The current UNSC Membership is outdated  The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century.  It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said. [1] South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs. [2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past.  [1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013,   [2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013,


Assessment of fees for the UN is not done on the basis of the influence of the member within the UN, rather it is done through a formula based on national income. The payment is for membership, not to buy influence. [1]  As far as peacekeeping forces are concerned, South Africa is already a prominent contributor. In the UN’s assessments of present troop contributions for peacekeeping efforts South Africa is 10th. Its record in promoting peace on the continent includes playing leading roles to end conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently in Ivory Coast. [2]  [1] Committee on Contributions, ‘Regular budget and Working Capital Fund’, United Nations, 2013,   [2] African Union Monitor, ‘Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News, Issue 204, 28 April 2005,


There is no evidence that an African state would constantly use the veto if they had it. No African state has the kind of interests around the world the current members have so a veto is only likely to be wielded over African issues. Such a veto will simply be ensuring that the African side is put before the council.  Moreover an African veto would not prevent the council from being useful; it won’t even have the effect the cold war did. Since 1990 62 UNSC resolutions were adopted per year, during the cold war only 15 were on average. If the UNSC could operate then it can operate with more veto members now. [1]  [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011,  p.12


International competition for seats on UNSC  African countries are not the only ones who wish to have a chair at the P5 table. There are more financially and military prominent countries who also have expressed their desires for having a veto power. [1] Among them, the most important are Germany and Japan who are, the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget.  Offering an African state permanent membership to the UN, would likely offend Germany and Japan. The reason UNSC reform has not gone ahead is that all potential members have other powerful countries that would be opposed to their membership. Thus for example Japan is opposed by China. And the G-4 (Japan, India, Germany, Brazil) are generally opposed by the 'coffee club' of 40 mid-size countries led by Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain. [2]  [1] Parashar, Sachin, “Insistence on veto may delay UNSC reform process”, Times Of India, 16 January 2012   [2] Alam, Mohammed Badrul, ‘For a Rightful Place: UNSC Reforms and Japan’, SSPC, 12 July 2005,


Who should get the seat?  There is not just competition from countries outside Africa but also internally. If there is only to be one permanent African member or even two who should it be? With no defined criteria for UNSC membership any African state could stake a claim. There are however three or four serious contenders. South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt have declared themselves contenders and are leaders of their sub regions. [1] Ethiopia is also a similarly sized state and if thinking about the future DR Congo has immense potential if its conflicts are ever resolved. How would these countries resolve their competing interests with only one position on offer?  [1] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria,  , p.106


Proportionality  When looking at contributions to the UN, in 2010 no African countries are in the Top 27. [1] Those who fund an organisation deserve to lead it and have their opinion count the most. Of course, there is the need for a democratic council such as the UNGA, where all the countries, regardless of contribution deserve a right to vote, but when it comes to the UNSC, the veto power is just a privilege the African countries have not earned yet. Imagine creating a union to which a few states provide contribute the most resources, but are prevented from acting by another member who actively contributes nothing. This sort of power is unjustified.  Peacekeeping and other activities the UN undertakes in Africa require money. No African state would want these operations to be diminished as Africa would be the region that has most to lose. But in return the continent has to accept the funders will get more say over the UN.  [1] Browne, Marjorie, and Blanchfield, Luisa, ‘United Nations Regular Budget Contributions: Members Compared, 1990-2010’, Congressional Research Service, 15 January 2013,  , p.23


More vetoes mean less action  The reason there are only a few states with veto power is to prevent most states from being able to block essential security action that is in the international interest.  More members increase the chances of vetoes and deadlock. There have been 263 vetoes since the founding of the UN with vetoes having been used by every permanent member. The veto is used to protect national interests not for the good of the international community. [1] States provide veto cover for censure against those they consider allies or even trading partners. Thus the most common veto in the last couple of decades has been by the USA to prevent censure of Israel. China and Russia on the other hand have prevented action against Syria and Sudan despite crises in these countries. [2]  Give more countries vetoes and it will be used more often. Even worse an African country would have very different interests so would be vetoing different proposals. Thus for example in the past the USSR and USA have vetoed the admission of new members from Angola to Vietnam. An African veto might be wielded to discourage secession movements by for example vetoing the membership of South Sudan.  [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011,  pp.11-12  [2] United Nations, ‘Security Council – Veto List’, Dag Hammarskskjöld Library, accessed 20/12/2013


A dispute over who which African state obtains membership is a sideshow. What matters is the principle that an African state should have permanent membership.


That there should be competition for a seat at the highest international table is no surprise. However this is not a reason against reform. Nor should Germany and Japan be considered stronger contenders than an African country; why should Europe get a third and Asia a second permanent member before Africa has one?


Additional crimes in the remit of an African Criminal Court could cause more problems than they solve.  Drug trafficking was rejected from the remit of the ICC [1] because it would overburden the court, which is intended to deal with international crimes. While the idea of prosecuting coups sounds good, in practice it would raise the same persecution complexes amongst leaders as the ICC does.  An AU court will also be subject to more local fractious politics and power struggles, rather than the bulk of the membership being from outside the region.  [1] See , Kiefer, Heather, “Just Say No: The Case against Expanding the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction to Include Drug Trafficking”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 2009,  at p164


An African Criminal Court would be better  Instead of the ICC structure, the African Union has proposed an African Criminal Court. An ACC could not only bring justice home to Africa, by creating a court which will not appear to African nations as being imposed by outsiders, but also be able to have additional remits to address other issues in Africa that the ICC does not have powers to deal with, such as coups, corruption and drug trafficking [1] . An African Criminal Court may also have a chance of being seen as more legitimate than the ICC, which had only 39% support in Kenya in July 2013 [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Ipsos Synovate, “The ICC Issue and Raila’s Political Future”, Ipsos Synovate


The principle of complementarity means that the ICC is only a backstop court – it only takes on a case when a state is unwilling or unable to have it dealt with in its own national courts [1] .  If the ICC were a tool for external interference, it is solicited by the states in that most situations follow on from referrals by the domestic governments.  Referrals by the UN Security Council can happen irrespective of if a state is a party (hence the Libya and Sudan situations) – just like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created in 1994. Regardless this will only happen with the assent of Russia and China so ensuring that referrals are not following a ‘western imperialist’ agenda.  [1] Rome Statute, Article 17


The ICC has an anti-African bias  Every person indicted by the ICC so far has been an African, for events which occurred in Africa, all bar one case, the Libya situation (in which no trials have started and seem a long way off), are in sub-Saharan Africa.  The ICC has not brought actions against anyone involved in conflict in Colombia, or for the conflict in Sri Lanka or for human rights abuses around the world. The ICC is simply selectively prosecuting.


Almost all the cases involve self-reference – the only ones that did not are UN Security Council references, done in the same way as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were set up. The other case, Kenya, was set up when the ICC prosecutor used its power in the Rome Statute. This only occurred after the Kenyan parliament failed to implement the recommendations of the Waki Commission, which it set up.  While horrible events occurred in Sri Lanka, the ICC does not have the ability to prosecute unless the case is referred to the court by the UN Security Council, or the Sri Lankan government, which is unlikely – it is not a kangaroo court that can make up jurisdiction to hear a case for political reasons [1] . Colombia is still being investigated [2] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 22  [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013,


Justice is more than just a road to peace; it is a goal of its own. [1]  For most African states this should not be a cause to leave the ICC as they are unaffected by ICC indictments affecting a peace process. Even for those whom it does affect it is only transitory until a solution is reached. Such concerns moreover could be better dealt with by ensuring that the ICC puts in place a mechanism that recognises that in some instances peace can come first.  [1] Human Rights Watch, “Perceptions and realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court”, hrw.org, 14 November 2011,


Tool for external interference.  The ICC creates a way that foreigners, and in particular the west with its tendency towards intervention, can remove and imprison African leaders [1] .  Uhuru Kenyatta, the President of Kenya, who has been indicted by the court, has referred to it as a “toy of declining imperialist powers” [2] .  The court is largely funded by Western countries, with the European Union providing over half the cost. So it should not be surprising if the west has a lot of power over the court. Moreover the west is dominant in the United Nations Security Council so potentially controls both the methods of referring a country to the ICC without its permission.  [1] Monbiot, George “Imperialism didn’t end. These day’s it’s known as international law”, The Guardian, 30 April 2012,   [2] Kenyatta, Uhuru, “Uhuru: ICC is a toy of declining imperial powers”, CapitalFM Blogs, 12 October 2012,


Detriment to peace process  The ICC has not been particularly effective in dealing with the situation in Uganda, the ICC prosecutions having been a distraction to local community reconciliation and leading to further violence [1] .  Similarly, the situation in Darfur has not been helped by ICC involvement, with mass destruction of villages by people already indicted by the International Criminal Court [2] . Due to his indictment, a diplomatic solution has become harder as Rome Statute signatories are under a legal duty to arrest Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, although many have just ignored this. [3]  [1] Sinclair, Jessical, “The International Criminal Court in Uganda”, Undergraduate Transitional Justice Review, 2010,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “Sudan: Satellite images confirm villages destroyed”, hrw.org, June 18 2013,   [3] Cooper, Belinda, “The ICC: The Politics of Criticism”, World Policy Journal, 4 December 2013,


Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves.  The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted.  The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends.


Impunity has occurred in some cases, due to the ICC system not leading to prosecutions, such as in Sri Lanka.  At any rate, the ICC is not needed – African courts can deal with individuals, not a foreign one.


ICC is cheaper  Africa bears little of the cost of the ICC – by far its largest contributions come from the European Union, and its member states.  This, coupled with the fact that the ICC is cheaper than the ad hoc tribunals due to economies of scale, means that justice can be delivered to war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity in an affordable manner – saving resources for helping the victims.


ICC necessary to provide fair trials  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provides a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  In addition, the principle of complementarity means African states can prosecute on their own if they wish.


No impunity  The ICC means an end to impunity. It has meant that warlords such as Germain Katanga have been able to be prosecuted for things like using child soldiers, which are universally reviled.  What the African Union leaders are simply advocating by withdrawal from the ICC is impunity for themselves. They see one of their own – Uhuru Kenyatta, who has to face very serious allegations over his part in the mayhem after the 2007 elections which killed over a thousand people – being prosecuted and then claim it is selective. The only selection going on is that those who do not have a case to answer are not being prosecuted.


Is justice something to be subjected to simple financial parameters?  Even so, what is the ICC cheaper than? It may be cheaper than individual criminal tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR, but that assumes that such tribunals are desirable. It should be left up to individual states to bring action.


Moral responsibility is not about comparisons if it were then what about those European countries that have not been open armed like in Hungary they have made it illegal to help Syrian refugees [1] . Riot police in Hungary have used teargas and water cannon to send them off. [2] Saudi Arabia has been doing enough to account for its moral responsibility; it has given residency to 100,000 Syrians. [3]  [1] Frayer, Lauren, ‘Risking Arrest, Thousands of Hungarians offer help to refugees’, NPR, 29 September 2015,   [2] Weaver, Matthew, and Siddique, Haroon, ‘Refugee crisis: Hungary uses teargas and water cannon at Serbia border – as it happened’, theguardian.com, 16 September 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates  [3] The Guardian, ‘Saudi Arabia says criticism of Syria refugee response ‘false and misleading’, 12 September 2015,


The Gulf states have a moral responsibility to take in Syrian refugees  It is a moral responsibility for gulf states to take in Syrian refugees both in terms of common humanity and as they all belong to the same culture and regional organisations (i.e. The Arab League). The numbers taken by the gulf states look particularly irresponsible looking it as a comparison to the number that European countries have taken in. Amnesty International has accused the gulf states of offering zero resettlement places. [1]  [1] Amnesty International, ‘Facts & Figures: Syria refugee crisis & international resettlement’, 5 December 2014,


Taking in refugees is not the only thing that countries can contribute in combating the Syria refugee crisis. Gulf countries are known to have donated a total of around £589m in addition to other aid they have delivered. This is vital to make the camps that have sprung up along Syria’s borders liveable.


The Gulf states are a convenient place to settle Syrian refugees  With language being the basis of communication, and most of the gulf state’s population speaking in Arabic, which is the language widely spoken by Syrians the Gulf states are a natural choice to take in refugees. Syria and the Gulf states also have similar cultures. Both of these make it easier for refugees to interact with natives, build up a social network, and find work. Studies from the US have implied that it is best to send migrants (refugees) to places where there is such a network they can quickly plug into which improves the prospects of the migrants getting jobs. [1]  [1] Beaman, Lori A., ‘Social Networks and the Dynamics of Labour Market Outcomes: Evidence from Refugees Resettled in the U.S.’, Berkeley University, 15 November 2006,  , P.31


The affinity as a result of joint linguistic and cultural ties between Syrians and the gulf may be of little use if the refugees are heavily restricted in where they live or can do. If they are put into camps with little contact with the outside world the refugees could simply be cut off from this social network. Syria’s neighbours have generally been unwilling to integrate refugee populations; Jordan has had Palestinian refugees for almost half a century yet nearly 370,000 are still in refugee camps. [1]  [1] ‘Where we work; Jordan’ United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 1 July 2014,


Unfortunately the refugee crisis is not happening at a good time economically for the Gulf. Oil prices have slumped. As a result there is a turbulent economy with many losing their jobs. [1] There is high levels of competition for those jobs that do exist and in the gulf people often get their jobs through influence (Wasta, as it is known in gulf countries) of acquaintances/friends, which would serve to shut refugees out of the jobs market.  [1] Reuters, ‘FGB announces 100 job cuts in UAE’, Gulf News, 24 November 2015,


European countries have taken in a huge number of refugees while gulf states have taken none  There were 1,294,000 claims for asylum in Europe in 2015 with more than a fifth of these coming originally from Syria. [1] Although many Arab states have shouldered their share of the burden, particularly neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, the Gulf at the same time have taken in almost nil refugees. The Gulf states are rich countries, particularly by comparison to their neighbours that are taking up the burden. Per capita income in Jordan is $5,160 compared to $25,140 in Saudi Arabia and $44,600 in UAE as such they can afford to do much more. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts’, 18 February 2016,   [2] World Bank, data.worldbank.org,


Gulf countries could benefit from refugees  Just like Gulf countries have greatly benefitted from expat immigration, the U.A.E being a great example of such growth where the expat population is estimated to be 84% of the UAE population [1] , Gulf countries in the same way can make use of Syrian refugees immigrating. Syrian refugees can provide cheap labour on the Gulf states ambitious construction projects as well as helping to provide an educated workforce that can help diversify the gulf states economies away from oil.  [1] Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, ‘Give expats and opportunity to earn UAE citizenship’, Gulf News, 22 September 2013,


The effort to fund and arm the rebels has not shown any result, it’s been over 4 years and yet nothing has solved the problem. Rather the situation has got steadily worse with moderate opposition first losing out to Daesh, and then to Assad since Russian air support tipped the balance. Arming rebel groups simply helps to perpetuate the civil war and ensure that refugees cannot return home.


Refugees can’t be choosers in a situation where their country has been destroyed. A survey conducted among refugees arriving in Germany showed that around 68% of the people fled just to save themselves from the imminent threat. [1] The Gulf States may not be a model of democracy and human rights but migrants would be considerably safer than in Syria.  [1] Von Martin, ‘Survey amongst Syrian refugees in Germany – Backgrounds’, adopt a revolution, 7 October 2015,


ISIS could infiltrate to Gulf States  The 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris show that ISIS has the ability to infiltrate countries through refugees. Although the participants in these attacks had been living in France and Brussels some had also been to fight in Syria and at least one, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, returned along the migrant route. [1] This shows that influxes of refugees could pose great threat to gulf countries and Daesh has already claimed terrorist attacks in Kuwait. [2] Even before the rise of ISIS gulf states were concerned about the security risks posed by migrant workers with Bahrain’s Minister of Labour Majid Al-Alawi stating migrant workers are a strategic threat. [3]  [1] Holehouse, Matthew, and Samuel, Henry, ‘Terrorist ringleader got into EU as ‘refugee’’, The Telegraph, 20 November 2015,   [2] Cafiero, Giorgio, ‘The ‘Islamic State’ Attacks Kuwait’, Huffington Post, 1 July 2015,   [3] Rahman, Anisur, ‘Migration and Human Rights in the Gulf’, Middle East Institute, 2 February 2010,


The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad  Gulf countries have been trying to fix the problem politically rather than taking in a few refugees, which would be beneficial to most of the Syrians? The vast majority of Syrians would prefer to go home to a Syria with the civil war over and preferably with Assad gone. The gulf starts, are the main powers working to see this happen. While the US has helped arm some rebel groups the funding for this was provided by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have gone further than the west in terms of providing arms. [1]  [1] Mazzetti, Mark and Apuzzo, Matt, ‘U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels’, The New York Times, 23 January 2016,


The Gulf states are themselves not bastions of freedom  Syrians are leaving Syria as a result of a civil war born out of the Arab Spring, it was an attempt to gain more freedom within a dictatorship. [1] Such a population is unlikely to wish to move to a country where freedoms are often restricted. All the countries of the Gulf are monarchies, often with only the barest touch of democracy electing rubber stamp parliaments. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch have highlighted the violence which many migrants suffer and large numbers are exploited. [2]  [1] Ali, Jasim, ‘Gulf states need to aim higher on freedom parameter’, Gulf News, 4 September 2015,   [2] Begum, Rothna, ‘Gulf States Fail to Protect Domestic Workers From Serious Violence’, hrw.org, 16 October 2015,


The incidents that occurred in Europe were involving native Europeans themselves, although they did travel to and back from Syria.  Just like Europe could have home grown terrorists, the same likeliness applies to the gulf states. In fact statistics even show that one of the highest number of recruits for Daesh has been those from Saudi Arabia. [1]  [1] The Economist, ‘It ain’t half hot here, mum’, 28 August 2014,


This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2]  [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010,   [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,


Legacy of infrastructure  The benefits of hosting these events for African nations include the ability to concentrate on infrastructure for the event. In addition to sporting infrastructure, which could last well in excess of 50 years, homes, hospitals, roads and schools have been constructed in Gabon’s host cities [1] . The Chinese government assisted funding of some of this; [2] it co-financed and helped construct the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise, the biggest stadium.  [1] Yilmaz, Cetin, “Gabon works hard for 2012 Cup of Nations”, Hurriyet Daily News,   [2] Murphy, Chris, “African ambition: tiny nations host football feast”, CNN, 2012,


There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.


The ACN in Gabon shows what can be done by smaller African nations  A key reason for hosting any big sporting event is that it puts the host in a shop window. Unless the event is a disaster (as, arguably, Angola’s tournament was due to the gun attack on the Togo team), which it was not, it creates an opportunity for the nation to show itself as being an advanced society, capable of big events, “getting things done” and as a place to do business. All of this is positive for the economies of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. The African Development Bank notes that Economic growth was 7% in 2011 and 5.7% in Gabon in part because of “massive investments undertaken for football’s Africa Cup of Nations 2012”. [1]  [1] African Economic Outlook, ‘Gabon Economic Outlook’, African Development Bank Group, accessed 28/1/2014,


Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.  The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.


The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]  [1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012,   [2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011,


Benefits spread across the country  The benefits of these events, unlike hosting an event such as an Olympic Games (which would be outside the reach of Gabon or Equatorial Guinea, especially with the increasing trend of the IOC to select major world cities in medium or high income countries), is that more than one site in a country can host different parts of the tournament. This provides a platform for a focus on broad based development across the entire nation, rather than one-sideded development focused on one city. In Gabon’s case there was both construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise in the Capital and a rebuild of a stadium in Franceville for €76.2 million [1] .  [1] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011,


Helps small businesses  There is a big benefit for small businesses in hosting the large sporting events. The hosting of the tournament in 2012 has been credited by African Economic Outlook with playing a role in the “robust” economic growth in the country in that year turning the country around from negative growth in 2009 [1] . The 2013 Africa Cup of Nations was credited with 10,000 jobs and helping the tourist sectors of the South African economy, [2] Gabon would have received a similar boost.  [1] NN, “Gabon”, African Economic Outlook, no date,   [2] NN, “Africa Cup of Nations 2013 to boost SMEs in South Africa”, MSME News Network, 2013,


Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.  At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored


There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.  The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.


Empty seats  Organizers in Gabon had to hand out free tickets to fill stadia [1] . This not only makes the tournament appear unpopular to TV viewers, it reduces the revenues of the event.  It would be better for the sport if the Africa Cup of Nations was held in countries that are likely to sell out more of the matches; this means countries with bigger populations than Gabon and Equatorial Guinea that can pull in a domestic audience.  [1] Sport24, “Empty seats plague AFCON”, Sport 24, 2012,


Showcasing countries with poor human rights records  Allowing a country to host a major sporting event gives them a big boost in international prestige. Repressive regimes to not deserve this.  Equatorial Guinea, a dictatorship run by Teoodoro Obiang, is one of the world’s worst human rights offenders, with the worst possible scores for civil liberties and political rights according to Freedom House [1] .  Gabon, while rated by Freedom House as better than Equatorial Guinea, also has a bad human rights record, with “harsh prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention, ritual killings, police use of excessive force, … widespread government corruption … and forced child labor [sic]” [2] .  [1] Freedom House, “Equatorial Guinea”, Freedom House   [2] US State Department, Gabon 2012 Human Rights Report,


Cost could be spent on other things  Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football.  It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] .  [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,   [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank,   [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,


Ticket sales, while good for revenue, are not crucial. The African Cup of Nations has never been an event with large scale sellout crowds for every match like a World Cup.  Disposable incomes are lower in Africa compared to the rest of the world. This coupled with the vast size of the area covered by the confederation means lower numbers of travelling fans. Expectations should be managed: the higher demand is for matches with the host team involved. In the tournament the following year (held earlier due to CAF changing the years in which the tournament is held to odd years, to avoid clashes with World Cups and Olympics) in South Africa, the bronze medal match got 6,000 spectators [1] .  Even the Olympics, when held in London, did not sell out every ticket for every football match, meaning some sections of seating were covered over [2] .  [1] ESPN, “2013 African Nations Cup Fixtures and Results”, ESPN, 2013,   [2] Magnay, Jacquelin, “”London 2012 Olympics: 500,000 football tickets removed to ensure full stadiums [sic]”, The Telegraph, 2012,


While membership in the European Union might contribute to peace, economic cooperation and good diplomatic relations being a member is neither the cause such stability nor is it sufficient on its own. There are countries outside the European Union that are stable states – such as Norway and there are countries within the EU where membership is no longer creating stability and possibly even undermining it such as in Greece where being dictated to by other member states is one cause behind the anti-government riots in the country.  Once both the EU is ready/willing to expand and the countries have fulfilled the criteria for joining, membership can be extended, but it should not be considered to be a quick fix to create international stability.


EU expansion is good for current members politically.  Expansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target [1] and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9. [2]  [1] Defence Dateline Group, ‘As Europe Wakes to Defence Spending Shortfall, NATO Risks Losing US Investment’, Defenceiq.com, 14 March 2011,   [2] Eufocus, ‘The EU and Peacekeeping: Promoting Security, Stability, and Democratic Values’, Stacy Hope ed., November 2008,


That there were immense trade increases during the period when the new member states were joining does not necessarily show causality or that these same increases would not have been created without EU membership. Development and economic integration is something that will occur regardless of whether applicant countries join the European Union or not. There would likely have been a similar growth in trade if these states had joined the network of free trade agreements such as the European Economic Area instead of full membership of the European Union.  The 0.3% of GDP figure for the financial transfers from the old to new member states the proposition gives may be accurate but 0.3% of GDP per year is not insignificant. Germany paying 0.3% of its GDP would still be almost 7.5 billion Euros. It is also questionable whether further expansion would be as beneficial as the most recent expansions as the new members would be getting progressively poorer and poorer compared to current members. Macedonia’s GDP per capita for example is less than 10% of the 15 pre enlargement member states. They are therefore going to benefit current member states through trade less while costing more.


EU expansion is right.  It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours. Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.


European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II.  The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.


While an argument for cooperation (including logistic and financial support) between the EU and neighbouring states, it is not an argument for granting full EU membership to these states. While the prospect of membership may motivate countries to introduce reforms, premature accession can cause this progress to grind to a halt, as seen with the corruption in Bulgaria still affecting government and there being very little chance of prosecution. [1] This is because once a state joins the European Union the EU no longer has much influence over that state. Once a state is a member the methods of punishing that state are constrained. This is because where previously their path to membership could be slowed of halted once they join this is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to impose effective economic sanctions against these states. For this reason some kind of association outside of the European Union itself would be more effective at encouraging states that are outside the European Union to become fully functioning democracies.  [1] Novinite.com, ‘WikiLeaks/Stratfor: Corruption in Bulgaria is Part of Society’, 28 February 2012,


EU expansion is good for current members economically.  The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP. [1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros. [2]  Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative. [3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011, [4] and the median age of the population is still only 25. [5]  [1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009,   [2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011,   [3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,   [4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011,   [5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012,


Expansion furthers EU ideals.  The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone. [1]  Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.” [2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros. [3]  [1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010,   [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev,   [3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006,


According to the principle of free movement of people, citizens of EU may work and study anywhere in the EU. This is a very important chance for every individual and should be embraced. By spending part of their education or training in another EU country, they acquire an insight into other work environments and gain skills that are invaluable in later life. Closer cooperation and sharing experience with other European countries will bring democratic traditions and modern way of living to the society of new member states. Indeed there have been suggestions that far from their being a brain drain in the long run such migration results in a brain gain. The possibility of migrating to a richer nation means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]  [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8,


Conflicts of interest between member states are inevitable. Britain has consistently been one of the outlier states even though it has been a member since 1974 and has many interests in common with the other old members of the EU. It has remained outside the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement and disagrees on policies such as a tax on financial transactions. New members in the Balkans for example are unlikely to be less cooperative than the UK. Moreover these conflicts of interest are most acute in foreign policy, such as the conflicts of interest over policy towards Russia, where so far the EU does not demand a common position from members so this should not be a concern.


The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members.  The financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion. [1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations. [2]  [1] Alessi, Christopher, ‘The Eurozone in Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 14 February 2012,   [2] ‘EU environmental regulations will cost Croatia €10.5 Billion’, Macedonian Intl News Agency, 27 December 2011,


Expansion would be unpopular.  As expansion moves outward to places that are further and further away from the western European countries and into countries that are culturally less ‘European’ there is bound to be less enthusiasm for allowing them to join. Turkey is the country most likely to be a victim of public opinion against membership. Polling in 2010 showed 52% against membership and only 41% backing it if voting in a referendum. The main reason for being against was Turkey being “a Muslim country… not compatible with the common Christian roots” of Europe. [1] The trend has been for a decline in support for further enlargement falling from a high of 49% in 2004 to 41% two years later in 2006. [2]  [1] EU Business, ‘Europeans split over Turkey EU membership: poll’, 24 January 2010,   [2] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3


There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.  As the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year. [1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia?  [1] Marcin Sobczyk, ‘Poland Loses 1.4 Million People to Brain Drain’, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2010,


Expansion will create conflicts of interest between members.  Continuing expansion will mean a dilution of common national interests between the member states. National interests are to a large extent based upon geography and the economy. The EU-15 could be said to have both a unity of purpose; preventing another war between France and Germany as well as similar cultures, similar levels of wealth, and even a similarity in social policy. This has meant that the EU-15 member states had a lot of common interests so could agree to continuing integration. Newer member states have very different post World War II national experiences, shaped in particular by communist occupation. This makes many new EU members less willing to share sovereignty or contemplate the Union deepening. Moreover as the European Union gets bigger and more geographically diverse other interests diverge. For example some countries such as Germany are already inclined to conciliate Russia while others have been much more outspoken. This was particularly highlighted during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 where Poland strongly supported Georgia. [1]  [1] Andrew Curry, ‘Old Europe vs. New Europe Will Poland Split EU over Russia Policy?’, Spiegel Online, 14 August 2008,


Previous enlargements were unpopular as well with support in the low 40s percentage points in 2001 however this rapidly increased to above 50% as enlargement approached before falling back, possibly as a result of media attention towards the possible negative consequences such as immigration. [1]  Therefore basing policy on public opinion years, possibly decades before a country would actually be joining the EU is not helpful as opinion is fickle and could easily change in the intervening period. Moreover public opinion is likely to be based upon prejudices, for example with Turkey opposition is based on it being a Muslim country but this ignores that Turkey is in fact secular with an Islamic culture in a similar way to France being a secular state with a Christian culture.  [1] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3


First of all while many members of the EU are experiencing low or even negative growth the bailouts don’t actually make Europe poorer as they have so far been loans that will have to be paid out. Even if current members are unwilling or unable to give large subsidies to any members that may join the European Union in the future there will still be large economic benefits to joining. The principles of European integration, such as free competition or free movement of goods and capital, will foster the transition from a post-socialist economy to a free market economy in any new member states. The removal of custom barriers will enable producers to cut production costs, which will result in export increases. In addition, integration into the EU will encourage foreign investment. It will create new jobs and will bring new technologies and experience into East-central European industry and trade. New member states inevitably engage in a catch up phase where grow rapidly. The ten new members who joined the EU in 2004 grew from having an income per capita of 40% of the EU15’s average in 1999 to 52% in 2008 with most of the growth coming after membership where GDP growth was 5.5% from 2004-2008 compared to 3.5 % in 1999-2003. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘Five Years on an enlarged EU – A win win result’ Press Conference, Europa.eu, 19 February 2009,


Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.  [1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008,   [2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99,  , p.89


Expansion is in the interests of NATO  Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained or at least shown that NATO has not forgotten about it. This is shown by President Putin’s continuing lashing out at foreign countries for funding NGOs and plans to boost defense spending. [1] Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.  [1] Cullison, Alan, ‘Putin Warms West on Interference’, The Wall Street Journal, 28 November 2011,


In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. [1] It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.  [1] Fraser, Malcolm, ‘Ukraine: there’s no way out unless the west understands its past mistakes’, theguardian.com, 3 March 2014,


The people of Ukraine and Georgia want to join  Many people in both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. In Georgia a non-binding referendum on whether to join NATO showed 77% of voters in favor of joining. [1] Polls show that some 50% of Ukrainians in 2002 said that would support Ukraine’s membership in NATO if a referendum on this issue were held. [2]  Both states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. These fears have been realised with Russian forces in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia as European states have a right to join NATO if they would satisfy all criteria for NATO membership. [3]  [1] NATO, ‘Backgrounder, Deepening relations with Georgia’, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2011, p.15,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries.’ Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12 (3), 2011, p 309.


It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.  [1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008,   [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16  [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16


There is a strong precedent for expansion  There is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are also former Soviet states, and Russia objected to their entry into NATO quite as much as it objects today about its Black Sea neighbours. [1] Yet Russia was not allowed a veto over their futures, and it soon got over its annoyance, continuing to participate in joint forums with NATO and to cooperate with the USA over Afghanistan, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation. So NATO is already committed to the defence of states in Russia’s near-abroad, and should not fear further expansion.  [1] Black, Stephen J., ‘NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States: What Can the Great Powers Do’, Strategic Studies Institute, November 1997,


Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia actually make Georgia better suited to NATO membership than before. There would have been a clear danger of allowing Georgia into NATO if the status of these breakaway regions was unsettled, with the obvious potential for conflict with their Russian patron. Once Georgia can be brought to accept the permanent loss of these territories to Russia, then it becomes a much more united country, without any other obvious grounds for Russia’s future interference. This is similarly the case with Crimea; The Russian Black Sea Fleet based in a NATO member would have clearly been a risk.


We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The West would like Russian cooperation in a whole range of areas, but this isn’t a zero sum game where if one side wins the other must lose out. Russia should also worry about issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the threat posed by failed states, so it is in its own interests to work with international partners to find global solutions. It also wants World Trade Organisation membership to continue its economic growth, especially if oil and gas prices should fall. For these reasons Russia will not make its whole foreign policy dependent on the expansion of NATO, but can be relied upon to continue existing partnerships because they are of mutual benefit.


The West is reliant on Russia’s Gas reserves  NATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, Russia currently supplies 25% of European gas and this may rise to as high as 55% by 2020. [1] Unfortunately the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad. [2]  Russia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.  [1] Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre, ‘Rethinking Russia: Russia and Europe’s Mutual Energy Dependence’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No.2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp.65-84,   [2] Weir, Fred, ‘Why Russia is cutting off gas supplies to Belarus’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 June 2010,


NATO is divided on how to deal with Georgia  The conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, [1] which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The same fault has been seen in relation to the response to Russian moves in Crimea; Germany has been much more cautious. [2] The United States faces a danger that if it pushes for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.  [1] Traynor, Ian, ‘Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia’, guardian.co.uk, 2 December 2008,   [2] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Europe Is Completely Divided Over How to Respond to Russia’, Carnegie Europe, 4 March 2014,


The West needs to deal with Russia  Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014,   [2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011,


Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and its economy is very vulnerable to a fall in oil and gas prices. Russia needs to sell its oil at $115 per barrel for the budget to balance. [1] Despite recent hostility to foreign oil firms attempting to operate in Russia, in the long term the country also needs western investment and technology if it is to maintain its energy output by opening and exploiting new fields. Indeed, Europe cannot be held hostage to Russian energy policy – who else could Russia sell its oil and gas to? Russia’s apparent military strength is also deceptive – its army and air force actually performed badly in Georgia and are no match for the modern forces available to NATO.  [1] Nikishenkov, Oleg, ‘Oil muddles Russia’s budget debate’, themoscownews, 16 May 2011,


Both countries are among the most prosperous economies in the entire world and have nothing to gain from EU membership. Through their EEA and EFTA memberships, as well as bilateral deals with Brussels, both Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market and are fully integrated into the European economy. While it may be true that the European Union is generous to Norway and Switzerland it is also in the EU’s interest to add Norway and Switzerland to the European Common Market even if not as full members. The chances of the European Union cancelling such agreements are remote as international agreements and trade rely on trust between partners so other partners of the EU would worry that their treaties might also be cancelled.


Benefits of joining the European Union  Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, but they would realise much greater benefits if they formally joined the organisation. Being imperfectly integrated into the European economy means that consumers pay higher prices for goods and services than citizens of EU countries. Businesses are sheltered from full competition, which can lead to complacency and a loss of global competitiveness. And the nature of their relationships with Brussels means that their economies are inherently fragile – bilateral agreements could be cancelled by either side at any time. This would have little impact on the wider EU-economy, but would devastate much smaller Norway or Switzerland. The risks this involves were brought home in 2008 when Swiss voters had to approve an extension of the freedom of movement under the Schengen agreement to new EU-members Romania and Bulgaria; if the referendum had been rejected, the EU would have cancelled the whole bilateral deal on Schengen. [1] So unless the two countries stay in step with the EU as it moves forward towards integration, they may lose many of the benefits they have already acquired. Given that in recent deals the EU has been relatively generous in the expectation that Switzerland and Norway will be encouraged to join the Union, there is a further risk that future treatment will be much less sympathetic if Brussels recognises that this is not going to happen.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Populists defeated in Swiss EU labour poll’, 2009


While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over those areas they consider key policy areas. These are the areas that Norway and Switzerland most important such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?


It would be easy to assimilate into the EU  Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy entry into the Union. As advanced economies with strong legal and political institutions, they would be easy for the EU to assimilate, especially given their close involvement in the Single Market already. Both would be net contributors to the EU budget, and would strengthen the EU at a time when it is still coping with poorer new members and would-be members in Eastern Europe. And by contributing financially to the EU in this way, Switzerland and Norway will benefit from increasing trade as Eastern and Central European states rapidly gain in prosperity with support from EU regional transfers.


There is little room for small states in a globalizing world  Both countries would benefit from pooling sovereignty in an increasingly globalised world. For relatively small states true independence is no longer possible, with countries like Switzerland and Norway at the mercy of bigger economic forces. Thus Switzerland for example had to bail out its biggest bank UBS with $5.23 billion In 2008 as well as taking on $50 billion of toxic assets. [1] UBS and Credit Suisse the banks that were bailed out held assets worth 680% of GDP so Switzerland could have faced a similar crash as Iceland did. [2]  [1] Gow, David, ‘Switzerland unveils bank bail-out plan’, 2008  [2] Theil, Stefan, ‘What the Swiss Did Right’, 2010


Being small may well be the best way of avoiding the effects of globalization. Globilization is not only transferring power up from the state level to a more globalized level but also down to the local level. This works to the advantage of small states and as a very decentralized state this is particularly likely to benefit Switzerland. It is notable that most the world’s wealthiest states in per capita terms are small states despite globalization supposedly meaning that countries need to create immense markets to survive. [1] In practice small states are able to rapidly change to the changing economic environment. Iceland itself is a good example, despite the crash it experienced it is recovering and is turning against the idea of EU membership as its finance minister Steingrimur Sigfusson says "You are quicker turning a small boat around than a big ship. And that is, I think, what is being proven: that the small, vibrant Icelandic economy, including having our own currency, makes adapting quicker." [2]  [1] Alesina, Alberto, ‘The Size of Countries: Does it matter?’, 2003, p.308  [2] Henley, Paul, ‘Iceland has doubts about the euro as economy recovers’, 2011


It is clear why the EU would like to welcome the rich Swiss and Norwegians within its embrace, but why would either country want to sign up for a project which would involve their citizens’ taxes being given away to other countries? EU waste and fraud are legendary, so it is easy to understand why voters have consistently rejected giving up their taxes to Brussels. As latecomers they are not in a strong position to bargain over entry terms, and can expect to become major net contributors, especially as their farmers are unlikely to gain much from the Common Agricultural Policy. Estimates of the cost of membership for Switzerland were set between SFr3 billion and SFr8 billion in 2004 – more than its entire defense budget.


There is no moral obligation upon either state to join the EU. Both can continue to play a full part in promoting peace and stability outside the organization. As a NATO member with a firmly internationalist outlook, Norway already makes a big contribution to peacekeeping around the world. Indeed its valuable role as an arbiter in bitter disputes such as the Israel-Palestine and Sri Lanka-Tamil conflicts might be lost if it was merely a small part of a big power bloc. Switzerland too already contributes to building stability in the Balkans, in partnership with EU countries. But its long tradition of neutrality would be clearly compromised by EU membership, especially as a Common Foreign and Security Policy, voiced from Brussels by a High Representative on behalf of all member states, is rapidly becoming a reality.


Norway and Switzerland already implement many EU policies  Both Norway [1] and Switzerland [2] have agreements with the EU allow them the access to its enormous market that they need to survive economically, but at the same time they have to abide by EU rules that they have no influence over making. Norway in particular, as an EEA member must accept all EU single-market, employment, environment and competition rules. Switzerland meanwhile is under pressure as the European Union wants changes to EU law to be adopted automatically by the Swiss. [3] Both contribute to the EU budget as European Free Trade Area members contribute to operational and administrative expenditure. [4] Norway contributes 340million Euros per year. [5] If they joined the EU, they would at least be given a say in the regulations they have to implement, and as their presence would strengthen the relatively more free-market camp led by the UK, Ireland and Denmark, they are likely to be happier with the rules that then result.  [1] The European Community and Iceland, The Principality of Liechtenstein, Then Kingdom of Norway, ‘Agreement on the European Economic Area’, 1994  [2] European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation, ‘EC Switzerland Free Trade Agreement’ 1972  [3] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010  [4] Efta.int, ‘EEA EFTA Budget’, 2011  [5] Norway Mission to the EU, ’10 Basic facts about the European Economic Area’


The EU shares the same values as Norway and Switzerland  The European project has been a great political success in first ensuring, and then extending democracy and stability within the European continent. As strong democracies Switzerland and Norway surely belong within the EU family, and should play their part in advancing stability and European values in the future, for example in the Western Balkans. Swiss fears about compromising their neutrality should not be an issue – EU states like Ireland and Austria prize their neutrality too. And for the EU, the entry of both Norway and Switzerland at the same time would help to maintain present balance between NATO members and neutral states.


Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the past ten years the Euro has gained in strength and credibility, and is now clearly the world’s second currency after the dollar. The high volatility of sterling shows the danger of trying to maintain your own currency as a national virility symbol, while Iceland shows the risk small countries face when financial trouble strikes. For Switzerland, switching to the Euro would allow it to capitalize on its banking expertise by becoming a true rival to London as Europe’s financial center. For Norway, the Euro would help the country avoid “Dutch disease” – where a strong oil and gas industry pushes up the currency to the point where other businesses are severely hurt.


Many other countries in the European Union are proud of their sovereignty, Britain for example was also initially reluctant to join the EU and has worried about losing sovereignty ever since. All the Eastern European states have been dominated by outside powers much more recently than Norway has and yet welcome the EU. Many commentators believe that the EU is moving towards being much more based upon regions and small states, something which would fit closely with Swiss and Norwegian membership. [1]  [1] Alesina, Alberto, ‘The Size of Countries: Does it matter?’, 2003, p.313


CAP and Fisheries policies would damage traditional industr  By remaining outside the EU itself, neither has to sacrifice key elements of its domestic economy to Brussels in a way countries like the UK do. For cultural and environmental reasons both countries protect and subsidise their small family farms, which would not be possible inside the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Norway’s fishing industry also occupies an important place within the national psyche, and Norwegians are proud that good fisheries management within their 200 mile exclusion zone has left their fish stocks much healthier than those of EU neighbours who have fallen victim to the Common Fisheries Policy. And Swiss banking continues a proud tradition of independent financial expertise that might be lost to London if the country was just another part of the EU.


Requirement to join the Euro  Even if EU membership were in the interests of Switzerland and Norway, the requirement that all new members join the Euro provides a strong argument against joining the Union itself. At present, both countries have strong currencies, with the Swiss Franc a major international reserve currency in its own right. Through the Krone and Franc they can control their own monetary policy to suit economic conditions. By contrast, small EU states are at the mercy of the European Central Bank, having to endure interest rates that may be right for Germany or France, but which are too tight or too loose for Ireland or Belgium. This explains why EU countries such as Denmark and the UK have so far refused to join the Euro. Norway and Switzerland may also wonder whether they want to yoke themselves to profligate debtor countries like Italy, Greece, whose falling credit ratings are placing monetary union under strain at present. And neither Norway or Switzerland has the financial problems of Iceland, although the credit crunch has required Switzerland to support its international banks – in ways which EU membership might well have prevented.


Strong traditions of Sovereignty  Both Norway and Switzerland greatly value their sovereignty and do not want to give it up to Brussels. The Swiss have a tradition of proud independence stretching back to the middle ages, while the Norwegians still remember what it was like to be politically dominated by Denmark and Sweden. In both, voters have consistently shown that they have no wish to compromise their sovereignty by joining the European Union. The Swiss particularly fear their tradition of more direct democracy would be threatened with EU membership, as laws from Brussels could not be overturned by referendum as at present. This is already having an effect on EU-Swiss relations with Switzerland unwilling to have automatically adopt evolving EU law. The Swiss would be equally worried about the role of the European Court of Justice which decides if countries infringe European law. [1]  [1 ] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010


Just as a high degree of reliance upon free economic markets was instrumental to the growing prosperity in the modern era of the First World nations, so too a free economic market at the international level would tend to enhance the growth and development of a strong world economy. As for national government anti-cyclical policy, although it is clearly justified in crisis conditions of deep depression or hyperinflation, too often in the past it has been applied injudiciously, so that it aggravates rather than ameliorates cyclical swings. Owing to the various lags in policy determination and implementation described by the famous economist Milton Friedman, often expansionary policy takes full effect in boom periods, while contractionary policy takes full effect in recession periods. This problem might well hold at the global level if there were a world government in existence attempting to apply world anticyclical policy. To the extent that the world government ventures beyond anticyclical policy into the realm of overall regulation and control of the business economy, it is likely to repeat and amplify the self-evident errors and excesses the national governments have made in this area.


Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization  Economic interaction among the nations of the world, in the form of trade, investment and migration, has reached such a point today that it is meaningful to think of “the world economy.” Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization in the form of a world government. Following the seminal work of John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it has become widely accepted within the economics profession that a certain amount of interventionist national government policy is essential to maintaining a proper balance between the twin economic evils of unemployment and inflation. Just as judicious national anticyclical policy is beneficial to national economies, so too a judicious world anticyclical policy, as implemented by a functioning world government, would be beneficial to the world economy. A world government would also improve the overall functioning of the global economy by means of regularizing various circumstances of international economic interaction (for example, in the area of patents and copyrights), and by working to reduce various trade impediments (such as tariffs and quotas) imposed by national governments.


Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.


There are successful precedents for supra-national bodies  The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosperity and security enjoyed today by the people of the Western European nations is in no small measure the result of the gradual evolution from the original limited-purpose, six-member European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the general-purpose, 27-member EU of today. In the early 1940s, many of the EU nations of today were locked in devastating warfare. The fact that these same nations are today harmonious components of a quasi-state polity demonstrates the capability of people to change their customary modes of thought and behavior when there exists a sufficient incentive to do so.


A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war  Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.


A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.


The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.


International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible.


A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems  A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality.


A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism  A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.


Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies, navies, business corporations, the International Red Cross, and numerous others, are classified as bureaucracies no less than national tax collection agencies—the archetypical target of “bureaucracy haters.” It is important to understand that bureaucracies do not arise from nowhere, but are a tangible consequence of perceived needs and shared purposes. With that in mind, it can further be argued that a world government would not necessarily increase the total bureaucratic burden on the human population of the world. Some functions currently handled by separate national government bureaucracies might more cost effectively be handled by an analogous world government bureaucracy.


Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world government subject to significant restraints that would effectively eliminate the danger of global tyranny. Among these are proposals that discontented member nations may withdraw peacefully, at their unilateral discretion, from the federation, and that member nations are allowed to retain independent control over armed forces. In addition to these provisions, a sensible voting scheme in the world legislature would preclude the poor countries enforcing their preferences on the rich countries, and vice versa. In any case, excessive emphasis on the heterogeneity of nations tends to obscure the fact that in reality—despite the obvious differences in language, race, religion and culture—a considerable amount of consensus has already been achieved among the global human population on some critical elements of ethical behavior and social organization. The existence of a federal world government would facilitate further development of the friendly, cooperative and mutually supportive impulses within people.


A world government would be ineffective in practice  From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existing institutions of global governance, comprising the United Nations and several others, are achieving as much as can reasonably be expected given the extreme diversity of the contemporary global human population, its widely differing perceptions, viewpoints, and policy preferences. If this diversity is hampering efforts to improve the global human prospect, this is unfortunate, but there is no reason to expect that a formal world government would not be similarly hampered. Furthermore, significant improvements can be made, such as the proposed Global Parliamentary Assembly (GPA) that would convert or replace the UN General Assembly with a directly elected assembly—without going to the premature extreme of full-fledged world government. Many other ideas short of world government were offered by the Commission on Global Governance of the early 1990s. Many of these are viable and attractive options for making progress without an excessively risky departure from the status quo. Thus there is no need to make a reckless giant step into world government, when there are more cautious baby steps that could be taken toward improving international harmony and cooperation.


There is no feasible transition path to a world government model  Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war might so shock and horrify the global human population that it will turn to world government in desperation. This outcome is possible, of course, but it is equally possible that after a nuclear Armageddon had occurred, the scattered and demoralized survivors would be neither capable of nor interested in world government. Quite likely the surface of the world would become sub-divided into a host of autonomous principalities presided over by dictatorial war lords. It would seem that in a post-nuclear war world, there would be just as much chance of severe political fragmentation taking place as there is of further political consolidation.


The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further  The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too much apprehension among the great majority of people around the world that a world government would promulgate and enforce policies that would disadvantage their specific national interests. Most opinion leaders and national government officials believe that they have a vested interest in the status quo. One evidence that interest in world government has declined to a vestigial level is that the World Federalist Association (WFA), which was quite active throughout the Cold War, was recently absorbed by Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), an organization principally devoted to preserving and supporting the United Nations, and which studiously avoids any mention of world government in its literature.


A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy  A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it would be accurate to describe the situation as “bureaucratic suffocation” or “bureaucratic strangulation.” Of their nature, bureaucracies stifle creative thought and innovation. A world government would be subject to so many conflicting viewpoints and attitudes that its bureaucracy would necessarily have to impose an overwhelming deluge of requirements, restrictions, forms and reports on the citizens. The citizens would be effectively hamstrung, and be (figuratively speaking) more or less trussed up in straitjackets. So even if—by some remote chance—the world state did not immediately degenerate into a brutal police state, its massive bureaucracy would in some ways constitute a virtual police state. The problem of bureaucracy alone argues against a world state.