Journalism should report the experiences of the vulnerable and oppressed just as much as those of the elite and powerful.  The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”. [1]  [1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes,


bate living difference international middle east house believes news

The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened.  It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.  News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.  [1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.  [2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars,


If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries. [1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested.  [1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute  p.11


americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international

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.  If the US and Israel do have issues where military officials have broken the international criminal law, they can be dealt with by the existing Courts-Martial of their respective militaries. Both Israel and the US are states that obey the rule of law. The ICC was unnecessary when the US military convicted William Calley for the My Lai massacre, or the Mahmudiyah case.  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.


Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.  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, provide 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.  It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists.  In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.


Just because there is widespread public support for a thing or measure does not mean that it should automatically be the case. The issue should be debated on its own merits, rather than resting on a potentially ill-informed public. Ratification of treaties is left to congress and the Knesset to ensure that their consequences are properly considered.


The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.  The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals.  In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries.  An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy.


It took nearly two years for the ICC to launch an investigation into atrocities in the Central African Republic. This has helped defeat the argument that it would be faster than the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Tribunal for Rwanda were. So far being indicted by the ICC has had little impact; for example it failed to prevent the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, who is currently facing trial by the ICC for crimes against humanity, as President of Kenya.  The ICC is also hamstrung by its inability to capture defendants itself. It can only do so with the co-operation of its member states.  The US and Israel have nothing to gain from membership, and everything to lose in terms of being on the receiving end of politically motivated and abusive prosecutions.


The American people support ICC membership.  In a democracy the voice of the people should carry weight in determining how the country acts internationally. According to a 2005 poll carried out by the Chicago Council on foreign relations 69% of the US population are in favour of US participation in the ICC. This clearly shows that the US people are unconvinced by the arguments on the theorized drawbacks of the International Criminal Court and are happy for it to be ratified.


The only effect on US freedom of action would be prohibition of clear and significant violations of international law.  If the US stays within the international criminal law, they will not be affected by the ICC. It would be harmful for any state to have special treatment – if the US were to be granted such special treatment to the United States other large states could request the same due to their self-perceived international roles. Such exceptions and opt outs would mean that the International Criminal Court would be granting impunity to large states, whatever gargantuan violations of the international law are committed, and only investigate smaller ones. This would clearly be an unfair system of international justice. If a country engages in more military engagements, and is larger and more powerful, it is all the more necessary that they are held to the same standards as smaller powers.


It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined.  While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty.


Risk of “lawfare” against Israel  The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends.  A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts.  Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.


ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution  US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.  The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations.  There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence.


The rest of the world is better off with the US out  The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction.  When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution.  This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene  American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either.


Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty  Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies  Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself.


While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world.  While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International.  While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.


If Israeli nationals have not committed any criminal offences against international law, they have nothing to fear from joining the International Criminal Court system. While some may agitate for action to be brought against Israel for political reasons, the International Criminal Court has an independent prosecutor and complex procedures that will act as an adequate filter to stop it being hijacked as a tool for “lawfare”  No state should have immunity from the international law, whatever their circumstances or potentials for mischievous uses of the legal system.  In addition, Israeli membership of the ICC would be useful part of the bargaining in the peace process, to allow any criminal cases against Israel to be handled by an impartial international court obeying full rules of law.


global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army

Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line.  “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2  On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly.  1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22  2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward:   3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress:   4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96


A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.  Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved.  Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.  [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23.


A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect.


A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.  A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained.


A UN standing army would not solve 'the problem of American military hegemony', even if there is such a problem. It is perhaps unlikely that the US would fund such an army. Nor would other major military spenders like the United Kingdom be likely to since they already send troops to NATO, possibly in the near future to an EU army, and having its own army it would be significantly overstretched. This United Nations could not raise sufficient funds to create such a force. To establish military parity with the US would require a large nuclear arsenal and an enormous military infrastructure. States will not ever finance such a force at the expense of building up their own forces. The army would have to be willing to be pitched against the interests of the US or other permanent members of the Security Council, yet any U.N. standing army would require the blessing of that Security Council, where those members have a veto. Therefore making this not possible, as only the UNSC can be responsible for security. American military hegemony will not be challenged by a force that is under its own direction.


A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves.  A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together.


Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case.


A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system.


A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.  A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice.  1. U.N. Charter, (1945)


A UN standing army is unnecessary  A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.


A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.  Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.  1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787


There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.  If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.


The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.  1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86  2, Ibid


A UN standing army would not be cost-effective.  The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. State armed forces have the advantage of preparing for specific battles with specific enemies. Any UN standing force would be forced by its very nature to prepare for every enemy, in every environment. Such a scope is neither desirable nor easy to overcome without great expense and large numbers. At present, the UN model is preferable; it can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.


A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.  1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26


A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army.


global house believes united nations has failed

As argued below (Opposition argument 2), the UN has in fact been instrumental in developing the modern concept of human rights, which prior to its foundation essentially did not exist as an idea, and certainly not as a body of coherent international law. And the UN has acted to prevent and condemn human rights abuses all over the world.  Where the UN has failed to prevent genocide or human rights violations, it has generally been due to the failure of the international community rather than the UN itself. For example, the bloodshed in Rwanda went unstopped not because the UN was unconcerned, but because those nations that might have intervened, such as the US, France or neighbouring African countries, were unable or unwilling to do so - not a failure that can fairly be laid at the door of the UN.


UN ignores or enables human rights abuses.  Despite the development of the concept of human rights in the post-war world, the UN has totally failed to protect the rights of citizens, ethnic minorities, women and children. It has stood by during episodes of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Yugoslavia among many others [1] , tolerates some of the world’s worst dictatorships as members, and does nothing to improve the situation of women in developing nations. Indeed, where UN peacekeepers have been sent into war-torn countries, they have sometimes been guilty of the most horrendous human rights abuses themselves. [2]  As of 2011, the UN’s Human Rights Council itself is comprised of members such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. [3]  [1] “UN admits Rwanda genocide failure”. BBC website, 15th April 2000.   [2] MacFarquhar, Neil. “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On-Screen and Off”. New York Times, 7th September 2011.   [3] “Membership of the Human Rights Council”. United Nations website, 2011.


Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them!


Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework.  The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1]  [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011.


: Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved.  The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully.  In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War. [1]  [1] Harrison, Mark & Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011.


It is unfair to say that the United Nations has failed just because conflict has not been eradicated from the world. The causes that drive nations to war with one another often cannot be resolved by diplomatic means; to set global peace as the test for the UN’s efficiency is clearly unfair. Nonetheless the UN has served as an effective forum for behind the scenes diplomacy in many international crises. It has come to the aid of countries when attacked, as in the examples of [South] Korea and Kuwait in 1950 and 1990 respectively; it has also kept the peace in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and East Timor. The fact that armed conflicts around the world have become less common since 1990 is, arguably, at least partly down to the good offices of the United Nations.


Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports. [1]  In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body.  [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006.


The United Nations is no more corrupt than any large organisation, much less national governments, and far more transparent than many comparable institutions.  It is true that the Human Rights Council contains some nations with bad records on civil liberties but it is surely better to engage with such regimes and shame them into slowly improving their human rights standards, than simply excluding them from UN organs and losing any influence over how they treat their citizens.


UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.  The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1]  [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website.


Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised.  As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1]  There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state. [3]  [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011.   [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005.   [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011.


It is obviously true that some UN agencies and organs carry out valuable and useful work. However, there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that UN work often duplicates programs and programs carried out by NGOs, national governments and charities. Its work is useful, but by no means indispensable.  The second way of approaching this question is to ask whether these are core functions of the UN – in other words, whether preserving world heritage or co-ordinating vaccination programmes is what the UN is really “for”. We can admit that some UN agencies do good work but still believe that as a body; overall the United Nations has failed.


No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence.  As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function.


The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.  When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1]  [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”.


As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important.  In a globalised economy nations depend on each other as never before, and the costs of war and conflict grow ever higher. So it is more important than ever than countries have a forum for resolving their disputes and simply talking to each other. Regional bodies such as the EU or ASEAN can perform some of these functions, and specialised bodies such as the WTO some others; but there can never be a substitute for the global forum provided by the UN. If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. [1]  [1] Hammarskjold, Dag. “Do We Need The United Nations?”. Address to the Students’ Association, Copenhagen, 2nd May 1959. www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/docs/needun.pdf


Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.  It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. [1]  [1] London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007.


Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world.  The United Nations is far more than simply a debating forum; it does a massive amount of vital work around the world through its other organs. Examples of these are the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, UNICEF, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) among many others. [1]  Even if the slow speed of diplomacy at the UN General Assembly can sometimes be frustrating, the idea that the United Nations as a whole has “failed” simply does not take account of all these very important bodies. Furthermore, the UN remains one of the most respected of international organisations among ordinary citizens.  [1] “United Nations: Structure and Organisation”. United Nations, 2011.


It is arguable that the era of globalisation makes the United Nations less important, not more. Trade disputes are settled bilaterally or through the WTO; economic crises through the offices of the World Bank and IMF; security problems, as often as not, through the mediation of the US or other interested powers. All too often, the UN is a forum not for dispute resolution but the airing of grievances against other nations. For example, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War, both the United States and its detractors, such as France, used the UN to publicise and justify their position on military action, not to discuss it in any meaningful way. If a United Nations did not exist, and we were obliged to invent one, we would hopefully do a better job next time!


The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping.  It is clearly unrealistic to imagine that the United Nations could prevent all wars, but nonetheless it has been successful at negotiating peaceful resolutions to international disputes. It has also authorised military force to defend countries from unprovoked attacks; Kuwait and South Korea, to name just two, owe their freedom to UN action. Finally, UN peacekeepers do vital work all over the world from Cyprus to Korea. [1]  [1] “What is Peacekeeping?”. United Nations, 2011.


This debate is about whether or not the UN has failed. It may well be that the response to a failing organisation is not abolition but wholesale reform, as the opposition argue here, but that would not change the fact that the UN has not achieved what it was designed to do. And while reform has been promised for many decades, nothing has ever been done to resolve the systemic flaws of this organisation. So promises of reform are an unsatisfactory answer to the charges against the UN.


The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model.  It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.


asia global house would re engage myanmar

Despite the change in nominal governmental structure, the real holders of power have remained the same. The president Thein Sein was handpicked by the outgoing military leader Than Shwe. The top posts in government and one-fourth of parliament is reserved was the military. Arbitrary laws prevented leaders of the NLD, including Aung San Suu Kyi, from participating in the elections. Elections do not equal democracy. Other than the sugar-coated words of the new government, there has been no real movement towards democratic reform. The international community has long called for an impartial investigation into the systematic human rights violations to bring its perpetrators to justice. None of this has been promised, or is likely to be achieved under a military-controlled government, the main aim of which is to hoodwink the international community and provide security to the guilty leaders of the military junta.1  1 Ellgee, ‘Myanmar hides behind ‘democracy’’, Aljazeera, 27 January 2011.


Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship  Myanmar has taken significant steps towards democratisation in the last three years. The new constitution and the elections that resulted in the current civilian government being appointed represent a marked shift in its governance structure. Though there may be scope for improvement in its democratic framework, institutions for democratic functioning have been created and this is a huge step forward. Aung San Suu Kyi has also been released from house arrest, and the tone of the statements made by the new government has been a reconciliatory one. A new human rights commission has also been established. While the pace of reform may not match the supposed expectations of the US and the EU, Myanmar’s choice to change gradually and engage with them on its own terms must be respected. The fundamental circumstances under which a policy of limited engagement was adopted with Myanmar have changed, and this calls for reassessment.


Since the government is still controlled by the military and there is no evidence to that corruption levels will go down in the new regime, engaging in trade with Myanmar will only strengthen the ruling elite. There is little accountability for developmental aid actually reaching its desired goals.1 Trading with Myanmar means trading with organisations controlled by the state/military in a nationalised economy. Common people are exploited and kept in poverty while the profits are reaped by a few. This has been the experience of international trade with Myanmar involving countries other than US and EU, and there is no reason that this will change. Further, there is no necessary link between business activity and development of the rule of law, as the experience of many African countries has shown. Opportunistic business entities are more likely to be involved in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that benefit them, instead of causing social change.  1 BBC News, ‘UN frustrated at Burma response’, 13 May 2008.


Regional factors favour re-engagement  Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken.


States should not be isolated on political grounds  The isolation of Myanmar by some of the developed Western powers is arbitrary and marked by hypocrisy. The real reasons for the stance taken by these countries are political. There is little consistency in the attitude taken towards other governments and dictatorships across the world that also have questionable human rights records (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name a few), but either offer other strategic and economic benefits, or are much more influential in international affairs than Myanmar. Myanmar is only part of a group of countries (also including Cuba and North Korea) whose economic and political policies have remained relatively opaque to arm-twisting by the US and the EU. It is unfair to impose sanctions on and isolate Myanmar on this basis, especially in an emerging multi-polar international environment.


This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1  1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2.


Though countries in South Asia have displayed ambivalence in their attitude towards Myanmar, it is not a reason for the US and the EU to change their stance. Regional players have sometimes tended to support the pro-democracy movement in their rhetoric, but have not adopted policies that are aligned with it. Therefore, they have not been able to cause any real democratic reform. If there is a united international community that does not actively seek to isolate Myanmar, but to the contrary engages with it, the force that can drive such reform will become even weaker. The risk of harm from long-existent differences in attitudes between regional players and those who seek to disengage is very low, and nothing has occurred since 1990 to suggest otherwise.


While the policy of disengagement may not have achieved all its goals, it has brought to the forefront a moral standard by which the government can be judged. This has helped frame global opinion and influenced regional players’ attitudes to Myanmar as well to some extent. More harm is done by continuing to engage with Myanmar since that option offers no incentive or pressure for democratic reform. Trading with Myanmar will only add to the economic and political clout of the ruling elite, as the ‘trickle down’ to the population as a whole is minimal. A policy of disengagement, at the very least, prevents the military (which is sensitive to international opinion) from becoming even stronger.


There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement  Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change.  1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011.  2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy)


Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region  The policy of disengagement has not resulted in any meaningful change in Myanmar, politically or economically. Since Myanmar has not been dependent on the US or the EU, sanctions and arms embargoes have not had any effect on the government. The changes in 2010-2011 have been due to the influence of the NLD, and certain regional players (like Thailand and China) which have sought to directly engage with Myanmar. Further, the sections of the population that are most affected by the sanctions are those not in the top tier of the political and economic class, but smaller manufacturers and the working class. Restrictions on exports and developmental aid from the US and the EU prevent local manufacturers and consumers from having access to them. On the other hand, restrictions on imports from Myanmar weaken the market for its exporters. These factors only further impoverish and alienate the local population, increasing economic disparity, and consequently the power of the ruling elite in the national context as well.


Reengagement will send a message to the Myanmar government that the steps it has taken have not gone unnoticed by the international community, and may lead to more substantive change over time. It will project the US and the EU as constructive actors in the process of reform. Reengagement is a way of gaining political and economic influence in Myanmar and in the region. It may lead to negotiations at some stage, and reengagement now would allow them to have a greater say at that time. By not engaging, the US and the EU are not actually able to increase the influence of the opponents of the current government either.


This argument assumes that democracy, and that too a particular kind of democracy, is the only legitimate form of government possible. The kind of democracy that is followed in the West may not be appropriate for Myanmar, in any case not at this stage. There are economic and political inequalities in Myanmar and its democracy is not perfect. However, if everyone was allowed to participate in elections, the country is likely to slip into a situation of civil war, since the elected individuals may not wield real power. Attempts at imposing a particular style of democracy in countries that may not be ready for it can be counter-productive (as in East Timor, for instance). Further, not every country in the world has claimed itself to be a champion of democracy across the world. Such countries have no obligation to denounce a foreign regime, and have a right to decide what their policies should be. An apparently democratic government may not be a good one (for instance, Zimbabwe), and an undemocratic government may not necessarily be a bad one (for instance, China and Venezuela). There is no basis to say that any uniformity has been achieved in accepted international standards for the legitimacy of governments.


The international community and political legitimacy  The military-controlled government in Myanmar clearly does not have popular domestic support - otherwise the artificial election process would not have been necessary. Therefore, it derives its strength from the fact that many international players other than the US and the EU have continued to recognise it, while there is historic precedent for concerted international opinion having influenced illegitimate regimes (Haiti and South Africa, for instance). Having a nationalised economy increases the control the military has over trade and investment, while a majority of the country finds itself in poverty. The choice for the international community is between continuing to strengthen the military by engaging with it, or by disengaging (like the EU and the US) until the ruling elite runs out of resources and options. The former option does not give hope to any real democratic reform, while the latter option would take away the legitimacy of the government in the international arena.


Vested international interest are harming Myanmar  Certain members of the international community, especially regional players like China and India, have tended to ignore questions of legitimacy of the regime for economic and political benefits. While this may be beneficial to them in the short term, it is very harmful for Myanmar as a democracy in the future. Politically, a blind eye is being turned to a culture of violating human rights. If and when Myanmar becomes a real democracy, it is unlikely that it will magically transform into a model democratic state, unless enough emphasis is provided to fundamental principles of good governance at the outset. Economically, investment is being provided in a highly monopolistic and imperfect environment, without addressing problems of corruption and inadequacy of legal processes. In the long run, even if a democratic constitutional framework exists, the country is likely to continue to have high economic disparity and corrupt markets due to these reasons (in a manner comparable to how Russian markets have evolved since the 1990s). Reengagement should not be setting the stage for a shift from a military-controlled government to a poor democracy, which would also be harmful for stability in the region as a whole.


Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement  International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1  1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’.


Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes  The new civilian government in Myanmar is as illegitimate as the rule of the military junta which led to its creation. The military junta itself was guilty of overruling the democratic verdict in 1990 that gave power to the NLD. Under the new constitution, 25% of all seats in parliament and the most influential governmental posts are reserved for the military, and more than 75% majority is required for amending the constitution. Political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) were not permitted to participate in the elections. Further, the election process itself has been described as a sham, involving violence and intimidation of democratic activists. The current government is only a tool for the preceding military junta to consolidate its power and provide a safety valve for its leaders through apparently legitimate means. It attempts to use the false democratic process as a veil to resist international criticism. Widespread human rights violations, ethnic violence, and undemocratic curtailment of the freedom of speech have characterised the period of rule of the military junta. By engaging with it at the political or economic level, other countries provide it with a false sense of legitimacy. This is morally at odds with established standards in of human rights and international relations, especially where other illegitimate governments (Syria, Iraq, and North Korea for instance) across the world continually face censure and isolation.


Regional players like China and India are interested in border security and internal stability for Myanmar. There is no basis to say that their political and commercial relationship with Myanmar must necessarily be for short-term benefit. It is unfair to compare Myanmar with Western standards of preserving human rights or with ‘a model democratic state’, though there may not be any countries in the world that fit the description. It is sufficient if it is at a stage where its standard of governance is comparable with other countries in South Asia that do not face international isolation or censure. There is also evidence to show that exposure to more sophisticated markets does have a positive influence on the development of internal legal systems. Though Russia may not be a model economy, its economic growth has been accompanied by gradual changes to attitudes and institutions internally. Reengagement would make it easier for these changes to take place, while a policy of disengagement would, in effect, be a policy of apathy.


While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar.


bate media and good government international africa house believes limited

Divisionism in Rwanda did not spark as a result of the controlled media and government propaganda in 1994, there were killings reported in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s[1] even before the media was part of society. This came as a result of long standing grudges and misunderstandings between the Tutsi and Hutu groups in the country.  That the media bears responsibility for spreading hate speech and broadcasting where the other could be killed moreover does not absolve the individuals involved. Each individual had the choice whether they acted on what the media was telling them. In a completely free media there would be some of the same hate speech and it would still be up to the individual to decide whether to follow that message. Far better to ensure that message cannot be aired in the first place.  [1] History world, ‘History of Rwanda’, historyworld.net


Blind obedience to authority  One of the major factors that exacerbated genocide ideology was the “AKAZU” controlled media which made most of the Hutu population wrongfully obey authority and government propaganda of divisionism[1].  This was achieved by proclaiming that the Tutsi are snakes and cockroaches in newspapers, and directing the Hutu extremists to where killings were to be conducted on radio RTLM. Meanwhile they also refused to broadcast speeches calling out for unity among people helping to lead to the assassination of the then Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who opposed government restrictions. There was no space to question policies and ideas that were encouraging genocide by manipulating people to believe it was right path for Rwanda.  The genocide should therefore serve as an example that restricting freedoms of speech and press can cause severe damage. This is especially harmful to a healing and reconciling country like Rwanda that needs the freedom to debate the past and analyse how far it has come openly. Rwanda should learn from the past that freedom of speech is necessary to prevent conflict while having only one side potentially exacerbates it.  [1] Chalk, Prof. Frank ‘Radio propaganda and genocide’, Concordia.ca, November 1999


Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech.  [1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013  [2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com


Authoritarian leadership  President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].  Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.  The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]  [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014  [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011  [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013


Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights.  Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future.  Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws.  Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people.  [1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012


International concern  Rwanda, though a progressing country is still aid dependent which has been a backbone for its achievements today[1]. Spoiling Rwanda’s relations with the international community would therefor be destabilising Rwanda’s focus and growth. This has been evident when some countries cut aid to Rwanda recently following allegations of the government supporting insecurity in Congo [2].  Most donor governments are strong backers of human rights and freedom. Continued restrictions to freedom of speech may provoke international reaction through cutting aid and trade ties a move that may hinder the success of Rwanda’s goals. Aid has been cut on other human rights issues for example donor countries have recently acted to cut aid to Uganda as a result of their criminalisation of homosexuality.[3]  [1] DFID Rwanda, ‘Growth and Poverty reduction grant to the government of Rwanda (2012/2013-2014/2015), gov.uk, July 2012  [2] BBC news, ‘UK stops £21m aid payment to Rwanda’ bbc.co.uk, 30 November 2012  [3] Plaut, Martin, ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, theguardian.com, 25 February 2014


It is a wrong assertion that Rwandans are valued in the process of policy making when their genuine opinions are limited to a certain level. The national dialogue is a three day event and cannot cover the concerns of more than 11 million Rwandans. Moreover when people still fear to say the truth as they go through in daily life [1], how can one expect such people to raise the right issues on a public platform with the most powerful people in the country?  [1] Amnesty International, 2011


Restricted press and speech also limits political debate and engagement which are crucially needed in adopting fruitful policies[1]. The best policies are those that are rigorously debated and analysed. The current leadership may have acted to check corruption but without institutionalised freedom of the press to encourage whistleblowing there is no guarantee that corruption won’t return in the future. Rwanda’s progress is therefore dependent on individuals, fine in the short term but development takes decades. In the long term for a state to progress there has to be balancing mechanisms so as to prevent misrule and importantly persuade investors there will be stability.  Moreover Rwanda is trying to create a knowledge economy. It is not like China’s creation of a manufacturing based economy, instead it relies upon critical thinking, ideas and analysis – all things that benefit from freedom of speech.  [1] UNESCO, ‘Press freedom and development: an analysis of correlations between freedom of the press and the different dimensions of development, poverty, governance and peace’, unesco.org


Setting Rwanda's priorities  Rwanda is an emerging democracy healing from the wounds of the horrific past. To achieve the set vision, there should be a priority which in this case is economic development[1].  A large number of Rwandans believe that the government should focus on transforming the nation economically although it may mean restricting free speech, which has prompted a huge participation in government development programs like Ubudehe[2]. Freedom of speech and press needs to be restricted if the government wants to engage in unlimited development; there is no time to engage in long debates over whether a particular project is being implemented the correct way. Having freedom of speech and press would hinder the government’s ability to manage the resources of the state and to encourage investors who don’t want to have protests to their building factories, or have labour complaining about not being paid enough.  Whether a country puts rights or the economy first is up to the individual country, Rwanda has chosen.  [1] Horand, Knaup, ‘Kagame's Priorities for Rwanda: First Prosperity, then Freedom of Expression’, Spiegel.de, 12 August 2010  [2] NS world, ‘Rwanda Engages Citizens in Community-Level development’, nsworld.org


There is accountability without a free press  Freedom of speech and the Press is not the only way of creating accountability in a country – especially a comparatively small one such as Rwanda. Rwanda has been ranked a transparent and is the least corrupt state in East Africa [1] where everyone is accountable and equal before the law.  How can this be without an aggressive free press? Annually, all government officials are cross examined by locals publicly in a forum called national dialogue “Umushyikirano”, to ensure that they meet the needs of citizens and assess their performance[2]. This has given Rwandans courage to express their desires and feel much valued in the process of policy making and engagement. It puts ministers and even the Prime Minister on the spot on individual issues. Restricted press and speech is therefore rendered irrelevant by such programs as people can question authorities and demand justification directly rather than relying on the press.  In Africa, most countries lack transparent government systems and institutions, a factor responsible for continued corruption, poor governance and crime which in turn destroy progress in societies [3], but this is not the case with regard to Rwanda.  [1] Zegabi East Africa news, ‘Transparency International Ranks Rwanda the Least Corrupt Country in East Africa’, 5 December 2013, zegabi.com  [2] Hunt, Swanee ‘Rebuilding Rwanda: Access and Accountability’, inclusivesecurity.org, 30 December 2013  [3] Jones Lang Lasale, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: A region with opportunities amid transparency challenges’, joneslanglasale.eu


Focused leadership  Progress in Africa has been hindered by factors like corruption, conflicts and poor infrastructure, all of which are linked to the incompetent or greedy leaders.  Rwanda is a different case, ranked among the best countries with a strong and focused leadership in Africa, the country has set up clear policies like EDPRS [Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy] which aims to change Rwanda from an agriculture based economy to knowledge and service economy [1]. It is well known for zero tolerance to corruption, improved infrastructure and technology all of which are core factors in achieving development. In Africa, Rwanda tops list of easiest countries to do business a move that has encouraged more investors into the country[2].  Limited freedom of speech and press does not hinder economic development. What matters is that the government is trusted to fulfil all its commitments. After all, nothing has stopped China progressing despite human rights violations and censorship of both free speech and the press.  [1] The world bank, ‘Rwanda overview’, worldbank.org  [2] International finance corporation, ‘Rwanda top business reformer’, ifc.org


While the government of Rwanda has chosen the economy this does not mean the people agree – simply that the government controls the narrative so giving the impression, or persuading them that they agree.  Restricting free speech and press has increased critics from the Rwandan diaspora evidence that inside the country, citizens have no way of putting forward their say[1]. Economic growth is not the only kind of progress. In order to drive forward the economy Rwanda is stunting the progress of individual rights.  [1] Keung, Nicholas, ‘Paul Kagame: Rwanda’s saviour or strongman?’, thestar.com, 26 September 2013


africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed

The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents. [1]  [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013,


The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa  The reason why Moshoeshoe, the leader of Lesotho, wished to become a British protectorate was because of the Boers of the Orange Free State was trying to take their land. In 1966, when the Kingdom of Lesotho gained its independence from Britain, it remained separate from SA as it had been a separate colony. Lesotho was under direct rule while South Africa was a dominion. There was no incentive to change at the point of independence because SA was ruled by the apartheid regime. Lesotho was a strong public opponent of the regime and granted a number of SA refugees’ political asylum. The African National Congress, the ruling party in SA since 1994, was founded in Lesotho. Moreover, during the struggle against apartheid, the ANC’s armed wing organized its guerilla units from the enclave. [1] We can firmly say that Lesotho vas a very important actor in a post-apartheid SA, but the times have changed. The ANC is now in power in South Africa and SA and Lesotho are closer together than ever before.  [1] Smith, 2010,


There is no guarantee that the SA government will indeed try to make a change after the integration of the Lesotho territory. The narrative is quite different in Europe for example where regions like Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are trying to secede because they do not feel the national government is addressing their problems as they should. Even if we agree that SA is the most powerful country in Sub-Saharan region and that they have more money that the Kingdom of Lesotho, there is no certainty that the money will be redirected toward that region. SA already has a lot of problems of its own.


Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services  For the Basotho in a landlocked country the free movement of their people is a right that is in large part dependent on the South African (SA) government rather their own national one. Its importance is shown by 40% of border crossings into South Africa being from Lesotho. Acknowledging the fact that Lesotho is an enclave state surrounded by SA, the ability of people to move freely depends on whether they are allowed to enter SA or not. There is corruption at border posts and the number of crossings results in long queues and slow service; 63% of border crossers experience problems. [1] This is sometimes made even more difficult by SA government actions as before the World Cup in 2010 when border restrictions were tightened making it almost impossible for Basotho to leave their country. [2] This happened due to the detention of several Lesotho nationals after a spate of criminal activities along the border.  The same situation applies to trade. Lesotho is dependent on the trade with South Africa, even for goods that come from beyond South Africa as Lesotho has no port of its own most goods will have to be transported through South Africa. This dependency is rising. In 1980, Lesotho produced 80% of the cereals it consumed. Now it imports 70%. [3] Annexation would eliminate these borders boosting trade between the countries, helping to make both richer. In the best interest of Basotho is to be able to control and be listened to by the entity that is metaphorically and literally feeding them.  [1] Crush, Jonathan, ‘The border within: The future of the Lesotho-South African international boundary’, Migration Policy Series No.26,   [2] Patel, Khadija, Lesotho and South Africa: ‘Good fences make good neighbours’, 19 April 2013,   [3] Smith, Alex Duval, ‘Lesotho's people plead with South Africa to annex their troubled country’, theguardian.com, 6 June 2010


While the ability of Basotho people to travel abroad is something that we should take into consideration, we should also seek to understand the SA government intention to secure their territory. As a sovereign state that is primarily responsible towards its citizens, SA has the right and the duty to secure its borders in order to prevent any kind of security problems that might occur when people from a poor, underdeveloped country like Lesotho try to enter their premises. If SA is concerned about the security of its border with Lesotho how much less secure is it when the border disappears? On the other hand, progress regarding border control is already being made through bilateral cooperation and agreements. [1] Certainly, there are less drastic solutions, such as border-unions that permit the exact same advantages as annexation when it comes to borders.  [1] Magubane, Khulekani, ‘SA, Lesotho to ease border control’, Business Day Live, 22 April 2013,


While any annexation would be mutually agreed there is no guarantee that the whole international community would see it positively; any resistance from groups within Lesotho and it could be a PR nightmare. Moreover the spin of it being a humanitarian gesture is reliant on it following through and improving conditions. If it succeeds then SA will likely be called upon to resolve other humanitarian situations in the region such as in Swaziland.


Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally  With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line [1] , Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus. [2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change.  [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014,


South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage  Bringing South Africa and Lesotho will benefit SA on the global stage. The move would be one to provide aid to a smaller state and provide stability. The dire conditions for the Basotho people are acknowledged by the UN and the Africa Union. Firstly, SA, by the annexation of Lesotho, will prove good intentions in creating a sustainable Sub-Saharan Africa. This will ultimately create a better image and a greater influence in the region if they choose to respond positively to the People’s Charter Movement in Lesotho [1] , a social structure pleading for annexation. The movement, driven by trade unions, has collected 30,000 signatures in favor of their goal and is rising in popularity. Secondly the annexation will provide a boost for the South African Development Community and South African Customs Union by demonstrating the willingness of South Africa to integrate with poorer neighbours and take on some of the responsibility for them.  [1] Smith, 2010,


The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer. [3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden.  [1] The World Factbook, 2014,   [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service,   [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011,


Assuming the two countries are so well integrated, there should be no reason for not taking the last step that is the annexation of the territory. Furthermore, the current sovereignty of the Kingdom of Lesotho exists as a fiction rather than reality. The authorities are not able to provide and take care of the basic human needs of their people; there was a humanitarian crisis as recently as 2012 when a third of the population needed food aid after flooding. [1] Lesotho does not even have control over its own defence with South Africa having launched a military ‘humanitarian intervention’ in 1998 to save democracy but which was also about South African concerns over water. [2] Rather than permitting for the local government to loose its authority, annexation represents the short step towards real and sustainable development for the land-locked country.  [1] Beukes, Suzanne, ‘Food crisis aggravates the already massive social challenges Lesotho faces’, unicef, 28 November 2012,   [2] Hedebe, Siyabonga Patrick, ‘South Africa’s Military intervention in Lesotho in 1998 – A critical overview’, academia.edu,


A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho  With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3]  [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011,   [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012,   [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009,


It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country  It is not in South Africa’s interests to annex Lesotho. Lesotho would be a burden; it is poor, might cause instability, and has no resources as compensation. On a simple cost-benefit analysis made by the SA government they would clearly see they would have more responsibility towards the Basotho population but new resources to fulfil those responsibilities. South Africa has its own problems that it should be focusing on first. Poverty is officially at 52.3% [1] and unemployment is a great problem for South Africans; a quarter of the majority black workforce is unemployed. [2] Moreover, Only 40.2% of black infants live in a home with a flush toilet, a convenience enjoyed by almost all their white and Indian counterparts showing the inequality that still exists in the ‘rainbow nation’. [3] Why add more people under your protection when you can’t take care of your own?  [1] ‘Statement by Minister in The Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Collins Chabane, on the occasion of the launch of the Development Indicators 2012 Report’, thepresidency.gov.za, 20 August 2013,   [2] Mcgroarty, Patrick, ‘Poverty Still Plagues South Africa's Black Majority’, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December 2013,   [3] Kielburger, Craig & Marc, ‘Why South Africa is Still Dealing With Segregation and Poverty’, Huffington Post, 18 December 2013,


Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries  Lesotho and South Africa already cooperate on a wide variety of issues. If we look at the example of the law system; the two systems are almost the same and all but one of the Justices on the Court of Appeal in Lesotho are South African jurists. [1] Moreover, there are at least four inter-governmental organizations that maximize the trade, help and social connections between the two states. Starting with the African Union, going on to the Southern African Development Community [2] that promotes socio-economic cooperation as well as political and security cooperation, moving to the Southern African Customs Union [3] and the Common Monetary Area. Lesotho is not only helped by SA but this is happening without them having to let go of their national identity and history. In much the same way as different nations, large and small, benefit from the EU so the countries of Southern Africa can benefit from some integration without the negative consequences of complete annexation with the loss of control that would bring.  [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘Lesotho (10/07)’, state.gov,   [2] Southern African Development Community Official website   [3] ‘Continued economic reforms would attract more foreign investment’, World Trade Organisation, 25 April 2003,


Of course, the local Lesotho authorities have a mandate to act upon the interest of Basotho, but the problem is that they are not able to do so; Lesotho is dependent on foreign aid. The state simply doesn’t have to money to fund a health system that could deal with the fact that 1 in 3 Basotho are infected with HIV. Moreover, the problems in SA and Lesotho are not that different. In SA, one in ten people have AIDS and a majority deal with poverty. Of course, economies of scale can deal better and cheaper with problems such as poverty and health issues because of their ability to provide more money, resources and expertise. The point about what kind of influence Basotho might have on the SA authorities is not entirely true. The National Council of Provinces, the upper house, gives each province ten delegates regardless of population size [1] ; Lesotho would have an outsized influence.  [1] National Council of Provinces, Parliament.gov.za, accessed 28/3/2014,


europe house believes federal europe

Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller.  Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.


europe house believes federal europe

A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states  A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation  Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws.  Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided.  Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.