowed to temporarily push back standards of labour and business until they achieve a level playing field with the rest of the world. This is because economic development is a necessary precondition for many of the kinds of labour standards enjoyed in the west. For there to be high labour standards there clearly needs to be employment to have those standards. Undeveloped countries are reliant upon cheap, flexible, labour to work in factories to create economic growth as happened in China. In such cases the comparative advantage is through their cheap labour. If there had been high levels of government imposed labour standards and working conditions then multinational firms would never have located their factories in the country as the cost of running them would have been too high. [1] Malaysia for example has struggled to contain activity from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress to prevent their jobs moving to China [2] as the competition does not have labour standards so helping keep employment cheap. [3]  [1] Fang, Cai, and Wang, Dewen, ‘Employment growth, labour scarcity and the nature of China’s trade expansion’,  , p.145, 154  [2] Rasiah, Rajah, ‘The Competitive Impact of China on Southeast Asia’s Labor Markets’, Development Research Series, Research Center on Development and International Relations, Working Paper No.114, 2002,  P.32  [3] Bildner, Eli, ‘China’s Uneven Labor Revolution’, The Atlantic, 11 January 2013,


economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards

It is irrelevant that some western countries do not always meet the highest labour standards; does it matter that Germany does not have a national minimum wage when there are minimum wages for each sector? These are countries where one labour standard can be sacrificed because the pay and standards elsewhere are much higher.  Of course consumers should be supporting attempts to increase labour and business standards but this is hardly exclusive; there is little reason for aid donors not to be demanding high standards at the same time as consumers are.


Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. [1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem.  [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008,


business economy general house would build hyperloop

Less than $6billion seems to be suspiciously low. Some land would undoubtedly need to be purchased if only to allow for less tight corners. Added to this there would still be delays due to the need for permits for noise, light and vibration which will mean rising costs. [1] A study of 250 major transport infrastructure projects has found that 90% of come in over budget and this escalation is 45% on rail projects. [2] And it should be remembered that this is dealing with systems were we know the costs not something that is completely new. Additionally there would be costs associated with the closures of the main road routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco – though these might be moved to the people of California the cost would still be there.  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,   [2] Flyvbjerg, Bent et al., ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, vol.23, no.1, 2003, pp.71-88,  , p.85


The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap  The Hyperloop would be cheap to build. The pods themselves would only cost $1.35million each, the pressurised tube just $650million (or double if wanting vehicles), with only two stations their cost would only be $250million. The biggest cost would be the construction of the pylons carrying the tube which is estimated at $2.55 or $3.15billion. There is an estimated total cost of $4.06billion for the passenger only version or $5.31billion for the vehicle version. [1] This should be compared to the current cost for California’s high speed rail project which is estimated to be $68billion while covering much the same ground. [2]  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  pp.23, 27, 32, 28, 32  [2] Slosson, Mary, ‘California moves forward on $68 billion high-speed rail project’, Reuters, 18 July 2012,


While it seems reasonable that the cost will be low it is questionable that it will be quite as low as suggested. If the cost of construction rises – as it inevitably does – then because this is the basis for the pricing calculation the prices will surely go up. Musk is also forgetting all the extra costs that would be incurred such as the cost of airline style security measures. [1]  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,


Fastest possible transportation over a short distance  Public transportation has not been getting much faster over the last few decades. The fastest method of transport, supersonic jets in the form of Concorde ceased operation in October 2003. [1] Even if at some point a new generation of supersonic planes are built these will not be ideal for travelling between cities that are comparatively close together. The time spent getting the plane up and down from cruising altitude means they would take longer over these short distances than a slower option at ground level. The Hyperloop at more than 700mph will be twice as fast as high speed rail. To take the different options on the San Francisco-Los Angeles route cars take 5hours 30minutes, the proposed high speed train would take 2hours 38minutes, by plane takes 1hour 15minutes whereas the Hyperloop would only take 35minutes. [2]  [1] ‘End of an era for Concorde’, BBC News, 24 October 2003,   [2] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.8, 56


People are not always interested in the fastest possible option; they often want comfort as well. Trains allow riders to work or relax as well as travel the Hyperloop has little space for passengers to move around in. This means that passengers may actually be more productive on a train on which they can move around and work as they travel than they would be in a confined space on the Hyperloop.


The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user  The Hyperloop would be the cheapest mode of intercity transport possible. “Transporting 7.4million people each way and amortizing the cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for the passenger version of Hyperloop.” [1] There are very few additional costs. Usually the main cost for transportation beyond the infrastructure is the energy but the Hyperloop produces more energy than it uses so would make a profit here. There would be additional maintenance costs and some minor staff costs but this is unlikely to add too much to the ticket price. The Hyperloop would therefore be very price competitive compared to the $100 and up for flights.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.56


That there have been similar suggestions before does not mean they are not commercialisable today. The very high speed trains are an inspiration for the Hyperloop but have serious disadvantages by comparison. Because of their vacuum tube the system would be stopped at the slightest leak. [1] They are also astonishingly expensive with the cost associated with construction estimated at as high as $1trillion, the hyperloop is much more economic and therefore practical.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.3


That there will be some opposition to such a construction is inevitable. This however does not matter in a rational look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a transportation system. The politicians will ultimately decide on the same calculus as everyone else.  That the Hyperloop does not connect into infrastructure in the same way that the maglevs fail to is not a relevant argument to the United States where there are few rail services to connect into. Instead the possibility of having a Hyperloop that transport vehicles invites the prospect of connecting into the road network. A much more useful alternative in California.


Lack of capacity or room for expansion  The plans for the Hyperloop provide that “The capacity would be 840 passengers per hour which more than sufficient to transport all of the 6 million passengers traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco areas per year.” With only 28 people per capsule and a maximum of one capsule every 30 seconds there is not much room for expansion. It would seem surprising if this service only carried 6million passengers a year. The Taiwan High Speed Rail running between Taipei and Zuoying carried 41.6 million passengers in 2011 [1] considering that Taiwan has a population of 23 million compared to the combined population of the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles metropolitan areas of 26million this does not seem an unreasonable comparison. [2] Even if we assume it will not be used at all for commuting and take the Eurostar as the point of comparison the Hyperloop still has only two thirds of the capacity it would need as Eurostar’s ridership is currently approaching 10million. [3]  [1] "Table 2-8 Passenger Traffic of High-Speed Rail" . Monthly Statistics of Transportation & Communications . MOTC Department of Statistics .  [2] ‘Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Statistical Areas’, Census.gov, 2012,   [3] ‘’Strong’ 2012 for Eurostar’, Global Rail News, 25 March 2013,


If Musk won’t build it who will?  Elon Musk himself is unwilling to build his Hyperloop. He has stated “Maybe I would just do the beginning bit, create a subscale version that is operating and then hand it over to someone else. Ironing out the details at a subscale level is a tricky thing. I think I would probably end up doing that. It just won’t be immediate in the short term because I have to focus on Tesla and SpaceX execution.” [1] If the visionary for the project is having little to do with the project itself it seems unlikely that the proposal will come to anything. The Hyperloop being such a low priority for Musk is also likely to put off anyone else who might be interested in being involved.  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,


There have been similar suggestions before for intercity travel  The Hyperloop is not the first proposal to use tubes with low – or no – pressure in them. A very high speed train was proposed by Robert M. Salter in 1972. This as a train running in a vacuum would have gone substantially faster than anything that is currently being proposed travelling at around 3000 mph. [1]  Nor is this the first proposal for a pneumatic transport system; such trains were around in the 19th century. They were first proposed as far back as 1812 [2] and several short demonstration tracks were constructed such as the Beach Pneumatic Transit in New York which opened in 1870. [3] Such idea has not got off the ground in the past and there seems no reason why they should now when the basic technology is pretty much the same.  [1] Salter, Robert M., ‘The Very High Speed Transit System’, RAND Corporation, 1972,   [2] Medhurst, George, ‘Calculations and Remarks, Tending to Prove the Practicability, Effects and Advantages of a Plan for the Rapid Conveyance of Goods and Passengers: Upon an Iron Road Through a Tube of 30 Feet in Area, by the Power and Velocity of Air’, D.N. Shury, 1812,   [3] Mihm, Stephen, ‘New York Had a Hyperloop First, Elon Musk’, Bloomberg, 14 August 2013,


It will never work  The plan for the Hyperloop is sound technically but would it work politically? It is unlikely that the California high speed rail project will be scrapped simply because there is a new competitor on the block. The Hyperloop has the advantage of being cheap but it is cheap because it is being built in the middle of an existing highway, the interstate-5. Building the Hyperloop would therefore cause traffic chaos so there would not be much political support. [1] Build it elsewhere and land would need to be bought just as with proposals for high speed rail.  Maglevs are, like the Hyperloop, practically sound – one travels from Shanghai Airport into the center of the city [2] – but they have not been built. High speed trains, despite being slower, have been the preferred method for creating high speed transportation systems because they can easily connect into the existing rail infrastructure, a problem for both the Hyperloop and maglevs.  [1] Yarow, Jay, ’41 Years Ago, A Scientist Explained Why Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is Doomed’, Business Insider, 12 August 2013,   [2] Kidman, Alex, ‘Shanghai’s Maglev Train: Astonishingly Fast… and a little dull’, Gizmo, 12 September 2011,


Even if Elon is not currently willing to lead the project himself he is willing to both build a demonstration prototype to prove the technology and to invest money in the development himself. [1]  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,


It is very unlikely that the Hyperloop would quickly reach its capacity. Currently the number of people travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco by plane only number 2.8million so there would clearly be plenty of room for expansion. [1]  [1] Amin, Saurabh, ‘Ride the Hyperloop before decade’s end?’, CNN, 13 August 2013,


business economic policy africa house believes tunisia should not rely tourism

Even an all inclusive package holiday benefits the economy through buying local products and hiring staff locally. To get beyond the lower end of the market Tunisia is diversifying its tourism for more profitable gains through cultural activities which can be charged separately to board and lodging.  Cultural tourism equates to around 37% of worldwide tourism1 and Tunisia is beginning to further embrace this aspect. The set of the fictional planet of Tatooine from the Star Wars films is a popular destination for tourists, although this is now threatened by sand dunes2. There are other notable locations which are not threatened however. The ancient city of Carthage, excavated in the mid-19th century, the world heritage site of Kairouan, and the Saharan desert are prominent destinations for cultural tourism. The growth of this sub-sector could incur more profitable gains.


Profit margins are too small  A major problem for Tunisia’s tourism sector is the small profit margin. The industry’s main targets are European, middle class income visitors on package holidays to sea-side resorts. This has resulted in a low per-capita spending rate as food, drink and travel are all usually included in sea-side holiday resorts. Average per-capita spending for tourists in Tunisia amounted to around $385 in 2012 which is low when compared to Egypt’s $890 and Greece’s $10001. This reliance on a low-profit niche in the tourism industry is a systematic flaw which will not provide the economic growth which the country needs.  1) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012


The majority of modern economic industries have to face overseas competition. Tunisia, like its North African neighbours, was convinced in the 1990s to emplace neo-liberal reforms in return for increased lending from the World Bank and other lenders. These reforms, based on the free market principles, ensured that protectionism ended and domestic industries had to compete against other international actors. Sectors such as agriculture have become increasingly threatened by overseas competition since the 1990s1. The disparity between rich and poor created by the reforms has been listed as one of the major factors for the Jasmine revolution2.  1) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’, New Medit, vol.3 no.2, 2004 pg.5  2) Nazemroaya,M. ‘Dictatorship, and Neo-Liberalism: The Tunisian People’s Uprising’, 19 January 2011


Vulnerable to unrest  Relying on tourism ensures that the economy is at the mercy of unrest. The violence and break down in law and order following the Tunisian revolution resulted in a notable decrease in tourists as tourists were unwilling to visit an area which they view as dangerous. This is demonstrated by the footfall of tourists which declined from 6,487,000 in 2010 to 4,456,000 in 2011 1. The increase in attacks by Salafists, a conservative sect of Islam which promotes Sharia law and has attacked tourist destinations, has dissuaded many potential visitors2. This has been exacerbated by government travel information which generally advises against visiting regions during periods of unrest, especially for Westerners who are perceived as profitable targets for ransom3. The resultant decrease in tourists reduces revenue, making tourism an unreliable industry for Tunisia.  1) African Manager, ‘Tunisia-Tourism: Clear Improvement, but a timid pace!’, data accessed 24 January 2014  2) Whewell,T. ‘Justice kiosk: Tunisia’s alternative law enforces’, BBC, 30 July 2013  3) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ‘Kidnapping threat worldwide’


The long term affects that instability have on industries such as tourism is overstated. Since the Tunisian revolution, there has been a continued effort by Salafists to attack tourist destinations. However, tourism has recovered from the low point of 2011. In the first ten months of 2013 Tunisia attracted 5.5 million tourists, increasing by 5.7% over 20121. The continued growth of the sector demonstrates that the impact which instability has is exaggerated. Besides instability would equally affect other industries; closing factories, damaging perceptions of an ability to complete orders etc.  1) Reuters, ‘Tunisia tourism up by 5.7 pct in first 10-months of 2013’


Environmental damage caused by alternative sectors is far worse. Pollution in the industrial sector has become much more evident since the removal of Ben Ali’s regime. 13,000 tonnes of industrial pollution are released from the Gulf of Gabes every year, causing high rates of infertility, miscarriages and deaths1. This is a common theme amongst Tunisia’s industrial areas and is far more destructive than tourist activities.  1) Addala,R. & McNeil, ‘Pollution in Gabes, Tunisia’s shore of death’, Al-Jazeera, 14 June 2013


Overseas competition  Tunisia’s tourism industry is at risk from overseas competition. International tourism is a very competitive market, relying on the industry is therefore an illogical policy. Tunisia is already being undercut on prices by other countries despite its low fees. Morocco, Spain and Turkey can afford to charge a lower price for package tours than Tunisia due to better air transportation links1. Even before the Jasmine revolution, Tunisia was starting to lose ground to these countries. The ten years before the removal of Ben Ali saw the number of tourists to Tunisia rise from five to seven million, whilst Morocco rose from five to nine million2. Outside of the Mediterranean, Tunisia must compete with popular tourist destinations such as the Far East, North America and Australasia.  1) African Manager, ‘Tunisia-Tourism: Clear Improvement, but a timid pace!’, data accessed 24 January 2014  2) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012


Tourism causes pollution  The tourism industry in Tunisia results in notable damage to the environment. Without sustainability, economic growth will only last in the short term. This is especially pertinent for tourism, where environmental beauty is of particular importance. From the construction of infrastructure and travel, to the general waste produced, tourism is problematic in the sense that it can often cause pollution; which in turn damages the country’s reputation1. Most tourists to the region are from Europe, although there are an increasing number of Russians which means travel becomes a major source of pollution. A return journey via plane from London to Tunis creates around 310 kg of CO2 (standard passenger jets create around 0.17kg of CO2 per km) 2. This is disproportionately damaging compared to other vehicles, but is the most practical way of reaching Tunisia. Other impacts such as overuse of water, land degradation and littering can all cause problems as well3.  1) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Environmental Impacts’ data accessed 28 January 2014  2) BBC, ‘Pollution warning on holiday flights’, 1 May 2000  3) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Tourism’s Three Main Impact Areas’ data accessed 28 January 2014


The potential for growth within other sectors of Tunisia’s economy is far greater than that of tourism, if invested in properly. The energy sector has been highlighted as a potential avenue for development, as energy efficiency projects would provide employment and a lower cost of production in the industrial sector1. At present, the industrial sector’s low profits are the product of high-energy costs due to energy imports. Sustainable energy production in Tunisia through projects such as solar panels would help increase profit margins.  Research and development in industry and agriculture also has the potential to increase profits and employment. At present there are few private R&D departments in comparison to those in the public sector, but it provides another avenue for greater technical efficiency in other areas which could then create a higher revenue2.  1) World Bank, ‘Energy Efficiency in Tunisia: Promoting Industry While Protecting the Environment’, 23 May 2013  2) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’ pg.7


While the sector does provide employment, there is a regional and gender disparity. The number of women employed by the generally female friendly industry is below the national average. Only 22.5% of those employed in tourism are female, while the national average is 25.6%1, demonstrating a clear under-representation. Regional disparity also exists between coastal and inland regions. Years of coastal-focused economic growth has resulted in an underdeveloped interior region with few jobs in the tourism sector2.  1) Kärkkäinen,O. ‘Women and work in Tunisia’, European Training Foundation, November 2010  2) Joyce,R. ‘The Regional Inequality Behind Tunisia’s Revolution’, Atlantic Council, 17 December 2013


Investment  Tourism should be relied upon for economic growth as it attracts significant foreign investment. Tourism is the largest form of foreign currency income, with around £728 million being produced by external visitors in 20121. Attracting Europeans, who have relatively large disposable incomes, has been a prominent tactic of the industry with favourable results. It is estimated that Europeans account for 95% of all overnight stays in Tunisia2. The other major sectors of services and agriculture do not inspire foreign investment of this magnitude.  1) Khalifa,A. ‘Foreign direct investment and tourism receipts pick back up in Tunisia’, Global Arab Network, 7 October 2012  2) Choyakh,H. ‘Modelling Tourism Demand in Tunisia Using Cointegration and Error Correction Models’ pg.71


Other industries are less reliable  Other sectors, such as agriculture and the industrial sectors, have proven to be unreliable as well. Tunisia’s agriculture sector is the largest employer in the country and has received significant investment since the 1980s. Despite this, the sector performed poorly between 1985-2000 and was costly to the Tunisian economy; ensuring low returns and importation of food to meet domestic demand1. The industrial sector also demonstrated itself to be vulnerable in the 2008 economic recession. In addition, the low value of produced goods creates little opportunity for lucrative profits2. The flaws of these sectors make them unviable as alternatives to tourism.  1) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’ pg.7  2) Elj,M. ‘Innovation in Tunisia: Empirical Analysis for Industrial Sector’ 2012


Produces Employment  Tourism is the second largest employer in the country. The industry produces over 400,000 jobs for Tunisians1. This employment figure is vital to Tunisia which has a large number of students in higher-education, around 346,000 in 2010, and a consequentially high expectation of employment2. Tourism also has a positive effect on other linked industries such as transport, creating jobs in these sectors as well. This creation of employment allows more people to sufficiently contribute to society through taxes and the purchasing of goods through their wages. This, in turn, produces economic growth and should therefore be encouraged.  1) Padmore,R. ‘Tunisia tourism industry looks to rebuild’, BBC, 22nd August 2013  2) Global Edge, ‘Tunisia: Economy’, data accessed 27 January 2014


The prominence of foreign investment in tourism has decreased since Ben Ali’s fall. Prior to the Jasmine revolution, financial actors who were close to the ruling regime were encouraged to invest and given a privileged position. Once the regime was removed, so were the favourable conditions1. Reliance on Europe for tourists, and the foreign investment that accompanies them, has also proven to be unwise. Since the 2008 economic crisis, many potential European tourists have been out of work, or have reduced disposable incomes at the very least, which has decreased the flow of tourists and financial investment2.  1) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012  2) Padmore,R. ‘Tunisia tourism industry looks to rebuild’ , BBC, 22nd August 2013


economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should

People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities.  [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt


Restrictions on migration would benefit people in the cities economically and socially  Cities are very appealing to poor people. Even if their living standards in cities might be unacceptable, they get closer to basic goods, such as fresh water, sanitation etc. However, these things exist because there are productive people in the cities who work and pay taxes. What happens when too many people come at the same time is that public money is stretched too thinly and these basic goods can no longer be provided. This leads to severe humanitarian problems such as malnutrition, thirst, lack of medication, etc.  However, this humanitarian crisis does not only harm those directly affected, it also creates an unattractive environment for business. Thus, people who enter the city cannot find work, as production does not grow in relation to the people who enter. They become excluded from society and often turn to crime, which further erodes the economy. [1]  Limiting migration to reasonable levels give the cities a chance to develop progressively and become the kind of places that people in rural areas currently believe them to be.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.


The argument is based on the idea that there is a lot of investment that is just waiting to be made in rural areas. In reality, this is not so. Until there are real investors who are prepared to change the conditions of rural areas in developing countries, it is morally bankrupt to force people to remain in an untenable situation as marketing material for hypothetical investment.


The government has a right to make decisions in the best interest of the people  Man is a social being. Therefore people live in communities where decisions that affect the many, are taken by representatives of the many. Thus, a social contract exists between the people and their government. [1] In exchange for part of their autonomy and freedom, the government ensures that policies are made in the best interest of people, even if this might come at the expense of short-term interests for some individuals. This is a typical example of this kind of case. The trend is emptying the countryside, stopping the production of agricultural goods and hollowing the amenities provided by the cities. Even if each individual has a personal incentive to move to the cities, the harm to the cities is greater than their accumulated individual gains. It is in these cases that the state must act to protect its people and ensure long term benefits.  [1] D'Agostino, Fred, Gaus, Gerald and Thrasher, John, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),


The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.


The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.


Restrictions would benefit rural areas  Unlimited rural-urban migration erodes the economy of the cities, as shown in the previous argument, and limits their economic growth and available resources. On a national level, this causes decision makers to prioritise the cities, as the country relies more on urban than rural areas, thus preventing them from investing in the country-side. [1] China is a good example of this where urban privilege has become entrenched with ‘special economic zones’ being created in urban areas (though sometimes built from scratch in rural areas) with money being poured into infrastructure for the urban areas which as a result have rapidly modernised leaving rural areas behind. This leads to a whole culture of divisions where urbanites consider those from rural areas to be backward and less civilized. [2]  Moreover, there will be little other reason to invest in rural areas, as the workforce in those areas has left for the cities. By preserving resources in the cities and keeping the workforce in the rural areas, it becomes possible to invest in rural communities and change their lives for the better as these areas maintain the balanced workforce necessary to attract investors.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Whyte, Martin King, “Social Change and the Urban-Rural Divide in China”, China in the 21st Century, June 2007,  p.54


Poor, uneducated people are lured into cities  The cause of rural-urban migration in developing nations and the main reason why it becomes problematic is that people who move to the cities are not making informed decisions. They are led to believe that the cities contain opportunities that they cannot find where they live, and there are no mechanisms such as efficient media or adequate education to eradicate this misconception. [1] Myths can be easily propagated by a single successful migrant returning home to visit that then attracts many others to try their luck without any knowledge of the possible costs. [2] This is exacerbated by unscrupulous organisations that prey on their desperation to take all their money to organise their move to the city. Some of those who are trafficked find themselves brought to the city and exploited through forced labour, begging, or even prostitution. [3] Many of those who move to cities find themselves in a worse situation but have lost any moving power they originally had and are thus trapped.  [1] Zhan, Shaohua. “What Determines Migrant Workers' Life Chances in Contemporary China? Hukou, Social Exclusion, and the Market.” 243, 2011, Vol. 37.  [2] Waibel, Hermann, and Schmidt, Erich, “Urban-rural relations”, in Feeding Asian Cities: Food Production and Processing Issues, FAO, November 2000,   [3] “UNIAP Vietnam”, United Nations Inter Agency Project on Human Trafficking, accessed March 2013,


This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.


Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’


It is practically impossible to control people's movement  One of the major problems with the proposal lies in the very fact that we are indeed dealing with developing nations. These nations have very limited capacity to manage this kind of system. What will happen instead, will be a state of confusion, where the law will be upheld in some parts while ignored in others. The case in China clearly shows that corruption follows in the wake of this kind of legislation, where urban Hukous are sold illegally or officials are frequently bribed to ignore the law. [1]  Furthermore, it only causes those who choose to move to the cities, in spite of the law, to be alienated from society and live a life outside of the law. Once outside of the law, the step to other crimes is very small as these people have little to lose. [2] In short, the law will only work in some cases and where it works it will lead to increased segregation and more crime.  [1] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.  [2] Wu. s.l., and Treiman, The Household Registration System and Social Stratification in China: 1955-1996. Springer, 2004, Demography, Vol. 2.


Restrictions cause an incredible loss of potential  One of the best things about a functioning developed nation is that young people can choose their profession. Apart from this being beneficial for the individual, this means that the best suited person for a given trade will often be the same that pursues it. If we prevent people from moving freely we deprive the cities of talented people whose talents and skills are much better suited for urban professions than for rural jobs. In short, this policy would make farmers out of the potential lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers etc. Indeed this is the whole basis of most models of migration, people leave rural areas because there is surplus labour in that area while the cities needs new workers. [1]  [1] Taylor, J. Edward, and Martin, Philip L., “Human Capital: Migration and Rural Population Change”, Handbook of Agricultural Economics,


Rural life is miserable and has higher mortality rates than cities  This planet does not find worse living standards anywhere than in the rural areas of developing countries. These are the areas where famine, child mortality and diseases (such as AIDS) plague the people. [1] China’s Hukou system has condemned millions of people to premature death by locking them in areas that never will develop. [2] While the cities enjoy the benefits of 12% growth, the villages are as poor and deprived as ever. [3] It is a poorly concealed policy aimed at maintaining a gaping social cleavage and allowing the rich to remain rich.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Dikötter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine. London : Walker & Company, 2010. 0802777686.  [3] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.


Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right  Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those.  [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948,


While factually true for developed nations, this point completely disregards the reality of developing nations. Most of the labour that is available is unskilled, whether it is in the rural or urban communities. There is little reason to believe that the poor will automatically be able to gain better education should they move to the city. The harm caused by letting migrants flood the cities to lead a miserable life greatly outweighs that of having one or two too intelligent farmers who miss out on their calling.


No amount of confusion can compare with the nearly anarchical state of places like Nairobi, where there is no law and very little state. [1] In the current situation where there is a menacing trend that threatens the very fabric of society, even if the law would not work to its full effect, it is better for it to work partially than not to have it at all. Corruption is a separate issue that already festers in these regions under the status quo and does not need this extra policy to thrive. This must be dealt with separately, but it is indeed regrettable if a good policy is kept from being put into practice from fear of a phenomenon that is in no manner causally contingent upon the policy.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.


business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best

In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution.  There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections [1] .  An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work.  Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors.  [1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007


Dictatorships assure low cost political stability  Due to the lack of rotation in office, a dictatorship allows for a more stable government with more ability to plan for the long term, which is crucial for attracting foreign investment.  Given that a democracy requires regular elections, each election can change the economic environment of a country. A change in government may lead to a switch in policies, partisan appointments to government bodies, and a medium term focus always set on the next election.  Close elections can lead to disorder as votes are recounted and appeals lodged in the courts. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, tight results lead to popular unrest and mass protests calling for a recount. The president elect had to deal with a large legislative faction that did not recognise him, and his opponent refused to concede defeat. [1] Without a stable framework, the lack of foreign confidence may impede development. The countries that have developed rapidly have tended to be those that have managed to attract this foreign direct investment thus in 2012 China managed to get $243 billion of FDI (18% of the total) against only $175 billion for the United States which is still a much bigger economy. [2]  Additionally the resources needed to operate a democratic society and run elections are a large expense for the state and society as a whole; the US presidential election costs $6bn, [3] money which would be much better spent investing in building infrastructure or businesses.  [1] See for example the case of Mexico’s 2006 elections. ‘Mass protest over Mexico election’, BBC News, 9 July 2006,  ‘Fracas mars Mexico inauguration’, BBC News, 2 December 2006,   [2] OECD, ‘FDI in Figures’, April 2013,   [3] Hebblethwaite, Cordelia, ‘US election: How can it cost $6bn?’, BBC News, 2 August 2012,


Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government.  If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions.  According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government” [1] .  [1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546


Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.  Dictatorships are superior to democracies in that they can make decisions and implement policies quicker. They can easily modify institutional and legal frameworks towards development goals, as there is no need for a political consensus behind their actions. This also insulates government from special interests that must be reconciled with in democracies. This allows dictatorships to create a pro-investment legal, economic and institutional framework such as low taxes, exchange rate manipulations and import tariffs, without facing political opposition.  For example, fracking, a technique used to extract hard to obtain gas, has generated widespread opposition in the West, leading to it being banned in France [1] . An autocratic government would find it easier to allow cheap access to this energy, boosting industry, as it could disregard this opposition.  Dictatorships can also control resources to allow for better health and education services, by determining curricula, salaries and supplies. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with more doctors per capita than much of the Western world [2] , and in 2009 Shanghai came first in the PISA test [3] .  [1] Castelvecchi, Davide, ‘France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking’, Scientific American, 30 June 2011,   [2] The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013,   [3] Brouwer, Steve, ‘The Cuban Revolutionary Doctor: The Ultimate Weapon of Solidarity’, Monthly Review, Vol.60 No.8, January 2009,


This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption.  Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used "a primitive manual vacuum" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.” [1]  [1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010,


Dictatorships can prevent social unrest  Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable.  Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies.  Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment.  [1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358  [2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64


Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies.


Development is about more than economic growth  Amartya Sen has argued that “the removal of substantial unfreedoms […] is constitutive of development [in so far as give people] the opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency [1] ”. In a broader sense, democracy is necessary for a developed society because a precondition of a developed society is for that society to be able to decide for itself what its objectives are. It is society as a whole that needs to define what it considers to be development. The Myanmar under the junta may have considered its goals to be a strong military showing that Burma was developed. But without the citizenry agreeing this would not make Burma a strong state. Quite the opposite the lack of freedoms would show the country is not actually developed. Development means more than economic growth, it has to include other indicators as in the Human Development Index, but also things that are not even captured by that measurement such as freedom of speech.  Economic growth and GDP are even worse at demonstrating which countries are developed. Development only occurs when the wealth, and the choices it brings, reaches the people which is why Equatorial Guinea is not a developed nation despite its high income. Even in the economic realm therefore it is not just the absolute growth that matters but how it is distributed. Przeworski and Limongi show that from 1951-1990 dictatorships had higher growth rates than democracies (4.42% against 3.95%) yet the growth rate in GDP per capita was higher in democracies (2.46% against 2%). [2]  [1] Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxfor University Press. p. xii  [2] Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi, 1997a; in M. ANTIĆ: “Democracy versus Dictatorship: The Influence of Political Regime on GDP Per Capita Growth”. EKONOMSKI PREGLED, 55 (9-10) pp. 773-803 (2004)


Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth  In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] .  Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour.  It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely.  [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press,   [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.


Political regime has a limited impact on development  It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1]  Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership.  [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org,


Democracy acts in the interest of the general population, which is good for development  It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1]  Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership.  [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org,


Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies [1] . These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions.  [1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013.


Certain economic standards have to be met to genuinely satisfy individual autonomy and freedom. If economic growth is a necessity for democracy, dictatorships are better at gaining the required growth. If dictatorships grow faster while not redistributing wealth then at least there will be more wealth to redistribute when the state does eventually start to do so. It might therefore be considered once again that it is the autocratic state that sets the conditions for democracies to take over and increase development in the non-economic areas.


global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders

Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian state created through Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders arguably, would do. Moreover, it is possible for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, as it has offered to do in the past, while keeping some strategically essential land. This would allow for Palestinian self-determination whilst falling short of falling back totally to the 1967 borders.


Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.  The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own. [1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation. [2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”. [3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.” [4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007.  [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010.


Simply withdrawing to its 1967 borders would not end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians long pre-dates the 1967 war. The 1967 war itself was caused by the fact that even an Israel within its 1967 borders was hated by neighbouring states for existing. [1] Palestinian support for two-state solution, even one where Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements. [2] Regarding Hamas, the reason it speaks only of “long term truces” with Israel and not peace is because it only wishes to make a deal allowing it to grow strong enough to eventually destroy the Israeli state, not to make permanent peace. [3] It is also naïve to think that an Israeli state existing within its 1967 borders would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and any form of Israeli state is a threat to this. Iran has a history of supporting violent Islamist terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. [4] The political futures of Syria and Egypt are also uncertain, due to the unrest of the 2011 'Arab Spring', and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that both could come under the sway of Islamist groups seek Israel's total destruction.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] The Reut Institute. “The Trend of Palestinian and Arab Inversion towards the Two State Solution”. The Reut Institute.1 May 2008.   [3] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009.   [4] Los Angeles Times. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. 7 May 2009


Israel has no right to the occupied territories.  Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004.   [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005.   [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.


Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict. [1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century. [2] Why are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007


Returning to the 1967 borders would bring peace to Israel.  If Israel were to withdraw to its 1967 borders, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise Israel as legitimate within its remaining territories and end the conflict. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour... Any formulation [presented to us] – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders ” added Rabbo. [1] Even Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the more extreme Hamas organisation, has said Hamas will accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and will offer Israel a “long term truce” if it withdraws accordingly. [2] Significant international support for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders also exists, even from states with a history of hostility with Israel such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have made such a withdrawal a precondition of peace and recognition talks with Israel. [3] [4] Even then-Israeli Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert acknowledged in 2008 that “almost all” of the territory seized during the Six-Day War in 1967 will have to be given back to the Palestinians return for peace. [5] Therefore Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders as this would bring peace and security to Israel by ending the conflict with the Palestinians and neighbouring states.  [1] Haaretz. “PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 13 October 2010.   [2] Amira Hass News Agencies, Haaretz. “willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 9 November 2008.   [3] Al-Quds. “Ahmadinezhad and the Implications of the Two-State Solution”. Pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 29 April 2009  [4] UPI.com. “Saudi to Israel: Return to 1967 borders”. UPI.com. 5 November 2010.   [5] MacIntyre, Donald. “Israel will have to reinstate pre-1967 border for peace deal, Olmert admits”. The Independent. 30 Septemebr 2008.


Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people.


Israel won the 1967 war, demonstrating that despite a major coordinated Arab attack on Israel, it could defend its pre-1967 borders adequately. [1] This puts the lie to the central argument that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. They defended them before under extremely hostile conditions; they can defend them again now under less conventionally threatening conditions, with a greater conventional military capacity to wage a defence, and with the unwavering support of the United States.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.


Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely.  The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009: “A return to the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, would bring the conflict into Israel's borders. Establishing a Palestinian state will not bring an end to the conflict.” [1] This is why the American ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1967 war pointed out that “Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure”, and American President Lyndon Johnson, shortly after the war, declared that Israel's return to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Johnson advocated new 'recognized boundaries' that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war.” [2] An Israel that withdrew completely to the 1967 borders would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centres and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. This would hurt Israel's ability to deter future attacks and thus make conflict in the region even more likely. This ability of Israel to deter aggressors is particularly important not only due to the region's history of aggression against Israel, but also due to the unpredictable future events in the highly volatile Middle East. There is no way, for example, to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria), nor that a Jordan's Palestinian majority might seize power in the state (leaving Israel to defend itself against a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya), nor that in the future, militant Islamic elements will not succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime. [3]  Given its narrow geographical dimensions, a future attack launched from the pre-1967 borders against Israel's nine-mile-wide waist could easily split the country in two. Especially seeing as Islamic militants throughout the Middle East are unlikely to be reconciled to Israel even by a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, such a withdrawal therefore would actually make peace in the region less likely and encourage war against Israel. [4]  [1] Lazaroff, Tovah. “Lieberman warns against '67 borders”. Jerusalem Post. 27 November 2009.   [2] Levin, Kenneth. “Peace Now: A 30-Year Fraud”. FrontPageMag.com. 5 September 2008.   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.   [4] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009.


Many Israelis now live in the occupied territories.  Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories. [1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land. [2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders.  [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009.   [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009.


Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security  Israel has been the victim of multiple major illegal wars of aggression on the part of the Arab world, most notably in 1948 and 1967. These wars invalidate any special claim made by Arabs and Palestinians to pre-1967 territory, and justify Israel in keeping as much territory as is necessary to secure itself against these hostile states. Israel could have gone much further and taken more territory than it did in 1967 (as it was easily winning the war), but instead it restricted itself to only taking the territory that was necessary for it to create security buffer. [1] When peace deals have allowed Israel to improve its security through giving up land historically, it has done so, for example when it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1982 in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, or when Israel returned the small swath of Jordanian territory it held when King Hussain of Jordan wanted to make peace. To date, Israel has withdrawn from approximately 93 percent of the territories it captured. In return for peace with Syria and an end to Palestinian terror, it is prepared to withdraw from most of the remaining 7% in dispute, although not all. Israel remains committed to trading land for peace, and never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip because it expected to return part of these territories in negotiations. When the Palestinians finally declared that they would recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, Israel agreed to begin to withdraw. Since 1993, Israel has turned over approximately 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, Israel's objection is not so much against returning any of the land captured in 1967, but against returning absolutely all of it and going back completely to the 1967 borders, as this would mean giving up territories vital for Israel's security. The minimal slivers of territory that Israel it seeks to maintain through a peace settlement (after returning 90% of the pre-1967 territory), is very important to its national security as it offers a buffer against future Arab wars of aggression. This why Ehud Olmert stressed that only most of the occupied territory could be returned. He still argued that some had to be kept for security reasons: “We can never totally return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, ... We simply cannot afford to make Israel [9 miles] wide again at its center. We can't allow the Palestinians to be a couple [miles] from [Tel Aviv's] Ben Gurion Airport in the age of shoulder-fire missiles with the capacity to shoot down jumbo jets.” [2] Moreover, Israel is in an anomalous situation: It is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was nothing less than Israel's eradication. The Israel Defense Forces could not afford to miscalculate. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied, and nonetheless have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel, in contrast, cannot depend on obtaining a second chance. Miscalculation on its part could have had devastating consequences and, thus, its situation is unique. [3] For this critical purpose of national survival, therefore, the annexed land serves a legally legitimate purpose, especially considering that the Arab wars of aggression were what caused the annexation of the land in the first place. In such circumstances, a nation that won a defensive war has a right to set terms to ensure against future wars of aggression.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.  [2] Thinkexist.com. “Ehud Olmert Quotes”. Thinkexist.com   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.


The Middle East, and the world more generally, is a far different place than it was in 1967. There is a significantly smaller risk that Arab states will gang up in a conventional war against Israel. This owes significantly to the fact that Israel is much more powerful militarily, Arab states are less powerful relatively, and the military alliances and dynamics in the region tend to favour Israel more. All of this means that maintaining a buffer in Israel, with the post-1967 borders, for the sake of defending against a collective Arab assault is highly unreasonable. Israel does not need this buffer. It can return to its pre-1967 borders.


ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would

Migration results from poverty; poverty will not be solved through migration. Migration is a survival strategy - therefore development initiatives are required first for poverty to be reduced. Three points need to be raised. First, patterns of migration showcase the prevalence of a 'brain drain' [1] across Africa, and inputting a free labour market will continue to attract skilled migrants to desired locations. Research by Docquier and Marfouk (2004) indicates Eastern and Western Africa accounted for some of the highest rates of brain drain; with rates increasing over the past decade . Rather than promoting free movement African nations need to invest in infrastructure, health and education, to keep hold of skilled professionals.  Second, the extent to which remittances are ‘developmental’ are debatable. Questions emerge when we consider who can access the money transferred (gender relations are key) and therefore decide how it is used; the cost, and security, of transfer.  Lastly, migration is not simply ‘developmental’ when we consider social complexities. Research has identified how increased mobility presents risks for health, particularly with regards to the HIV/AIDS epidemic [2] . Therefore migrating for jobs may put the migrant, or their partner, at risk of HIV/AIDS.  Migration cannot resolve poverty disparities across Africa. Poverty disparities, both spatial and social, reflect the unequal, growing, gap between the rich and the poor. Neither economic growth, or migration, will reduce poverty in the face of inequality.  [1] ‘Brain drain’ is defined as the loss of high-skilled, and trained, professionals in the process of migration.  [2] See further readings: Deane et al, 2012.


Migration is 'developmental'.  Recent reports by the HDR (2009) and WDR (2009) have shown migration is a means of development – free movement has the power to alleviate poverty, enable markets, and connectivity. Taking recent evidence concerning worldwide remittance flows, the developmental nature of free movement is shown.  In 2013, it is estimated, through international migration, $414bn were remitted back to developing countries [1] . Remittance flows into Africa (from within and internationally) accounted for $40bn in 2010, accounting for an increasing percentage of GDP (AfDB, 2013; IFAD, 2013). Northern Africa articulated the largest total of remittances received. Remittances remain beneficial for supporting livelihoods. The influx of remittances to households provides security, an additional income for support, enables household consumption, and investment in alternative assets, such as education and land, of which present crucial benefits in reducing poverty. Although the geography of remittances remains uneven, and currently barriers remain to sending and receiving money, the developmental potential of remittances from African diasporas (both outside and within Africa) is now recognised [2] .  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] For additional information on the debate of migration, remittances and social development see further readings: De Haas, 2010.


A unified labour market will not be achieve if root issues remain unresolved.  Within East Africa, the construction of an East African Community has been met with political tensions. The recent evictions of nearly 7,000 Rwandan refugees from Tanzania indicate the idea of free movement does not provide a sufficient basis for unity [1] . Despite regional agreements for free movement, political tensions, the construction of ethnicity and illegality meant forced deportation was carried out by Tanzanian officials. Political hostilities amongst heads of government is continuing to divide the nations within East Africa.  Further, cases of xenophobia remain prevalent across Southern Africa. Frequently reported cases of xenophobic attacks on foreign nationals - including nationals from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi [2] - indicate the inherent tensions of migration when jobs remain scarce and poverty high. Dangers occur in advocating a free labour market when the perception of migration is misunderstood, and/or politically altered.  [1] See further readings: BBC News, 2013.  [2] See further readings: IRINa.


The freedom to move is a human right.  Mobility is a human right - which needs to be enabled across national spaces and Africa. Obstacles need to be removed. Mobility enables access to interconnected rights - such as ensuring women their right to move enables empowerment in the political, social and economic spheres.  Taking the case of migration of young people, the process reflects a right of passage, a means of exploring opportunities and identity.For example the Mourides of Senegal have established a dense network sustaining informal trading across multiple scales based on a foundation of ‘Brotherhood’ youths leaving rural areas become integrated into dynamic social networks and educated within the Mouride culture. As research in Tanzania shows although migration is not a priority for all youths, many identify the opportunity as a time to prove yourself and establish your transition into adulthood. The process empowers human identity and rights.


Free movement will provide benefits for productivity.  A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets.  Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] .  [1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU.


The benefits of a free labour market are merely based on an idealistic reality. The CMP has only existed for three years so it is impossible to draw any conclusions. When looking at whether migration enhances productivity questions need to be raised. First, what jobs are provided in the new destination? Are the jobs safe and secure, or within informal employment? Second, where is productivity actually encouraged? Is the distribution occurring across an even geography; and assisting the poor? As yet there are no answers.


The reality of achieving free labour movement is not as simple as it may seem in practice. Contradictions have emerged in the laws implemented by national governments, such as Uganda, and the desired EAC regional laws. In addition, the recent eviction and detainee of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi, from Tanzania, indicate political tensions are at the heart of ensuring 'free' movement. Labour and migrant workers rights cannot be guaranteed until the duty, and responsibility, is taken on at multiple scales - from local, national, and regional authorities.  Finally, in order for mobility to be seen as a right, labourers and migrants need to be granted the right to organise. Currently, labour unions operate at a national scale - for mobility to be accepted as a right and migrant rights to be recognised labour unions are required across COMESA, EAC, and ECOWAS.


Promoting a free labour market across Africa will exacerbate difficulties for planning. The geography of migration is uneven; and spatial disparities in the proportion of migrants presents challenges for urban and rural planning, which needs to be considered.  First, where will migrants be housed? The housing crisis, and prevalence of slums, across Africa show an influx of new workers will overburden a scarce resource. In addition, the complex, and insecure, nature of land tenure across Africa raises further questions for housing and productivity - will new migrants be able to buy into land markets to enhance their capabilities? Second, are road infrastructures safe enough to promote the frequent movement of labour? Will implementing a free labour market ensure the safety of those migrants?  We need to ensure planners and policy can establish fundamental rights to a home, land, and personal safety, before promoting free movement.


Policies towards a free labour market will create unity.  National borders are a result of Africa’s colonial history. The boundaries constructed do not reflect meaning or unite ethnic groups across the continent. The border between Togo and Ghana alone divides the Dagomba, Akposso, Konkomba and Ewe peoples. [1] Therefore encouraging freedom of movement across Africa will erase a vital component of Africa’s colonial history.  The erasing of boundaries, for labour markets, will have significant impacts for rebuilding a sense of unity, and reducing xenophobic fears, of which have been politically constructed.  A sense of unity will motivate citizens to reduce disparities and inequalities of poverty.  [1] Cogneau, 2012, pp.5-6


Implementing a free labour market will enable effective management of migration.  Even without the implementation of a free labour market, migration will continue informally; therefore policies introducing free movement and providing appropriate travel documents provides a method to manage migration. In the case of Southern Africa, the lack of a regional framework enabling migration is articulated through the informal nature of movement and strategic bilateral ties between nation-states.  Several benefits arise from managing migration. First, speeding up the emigration process will provide health benefits. Evidence shows slow, and inefficient, border controls have led to a rise in HIV/AIDs; as truck drivers wait in delays sex is offered [1] . Second, a free labour market can provide national governments with data and information. The provision of travel documentation provides migrants with an identity, and as movement is monitored, the big picture of migration can be provided. Information, evidence, and data, will enable effective policies to be constructed for places of origin and destination, and to enable trade efficiency. Lastly, today, undocumented migrants are unable to claim their right to health care. In Africa, availability does not equate to accessibility for new migrants. In South Africa, migrants fear deportation and harassment, meaning formal health treatment and advice is not sought (Human Rights Watch, 2009). Therefore documentation and formal approval of movement ensures health is recognised as an equal right.  [1] See further readings: Lucas, 2012.


Positives arise from a predominantly male out-migration. Women are provided with a means of strategic, and practical, empowerment - as power is redistributed within the household. Women are placed in a position whereby capital assets and time can be controlled personally [1] .  [1] For more on the debate see: Chant (2009); Datta and McIlwaine (2000).


The prevalence of trafficking across Africa today is not new so it is likely a free labour market will make little difference. Further, uncertainty remains as to whether or not the extent of human trafficking is actually rising. With the exact number of cases unknown [1] - are concerns sensationalised hype or a growing reality?  [1] See further readings: IRINb, 2013.


Urbanisation without industrialisation, the dangerous livelihoods of migrants.  Across Africa a reality of ‘urbanisation without industrialisation’ is found (Potts, 2012). Economic growth, and activity, have not matched the urban phenomena across Sub-Saharan Africa. The sombre picture of urban economics questions - what do new migrants do as opportunities are not found?  More than 50% of Youth in Africa are unemployed or idle. [1] With migrants entering urban environments presented with a lack of safe and secure jobs unhealthy sexual politics are found, and precarious methods are used to make a living. The scarcity of formal jobs, means a majority of migrants are forced to work in informal employment. Informal employment will continue to rise creating its own problems such as being barrier to imposing minimum wages and employment security.  [1] Zuehlke, 2009


Who is left behind?  In promoting a free labour market, we need to ask: who is left behind? To understand the developmental nature of migration investigation is needed into who doesn’t migrate - the non-migrant’s lifestyles raise key concerns.  Data from the EAC indicates the EAC labour market remains popular among over 65's and in favour of men; and further, a majority of employment occurs within agriculture [1] . The labour market remains inadequate in providing jobs for women and youths. Women and youths reflect disproportionate numbers of those forced to adapt, and create, new livelihoods following migration. Further, migrants are returning home, retiring, and therefore with limited effect on productivity.  The impact of migration is distributed unequally. In a previous study by Brown (1983) the detrimental effect of male out-migration from rural areas in Botswana was indicated. Family units were altered, changing to being predominantly female-headed households, the lack of human capital resulted in sustaining the agrarian crisis, and women were forced to cope with the burden of care. Little assurance was found as to whether the men would return, or remit resources.  [1] EAC, 2012.


Migration reasonings and exploitation.  A free labour market perceives migration in a predominantly neoclassical light - people migrate due to pull factors, to balance the imbalance of jobs, people move due to economic laws. However, such a perspective fails to include the complex factors enticing migration and lack of choice in the decision. Promoting a labour market, whereby movement is free and trade enabled, makes it easier to move but does not take into account the fact migration is not only purely economical. By focusing on a free labour market as being economically valuable, we neglect a bigger picture of what the reasons for migration are.  Without effective management a free labour market raises the potential of forced migration and trafficking. Within the COMESA region trafficking has been identified as a growing issue with the 40,000 identified cases in 2012 being the tip of the iceberg (Musinguzi, 2013). A free labour market may mean victims of trafficking will remain undetected. Moving for ‘work’, how can distinctions be made to identify trafficked migrants; and clandestine migration be managed?  A free labour market, across Africa, justifies cheap and flexible labour to build emerging economies - however, remains unjust. Promoting free labour movement needs to be matched with a question on ‘what kind of labour movement’?


Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative.


global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks

Not all nations are equal. In an area where high technology is essential rich nations may be able to monitor all cyber intrusions but there will be many countries without the necessary systems. This treaty would therefore in effect be making poor countries without cyber defences into fair game. In theory they would be protected by the treaty, in practice with no monitoring there would be nothing they could do.


States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up  Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces. [1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013. [2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments.  If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked.  [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’   [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,


While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power. [1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses.  [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘ Sovereignty@Bay : Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000,