A vote will make the government look weak. The government will seem like it's avoiding a difficult issue by shifting responsibility for the Europe question to the public. Europeans will see the British government as an unreliable political partner willing to gamble EU membership at a volatile and dangerous time for the continent's economic and political future. To lose the trust and co-operation of Europe by permitting a referendum would be myopic at best, and replace long-term political co-operation and security with short-term appeasement of the general public.


The public have a right to a referendum.  The public deserve to vote in this referendum because it regards a constitutional issue – sovereignty. Beyond constitutionality, referendums maintain democratic society when the public’s views and MPs’ clearly misalign, as they do in this case. This vote will also maintain the established precedent of holding referendums on EU issues. If the British people had to be consulted on EEC membership, as happened in 1975, they must be consulted on EU membership: the current EU barely resembles the EEC that the UK voted to join long ago, but has greatly magnified stature and power.


The referendum is good PR for the UK.  A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the UK is not doing enough to co-operate. Europeans also will improve their view of the United Kingdom: a "Yes" vote will minimize the perception of the UK as a foot-dragging, reluctant participant in Europe; a "No" vote will be seen to end a half-hearted charade. Either way, a more straightforward relationship with Europe will minimize UK-Europe mistrust, which will benefit each politically and economically.


The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the people. Representative democracy makes the further basic assumption that citizens are capable of making important and informed decisions when they vote. To suggest otherwise is elitist and undemocratic.


Referendums are a positive democratic force. The argument that the UK has always been a representative democracy does not preclude integrating elements of direct democracy into the political process. If referendums reinforce the legitimacy of government, strengthen the social contract and keep the citizenry engaged, to reject them because they are relatively new is simply reactionary. Those who decide to call a referendum can be held politically accountable, which means that the volume, expense, and quality of referendums will be held to standards. In addition, there is no reason why referendum use shouldn't or wouldn't be codified as it continues to be incorporated into the British political process. If the coalition government deserves to stay in power, it will find ways to cooperate and coexist: if not, the country will be better off with a more functional one.


EU membership is too important to gamble.  Membership of the European Union is too valuable to be cast aside. Prime Minister David Cameron refuses to hold a referendum for a good reason: he knows that leaving the EU would inflict great harm on the UK.1Economically, the UK is weaker on trade negotiations, especially with the US,2 as a lone entity. In international society, the country will be seen as unreliable, and the UK's already fractured relationship with Europe will sustain further damage. Keeping strong ties with Europe as well as the US is essential for UK well-being. If the UK left, the EU would be weaker and might collapse. The organization is at a crossroads given the collapsing Euro and it must weather this difficult time in order to prove its sustainability. If it lost the UK's financial support, the economic fallout in Europe would further weaken the continent's economies, which would in turn harm the UK, whose economy would necessarily remain tied to its European trading partners and financial service customers.  1 PHIBBS, HARRY. March 14, 2011. "Is Cameron worried that withdrawal from the EU would be a foregone conclusion if a referendum is agreed?" The Daily Mail., accessed June 20, 2011.  2 BOWLBY, CHRIS. November 16, 2009. "If the UK left the EU what would the consequences be?" The BBC, accessed June 16, 2011.


The vote will be illegitimate.  The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only fosters misinformation and subjectivity on the behalf of campaigners. Racist far-right parties can easily exploit European issues by playing on public fears about immigration. The referendum lead-up would provide a megaphone for these parties' unacceptable views. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum campaign showed that the public readily believes misinformation and scare tactics and meaningful discussion of issues is drowned out. Leaving the decision to elected representatives preserves the rationality of the debate.  1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011.


The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh  Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about issues: the resources their position affords are a major justification for representative democracy. The UK must reverse its recent referendum trend (which only began in 1973) to avoid undermining government legitimacy and stability. In the status quo, referendums are deployed inconsistently, used as a political tool to hedge on issues, and used by parties to avoid tough internal conversations. Referendums also harm governmental accountability, which is key for a functional representative democracy because it protects voters. MPs avoid being held accountable by their constituents and fulfilling their own role in parliamentary democracy by using referendums to avoid taking a stance on politically contentious issues. In addition, the overuse of referendums causes governmental paralysis: see the US state of California’s initiative addiction. Referendums are a poor use of public funds: each costs £80-100 million 1 -- especially unacceptable since MPs can call referendums on a whim with no guidelines. In the current political, the referendum might tear apart the coalition government. Lib Dems and Conservatives are deeply divided from each other and internally over the issue. If the parties campaigned against each other the divisions formed during the AV campaign would widen. A broken coalition and new general election would interrupt government in a time of recession when the country desperately needs new policies and programs.  1 BBC NEWS DESK. February 1, 2011. “MPs reject Tory MP's call for 'in-out' EU referendum.” The BBC, accessed June 15, 2011.


EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3  1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.  2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.  3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011


Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy.  Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation.  Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2  Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011,  “War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School.


US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law  Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in order to prosecute the war is incredibly harmful as it undermines one of the core institutions in U.S. democracy.  Further, the use of international organisations such as the UN and NATO to circumvent congress has bad ramifications for the future as in doing this the U.S. government has significantly lowered the burden required to go to war should it wish to do so in the future.  This is problematic because the decision to go to war should never be one that is taken lightly. Should the U.S. wish to go to war again then it might end up in a situation such as Vietnam, the conflict that inspired the creation of the war powers act.1  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011


The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up.  The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compromise sometimes in order to fulfil the responsibilities it has taken on within these organisations.  Libya is simply an example of one of these compromises and this does not harm the constitution any further than the US initially did by entering into these agreements and institutions. 1, 2  Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011  Stone, Daniel. “Is the Libya War Legal” The Daily Beast. 22/03/2011


The United States engaged in "hostilities" under War Powers  There are multiple arguments indicating why the U.S. might be engaged in hostilities under the War Powers Act, enough so that this single argument could make an entire two person case.  The U.S. has engaged in sustained hostilities in Libya which have resulted in regime change within the country. The President himself admits that causing regime change would be unjustifiable in his speech justifying the war by pledging that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”2 However, regime change was the result of the mission and NATO and U.S. played a significant role in facilitating that change.  Secondly, the War Powers act covers the U.S. fighting in a supportive role in wars. "For purposes of this chapter, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”3 Hence the U.S. is acting in violation of this condition.  Further, troops do not need to be on the ground to call the Libyan engagement hostilities. U.S. men and women have firstly died in the conflict, but secondly if troops were needed on the ground for a war, a U.S. president could potentially fire a thousand missiles at a country without the engagement being considered a war.  Further, even though the U.S. gave powers to NATO, it maintained a lead role in this coalition force. As such, the engagement should still be subject to U.S. laws and rules.  Finally, the sheer cost of the engagement to the U.S. taxpayer implies that it should be considered a war. The cost of the war has been more than $1 million per day.1  Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011  BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,  United States Congress, 50 USC CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, 7 January 2011,


The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1  As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is.  Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2  BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011


The Libya intervention lacks sufficient international authority  Firstly, the UN intervention in Libya wrongly rests on NATO authority. The use of NATO to circumvent congressional approval in this situation violates the initial agreement regarding the participation of the U.S. in NATO that was ratified by congress. As such, even if the U.S. is legitimate in going to war and the circumvention of war powers can be justified, the circumvention using NATO cannot.  Secondly, the use of UN approval to circumvent congress means that the UN charter and the ideals of the UN have been placed by the government at a higher level of value than of the US constitution. If this is the case then the government has undermined the validity of the US constitution and through doing that has undermined all laws within the U.S. which is harmful should the U.S. wish to project power in a way that is contrary to the UN’s wishes.1  Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011


Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1  Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2  ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011


The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.S. democratic system has been undermined and more powers have been given to the presidency. In the future this could lead to further bad decisions for the united states as presidents are required to prove less in order to take stronger action.1  Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011


Congress was appropriately and openly consulted  Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1  Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."  Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2  United States Activities in Libya, p.7,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011


Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention  The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by Gadaffi’s air forces. Such bombing attacks led to significant civilian casualties.1  Following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 the United States placed on itself a moral mandate that ‘never again’ would such massacres be allowed to continue without intervention. Had the uprising been put down, reprisals by Gadaffi would have been swift and likely resulted in many innocents being killed. 2 The United States had to step in.  Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TESXT)’ AP/The Huffington Post, 28 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011


The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region  If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules that has to be borne despite the harms such a breach might cause.  Violence and insecurity within the Libyan region would negatively affect US security. Firstly through the fact that poverty and conflict often breed religious radicalism and can often result in terrorism which directly harms the US as the most visible world power. Secondly, the US intervening is necessary to show members of the Middle East and North Africa that it is willing to support the region during a time of taxing transitions from old dictatorships to often weak democracies. Further, it shows that the US is compassionate in that it is unwilling to stand by and allow regions to descend into humanitarian crises.  The intervention also prevented a flood of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia.1 Egypt itself is currently undergoing democratic change and such a crisis might have forced that process backward. Tunisia is undergoing a similar transition and America needs to show support for these countries so that the governments that are established in the future will view America in a positive light.  Finally such an intervention is necessary owing to the role that the US and the people of the US feel that it should take in the world. Standing aside whilst a humanitarian crisis unfolds goes against the ideals that the US stands for. Further, given this revolution is likely seeking a democratic government it seems inconsistent that the US would not help countries aiming to become more like the US. 2,3  Wauquiez , Laurent, ‘Libya/no-fly zone/sanctions/refugees – NATO intervention/Arab reaction’, France in the United States, 8 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011  Text of Obama’s Speech on Libya: “A Responsibility to Act.” NPR.org 28/03/2011


Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1  Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2  ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941)’, ourdocuments.gov,  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011


Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders [2] .  Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues [3] . The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations [4] .  [1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010   [2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,   [4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,


The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration  The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany [1] . For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives [2] . France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement.  [1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239,  has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe  [2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011


While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part [1] . This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.  [1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk , 9 April 2003,


The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.  Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders. [1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order. [2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.  [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118,  p.104  [2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999),   See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2


As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries  As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU [1] ; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe.  This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities [2] . Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole.  [1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010,   [2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool,


The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS) [1] and Europol.  [1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia,


Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.


While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area.


Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.  The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.


Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.  The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily. [1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia, join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia). [2]  [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118,  p.106  [2] Reactor, Taking Down the Schengen Wall, April 2009, pp.1-2,


Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created. [1]  [1] Europol, ‘About Europol’,


Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .  [1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011,   [2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011,   [3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011,   [4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010,


The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for  The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa [2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this” [3] .  This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.  [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa,   [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,


Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime  Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area [1] . Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day [2] . Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes [3] . About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons [4] . The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation [5] . The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area [6] .  In addition, with the creation of a parallel European wide criminal intelligence agency, Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals across the Schengen zone [7] . Integration and unity is a better way of dealing with a global threat such as terrorism and trafficking [8] than unilateralism and nationalism. It must also be noted that countries are allowed to re-assume control of their own borders if there is a “grave threat to public order or internal security” [9] .  [1] ‘New functions for the SIS in the fight against terrorism’, Europa, 22 August 2006,   [2] Brooks, Robert, ‘Schengen Information System proves its worth’, Swiss Info, November 15th 2008   [3] ibid  [4] ibid  [5] ibid  [6] Schengen Information System: SIS II, Wikipedia,   [7] Europol Public Information, ‘EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment’, Europol, 28 April 2011,   [8] Norwaygrants, ‘Schengen Co-operation and Combating Cross-border and Organised Crime, including Trafficking and Itinerant Criminal Groups’, European Economic Area, December 2010,   [9] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,


The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union  The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. Indeed, the idea of freedom of movement creates a united Europe. Most EU leaders, together with a majority in the European Parliament, oppose any major restrictions to Schengen, which they see as a core value of European integration – both as a potent symbol (ranking close to the euro) and a fundamental reality of European solidarity. European Parliament negotiator Carlos Coelho said "Schengen is free movement and, like the euro, is one of the symbols of Europe" [1] . There is thus little reason to believe that major divisions will occur any time in the future. Italy and France’s disagreement actually produced a unified response about how to reform the Schengen Agreement for the good of all within it [2] .  [1] ‘EU warned against changing Schengen deal on borders’, BBC News, 3rd May 2011,   [2] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011,


Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not being a part of the passport free area does not have any negative effects.


The only precedent for this is the disastrous Iraq war where the reason for the invasion was given as disarming Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction he turned out not to have. Most countries would therefore be justified in being skeptical of any country claiming the right to disarm another of WMD. Additionally when this is done by the major powers the action is likely to be seen as being hypocritical. In the case of Chemical Weapons the United States does not have a particularly clean record. The United States used less deadly chemical weapons, Agent Orange, in Vietnam in order to clear foliage, and in Iraq it used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon. The United States has so far failed to decommission its own Chemical Weapons and instead keeps getting extensions. [1] Similarly both Russia and the United States had Biological Weapons programs, and although these have ended still maintain large smallpox supplies.  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘Obama’s Rogue State’, monbiot.com, 9 September 2013,


Disarming illegal weapons  A second possible justification for intervention is when the state that is intervening against is itself breaking international law such as the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The intervention would then be to force compliance of the treaty; this would mean forcible disarmament of illegal weapons. In the case of Syria the country could be deemed to have violated its own legal obligations due to its having broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol [1] that bans the use of chemical weapons. Since manufacturing and possession of these weapons is banned if it is considered that having such weapons is a ‘gross violation of international law’ then a limited use of force to destroy these weapons could be considered to be legal. [2] This could be considered to be analogous to the police stepping in to confiscate a banned weapon, with no police internationally other states have to be the ones to step in.  [1] 1925 Geneva Protocol, League of Nations, 17 June 1925,   [2] Dr Wolff Heintschel, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013,


Current international law does still matter, each time a state takes such action without consent other states object, they are simply not powerful enough to prevent it but this does prevent any norm being created by the aggressor.  If however international law does no longer matter then any war is legal, or rather at least not illegal. This potentially means going back to a situation where any state has a sovereign right to engage in conflict for almost anything it sees as an infringement of its sovereignty. The best we might hope for would be that states could agree that while war might be legal it has to be under the conditions of launching a just war under jus ad bellum. There are six requirements:  just cause – defence of oneself, allies, or innocents or punishment for wrongdoing  right intention – no ulterior motives beyond the stated cause  Proper authority and public declaration – must be open and done publically  Last resort – have expended all peaceful alternatives  Proportionality – must create more good than evil so that the action is worth the costs  Probability of success – there must be some likelihood of making a difference and concluding the conflict quickly. [1]  In most cases military action would not meet all of these requirements.  [1] Orend, Brian, "War", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition),   Also see the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes there can be such a thing as a just war ’


A moral imperative to intervene  When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. [1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing.  It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”. [2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3]  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30   [2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013,   [3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999,


In the case of Syria these conditions have not been met; the evidence has not yet been provided – the weapons inspectors have yet to report, there have been very few peace talks to try to reach a peaceful solution or attempts at peaceful coercion such as sanctions. Will the attacks be proportionate? They will simply cause more damage and unless they are very large will not stand a chance of halting the violence.  Moreover in general terms it is difficult to see whether a responsibility to intervene really exists. There does not seem to be much agreement that humanitarian distress and the need for urgent relief allows unilateral action if the state that is in need of relief does not want it. There is certainly very little state practice (well not since 19th century imperialism anyway) where it has happened. [1] Even in the last decade there have been failures to intervene against states killing their own civilians in Chechnya, North Korea [2] and Uzbekistan. [3]  It is notable that this was very much scaled back from a more general doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This doctrine does not allow for any nation to take it upon itself to ‘protect’ another’s civilians rather it provides an opportunity for the United Nations to do so. [4] “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter” this simply provided a mandate for the UN Security Council to intervene in such situations.  [1] Booth, Robert, ‘Syria: legal doubt cast on British government’s case for intervention’, theguardian.com, 29 August 2013,   [2] Ryall, Julian, ‘Up to 20,000 North Korean prison camp inmates have 'disappeared' says human rights group’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2013,   [3] ‘Uzbekistan: No Justice 7 years after Andijan Massacre’, Human Rights Watch, 12 May 2012,   [4] Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Is America now becoming an international outlaw?’, The Japan Times, 3 September 2013,


Current International law on the use of force no longer matters  The international prohibition on the use of force has always been honoured in large part in the breach leading to the question of whether it should really be considered to be binding international law at all. Almost every major country has launched an illegal offensive action at some point; The USA has been involved in Kosovo and Iraq, the UK and France in attacking Egypt in 1953, China in attacking Vietnam in 1979, and Russia (as the USSR) in attacking Afghanistan also in 1979. In each instance of unilateral offensive action there will be justifications and a ‘smoke screen’ to make the conflict appear to be legal when in fact it is not. Major powers should simply admit that they do not regard the prohibition of the use of force as binding on them. Even without admitting it because international law is based upon state behaviour the use of force is legal as Michael J Glennon suggests “The consent of United Nations member states to the general prohibition against the use of force, as expressed in the Charter, has in this way been supplanted by a changed intent as expressed in deeds.” [1]  [1] Glennon, Michael J., ‘How War Left the Law Behind’, The New York Times, 21 November 2002,


An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the intention of saving lives; that is what a norm of preventing any infringement of sovereignty without UN approval is supposed to prevent – conflict and the lives lost this causes. But Internal conflict and genocide has since become much more the problem than aggression between states requiring a rebalancing of which norms are kept.


The problem with relying on the Security Council is that it effectively means that the world is saying that five states can decide what is legal and what is not. Should the five countries who are probably most inclined to interventions, and are usually at loggerheads really be the ones to decide in such situations?


Uniting for Peace  One interesting possibility that could help short circuit the problems on the Security Council that prevents action either through UN Security Council action or through the Responsibility to Protect would be to take the case to the UN General Assembly. There was a resolution in 1950 that “Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” [1] The General Assembly is clearly the more legitimate body, and it also does not have the problem of vetos. It is however unlikely that UN Security Council members France, the UK, and the USA would want to create such a precedent. [2]  [1] ‘Uniting for peace’, General Assembly – Fifth Session, 377, 3rd November 1950,   [2] Dapo Akande, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013,


There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others  Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” [1] With Iraq it was once again a norm against WMD with Tony Blair arguing “UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.” [2] This means that the nation that is going to engage in offensive action is attempting to prevent the breach of one international norm against certain weapons by breaching a norm against unauthorised military action.  In Kosovo it was even more hypocritical; NATO acted to make sure Milsovic “honor his own commitments and stop his repression” with the intent that “if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.” [3] So we will protect the norm against conflict by initiating a conflict of our own. Defending one international norm by breaching another is both pointless, because it undermines all norms, and hypocritical because it says those norms apply only to someone else.  [1] President Obama, ‘TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Aug. 31 statement on Syria’, The Washington Post, 31 August 2013,   [2] ‘Full transcript of Blair's speech’, BBC News, 20 March 2003,   [3] Clinton, Bill, ‘Statement on Kososvo’, Miller Center University of Virginia, 24 March 1999,


Military action is only legal with UN Security Council approval  Traditionally (by this I mean since 1945!) there are only a couple of ways in which a war is legal. The first is simple; self defence. The UN charter allows “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” [1] but this does not fall into that category. Assad is attacking his own people, not another state that is entitled to self defence. No state is able to claim the right to provide self defence for those who Assad is attacking.  A much more viable proposition is to go through the UN Security Council. The charter allows that “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace… Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [sanctions and other non-forceful methods of applying pressure] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” So the UN Security Council certainly could authorise the use of force. Unfortunately a Security Council member, Russia, has already effectively ruled out authorizing military action with its foreign minister urging the US not to repeat “past mistakes” (i.e. Iraq and Libya) and warning “It’s a very dangerous slippery slope that our Western partners have gone on before. I hope common sense prevails.” [2]  [1] United Nations, ‘Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,   [2] Meyer, Henry, ‘Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, Russia Says’, Bloomberg, 26 August 2013,


Uniting for Peace is well over sixty years old and yet has only been used once, to intervene against a full scale invasion of South Korea. This is hardly a good precedent for using against a state that is not involved in aggression against another state. The intent of Uniting for Peace is to restore “international peace” not domestic peace. It says nothing about intervening in internal conflicts without approval from the Security Council.


Stability could have been ensured without a military alliance like NATO. The European Union could have managed to create stability on its own, the EU itself since the Lisbon Treaty has gained the role of the West European Union security organisation. Additionally admission to NATO (and incidentally the EU) require social harmonisation and stability to occur before a new state can join, to quote the NATO Handbook directly; “States which are involved in ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes, must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles, before they can become members.” [1] If these nations had to sort out their problems first what was the point of enlargement, it is not enlargement per se that is meaning that these disputes are solved.  [1] NATO, The NATO Handbook; The 1995 Study on NATO's Enlargement, 1995,


NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability  Enlargement was necessary to prevent Europe “reverting to type”. The rise once again of the ethnic and religious causes of war. [1] And this is still a reason for NATO to expand to help stabilise Europe. The Balkans is only the worst area for Ethnic tensions; there are similar cases all over Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The history of Eastern Europe has been one of empires not the nation state. Stalin had a policy of divide and rule; he made sure each soviet republic included substantial minorities in order to prevent the growth of nationalist movements. [2] Stalin only continued a long tradition of ethnic movements within empires in Eastern Europe. The Balkan problem for example is considered an effect of the Ottoman empire; hence the Christian/Moslem divides in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Austrian Empire settled people on its frontiers in much the same way; the result is that none of the eastern European states is ethnically homogeneous. The Violent break-up of Yugoslavia showed the way many other states could potentially go, NATO wished to avoid this and enlargement was its best solution.  [1] Coker, Christopher, ‘The Geopolitical Implications of the Expansion of Europe’ pp5-12 NATO looks east ed. Piotr Dutkiewicz and Robert J. Jackson (Westport, Praeger publishing, 1998) p.8  [2] Keylor, William R., The Twentieth Century World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001), p.460


Again NATO need not have been the method why which these were fulfilled; the EU could equally provide collective defence within Europe and create the trust between member state’s militaries. It is also the European Union that has done most to turn Robinson’s ‘insecure and uncertain East’ into being part of ‘a prosperous, secure and self-confident West’. While it may be able to unite East and West Europe NATO is itself a symbol of division to others – particularly to Russia.


NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states  The opportunity of NATO membership creates the incentive for the newly independent republics to achieve internal stability. The criteria for NATO membership include stable democracy; civilian control of the armed forces; a sufficient military capacity to make a meaningful contribution to collective security; and the absence of active disputes on or within the borders of the State. [1] This incentivisation is critical given the European Union was and still is expanding slower than NATO – many new NATO members such as Albania are years away from achieving EU membership. [2] NATO membership will help these fledging States to help themselves.  [ NATO, ‘NATO enlargement’, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 4 May 2011,   [2] BBC News, ‘Albania applies for EU membership’, 28 April 2009,


The objectives of creating stability in these fledgling democracies could be better achieved under the existing ‘Partnership for Peace’ (PFP) programme. The policy received strong support under the Clinton administration involves regular consultations, exercises and opportunities for education that seek to professionalize the civilian and military institutions of the republics of the former Soviet Union. Moreover this was individually tailored to each member based on their own requirements. [1] This policy of genuine aid is preferable to the wish-list of democratic ideals that compose the criteria for NATO membership. Paradoxically, if a country was actually able to achieve all the criteria delineated for membership, the necessity for their NATO protection would be marginal. Conversely, were the republics predictably unable to realize these goals, the protection of NATO through expansion or PFP would be genuine. Yet, it is in these situations of tenuous stability that States will be denied proper civilian and military aid from NATO.  [1] The NATO Handbook; Partnership for Peace, Aim and scope


NATO is a fundamental part of the international architecture used to further peace and prosperity in Europe  Peace has many foundations and no one international organisation can create all these foundations itself. NATO is therefore just as necessary to the peace of Europe as the OSCE or EU and all of these organisations need to expand to cover the states within Europe to promote peace. NATO therefore in its Message from Turnberry – its response to the end of the cold war - “express our determination to seize the historic opportunities resulting from the profound changes in Europe to help build a new peaceful order in Europe, based on freedom, justice and democracy.” [1] Collective defence is as necessary as economic cooperation in creating peace, this is something that in Europe only NATO can provide. Peace is also promoted by NATO through the security cooperation that it provides; building trust between the member states. This need for trust and equality between the parts of Europe was also explicitly stated by NATO’s Secretary General when he stated “Without enlargement, we would permanently frustrate the ambitions of countries of Central and Eastern Europe for inclusion in the transatlantic security and defence community. That would perpetuate an unnatural and potentially dangerous division between a prosperous, secure and self-confident West and an insecure and uncertain East.” [2] NATO enlargement helps heal this fault line and shows the cold war in Europe is really over.  [1] NATO, ‘The Message from Turnberry’, NATO website, 1990,   [2] Robertson, George, "NATO: Enlarging and redefining itself" Speech 18 February 2002


It ought to be accepted that the NATO alliance is already diluted. It should not be perceived as a standing military force, but a holding company whose individual members can draw upon a collective infrastructure and military support in the event of intervention in and around Europe. The expansion of NATO should be the opportunity to re-examine the current force deployment and strategic capability of the alliance. For example, the US maintains significant permanent deployment of infantry, aircraft and armour in Germany that could possibly be transferred to a more active role in protecting the borders of the newly independent republics. Similarly, the NATO ‘After-Action’ report into ‘Operation Allied Force’ in Kosovo highlighted the dependence of the offensive on the US capacity for strategic airlift. The acquisition of the requisite air transport by the Western European States would allow more credible guarantees of security throughout Europe. Forward deployment of NATO troops into the new republics is not a prerequisite for expansion. The core of the alliance is the pledge to protect which is undiminished by the addition of new members.


The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the protracted collapse of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States did remove the overwhelming threat of the USSR against Western Europe. However, the threat persists in a different form. The newly independent republics remain vulnerable to the vast political and military influence of Russia. The new threat is the destruction of stability of the new republics, and thus Russian expansion that is hostile to both the republics and the Western European states in their proximity – worry that this would occur lead to many eastern European states applying to NATO as soon as they could. [1] The solution is pre-emptive expansion in the other direction. The broadening of NATO to include the Eastern republics shall offer a bulwark against Russian expansion. NATO shall continue to perform the role of a defensive alliance against a putative military threat.  [1] Keylor, William R., The Twentieth Century World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) pp.455, 458, 461-2, 475


Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia  Russia considers NATO expansion to be very antagonistic towards it. Continued NATO expansion would only serve to manufacture the expansionist demon that NATO fears. The election of the ultranationalist Duma in 1996, the choice of the hardliner Yvegeny Primakov as foreign minister, and the failure of the reformist party ‘Russia’s Choice’ under Yegor Gaidar even to clear the 5% hurdle for Duma membership was in whole or in part, due to the Russian sense of isolation from Western Europe. President Putin has also made a lot out of his opposition to NATO expansion which he has opposed since he was first elected President. [1] This sense is dramatically emboldened by such provocative actions as threatening to station NATO troops on its borders. The Russian people are unlikely to consider that the forward deployment is not directed against them, as is shown by Russia’s worries about and threats in response to National Missile Defense which is not aimed at them, [2] but instead is only designed to maintain internal stability in the neighbouring republics. By inflaming Russian nationalism, NATO expansion is obstructs democratic development for Russia and undermines the security of its neighbouring republics.  [1] BBC News, ‘Putin warns against Nato expansion’, 26 January 2001,   [2] Quetteville, Harry de, and Pierce, Andrew, ‘Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal’, The Telegraph, 17 January 2012,


The cost of expansion is prohibitive  The costs of NATO expansion are prohibitive at a time when the Western European members are scaling back their defence budgets and the reducing the size of their conventional forces. The Clinton administration estimated the costs of the initial expansion to be $27 to $35 to 2010, but this is mostly the costs restructuring and of making forces interoperable rather than the costs of protecting the new members. [1] The cost of stationing forces in Eastern Europe would be considerably higher and if NATO ever had to defend these countries the cost would be higher still. Given the fragile economies of the new republics, the existing NATO States will be obliged to absorb the expense of expansion. Even a decade after expansion the new members have mostly not succeeded in reaching the 2% of GDP the alliance targets and their combined defence budgets are only a third of Russia’s. [2] The proper question is whether the taxpayers of the US and Western European States wish to pay to protect citizens of distant republics from phantom threats.  [1] ‘Administration Releases NATO Expansion Cost Report’, Arms Control Association, March 1997,   [2] The Economist, ‘Scars, scares and scarcity’, 12 May 2011,


Expanding NATO will overstretch the resources of its core members  NATO expansion can in the long term only lead to the overstretching of the organisation and thus the undermining of stability for the entirety of Europe. The credibility of the commitment of article V of the NATO Charter in which every member pledges to come to the defence of another has already been undermined by the inclusion of small countries that would be unable to defend themselves and are practically indefensible. [1] NATO runs the grave risk of becoming so large and diverse it resembles a political organisation rather than a military alliance. The military contribution of the new members would be by definition limited. Were these republics already capable of providing sufficient security to their borders, there would be no necessity for NATO membership. At the point where the NATO commitments become more declaratory than real, the security of every State including the new members is called into question. There are already worries, particularly from the United States, that the U.S. provides a free guarantee while Europe free rides, this is even more of a problem with smaller countries who cannot defend themselves even if they did spend NATOs agreed 2% of GDP on defence. [2] Thus NATO expansion might in fact assist any State eager for its own expansionism in Eastern Europe.  [1] The Economist, ‘Georgia’s prospects’, 19 October 2006,   [2] Haddick, Robert, ‘This Week at War: Moral Hazard at NATO’, ForeignPolicy.com, 17 June 2011,


Russia is no longer a threat  Russia no longer presents a credible threat to Eastern Europe or the existing NATO States which NATO expansion could counterbalance. Russia can no longer offer the conventional military threat of the Cold War. The acceptance of this reality by the US is evidenced by the fact that troop numbers in Europe are much reduced from a peak of 277,000 troops and will be reduced further to 30,000 in the next few years. [1] This is the key question for a military alliance as defence is the key purpose. Expansion should therefore be decided based upon the yardstick of whether the expansion is necessary for the security of NATO members. If there is no credible threat then there is no reason to expand the alliance. At the same time while Russia is no longer a conventional military threat it still has its immense nuclear armament. This will remain a threat no matter how many of Russia’s neighbours join NATO but Russia could feel increasingly obliged to focus on its nuclear arsenal to respond to NATO expansion – something which would create a threat to western Europe.  [1] Shanker, Thom, and Erlanger, Steven, ‘U.S. Faces New Challenge of Fewer Troops in Europe’, The New York Times, 13 January 2012,


The expense of NATO expansion is marginal when compared to the defence budgets of the major NATO States. The US defence expenditure alone for the fiscal year 2012 is $553 billion. [1] Further, the correct equation is not between the expense of stationing troops in these new States and the current saving from non-deployment. The balance is between the expense of forward deployment or other military investment and the prohibitive cost in dollars and lives from a conflict between NATO and Russia, or a conflagration in any of the Eastern republics. NATO expansion is nothing more than a cost-effective insurance policy against a very real risk.  [1] Department of Defence, US budget, gpoaccess,


NATO expansion is not the cause of nationalism in Russia, rather the Russian leadership stokes nationalism in order to direct attention away from the government. The Russian people are concerned about hardship and hazard within their own borders rather than without. Yes it is true that the expansion of NATO antagonises Russia but this should not be a major concern of NATO, any expansion of a military alliance is likely to worry those countries that are outside that alliance. Moreover, failing to expand NATO to countries that are potentially threatened by the same nationalism and belligerency of Russia would be implicitly rewarding that belligerency. NATO should not be teaching Russia the lesson that hostility in Eastern Europe gets results that lessen the security of all.


Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.  Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America.


The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.  President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.”  At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure.  Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion. [1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden. [2]  [1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010,   [2] ibid


How can the Taliban be included if they absolutely disagree on negotiating, but instead want to overthrow the government? So far the Taliban has always insisted that they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan. [1] This means that we are actually making the problems worse for the people over there instead of better.  We really need to have a reliable partner in the region. Nowadays Pakistan is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States with fighting Taliban. In 2007, the National Security Council of Pakistan met to decide the fate of Waziristan and take up a number of political and administrative issues in order to control the “Talibanization” of the area. The meeting was chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and attended by the Chief Ministers and Governors of all 4 provinces. They discussed the deteriorating law and order situation and the threat posed to state security. The restoration of peace in North and South Waziristan will be a great challenge. The dilemma is not only that the local Taliban in North Waziristan are not ready to speak with the government, but they also disallow anyone else in the region from speaking with the authorities. In these troubled areas, political agents are seen only in their official functions and troops are limited merely to forts and bunkers. [2]  Yes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapon, but it is important to underline that legitimate government has it, not the terrorists group. If we go through, we can say, a ‘blackmail’ of terrorist having a nuclear weapon we are risked to have them a chance to capture the power and provide their cruel politics.  [1] Andrew Blandford, «Talking with the Taliban: Should the U.S. "Bargain with Devil" in Afghanistan?», Harvard Negotiation Law Review,   [2] Sohail Abdul Nasir, «The Talibanization of the North-West Frontier», Terrorism Monitor Volume: 4 Issue: 12, June 15, 2006, 01:57 PM,


We have successful precedents in Iraq and Africa, proving that a power-sharing approach works.  African countries and in Iraq have proved that power-sharing deal works. So, it means that it is possible to find a solution for Afghanistan. For example, Iraq seems to be no need for us to prove that power-sharing has worked to greatly improve conditions in the country. Conditions that horrifically grew at an incredible pace during the war in Iraq. [1] The Iraqi government comprises of many members of the late Saddam regime who have been granted amnesty for their crimes. Members of the Taliban can be instated in governments through power-sharing (not giving) deal; in the same way.  Talks in Kenya ensued during the Bush administration when funds for the recuperation of fourth world African affairs were channelled to the region, jointly by the USA and UK. Both Blair and Bush worked side by side with formerly corrupt and violent African leaders to pick the Countries up. South Africa, which is ranked as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank [2] (formerly a fourth world country) is now doing better than both India and China (third-world countries) on the economic front. [3]  [1] Obama: Time for Iraqis to 'take responsibility', NBC News and news services, updated 4/7/2009 1:29:02 PM ET,   [2] World Bank Data – South Africa,   [3] Bush urges Kenya power-sharing, BBC News, Last Updated: Saturday, 16 February 2008, 18:05 GMT,


The campaign is unpopular among the majority of NATO countries citizens, so we should solve the Afghan problem in diplomatic way, specifically through a power-sharing deal with the Taliban.  The majority of citizens in the USA and the UK oppose the war in Afghanistan and want troops to come back home. As was the case in Iraq, a diplomatic solution is required to end the war as smoothly as possible. As at 12 August 2011, a total of 379 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001. [1] About 2000 coalition soldiers in total expired in Afghanistan. [2] More than 1340 British soldiers have been wounded in action. U.S opinion poll proclaims that 62% of Americans want troops home as soon as possible while the rest want a timetable for troop withdrawal. [3] According to Michael Moore, Obama is the new war president. He needs to prove that he is a peacemaker to retrieve the support of his people. [4] The media agrees that the war is unpopular and there needs to be an end creating sentiment like “I wish they would bring them all home.” Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian argues “I think the people in Wootton Bassett [where UK soldiers are repatriated] are representative of a very widespread... feeling, actually, of outrage on their behalf that is quite new in British politics. A complete withdrawal is in public demand. This requires a power-sharing deal.” [5]  [1] Ministry of Defense, Operations in Afghanistan: British Fatalities,   [2] Devin Dwyer and Luis Martinez, «Afghanistan War Costs More Than 1,000 U.S. Service Members' Lives», abcNEWS, May 28, 2010,   [3] CBS NEWS POLL, for release: July 13, 2010,   [4] Michael Moore, «An Open Letter To President Obama On Afghanistan», Posted November 30, 2009 04:00 AM, Huffpost World,   [5] PBS REPORT War Weary British Seek An End in Afghanistan, Margaret Warner travels to the tiny English village of Wootton Bassett and finds growing unease about British involvement in Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2009, Transcript


The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen. [1] This genocide in the making should not be allowed to happen. This will also lead to a civil war. Though the minorities are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it. A lot of people have come out in support of the "western" forces, they will face retribution and future attempts to win hearts and minds will fail when the fickleness of our resolve is exposed. This is a slippery slope if we slide down there is no telling how far down we will fall. This should be the centre of the discussion; our opponents want to put popularity before lives and security and which is wrong.  [1] Dexter Filkins, «Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities», The New York Times, published June 26, 2010,


It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think.  The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to extract the resources of the African continent. The proposition is basically trying to deceive us with this point. The power sharing deals made by the USA (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, USA has applied its own vested interest in most cases. Africa is very rich in resources. The US saw all of these and then shared power with the nation just to earn some benefit in utilizing the resources. Furthermore, the United States went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, a greater concern to the USA than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) [1] and taking Saddam Hussein out of power.  The power sharing in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only to exploit the oil resources but also have a watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.  [1] Aryn Baker, «Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban» , The Time Magazine, July 29, 20,


This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a Taliban fighter faces a drone attack; Did the soviets have drones? No, they didn’t.  Also «Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban» is factually incorrect. The Pakistan president said that talking with the Taliban is not an option «unless we want to breed terrorism».  The current scenario is completely different from the past, not only about the time factor but also political conditions. Previous battles were fought against not only the militia but also its supporting government. This time, the battle is against an independent Taliban force that is backing up the Al- Qaeda group.


The threat of Talibanization is too great under the status quo to continue with current policy.  If a diplomatic solution is not reached or even proposed , the security situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will deteriorate and this is a matter of serious concern since the latter is a nuclear power. Violence in the region can only be disseminated if the Taliban feel they are not being attacked but are included; then peace has a chance of prevailing. If the region were to be left as is Increasing Taliban activity could further destabilize the border regions of Pakistan, while attacks mounted against the Afghan interior would cause significant damage and endanger thousands of live. [1]  An entrenched Afghani Taliban could support and embolden groups with similar ideologies elsewhere in central Asia and the subcontinent. For instance, groups ideologically identical to the Taliban effectively subdued the Pakistani military in the Swat Valley allowing them to impose their version of sharia law and institute measures that included closing girls' schools, banning music, and installing complaint boxes for reports of anti-Islamic behaviour. [2] Continue with the status quo and the Taliban will simply re-conquer Afghanistan when the coalition leaves.  [1] Amna Saboor, «The Waziristan problem», December 14th, 2008,   [2] Jane Perlez and Zubair Shan Truce in Pakistan May Mean Leeway for Taliban, The New York Times, published March 5, 2009,


Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.  No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen & then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad. [1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.  [1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul»,   [2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET,


It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the country for economic reasons. Nor is it surprising that the Taliban had difficult relations with the representatives of the United Nations, as it is not recognised by the UN, where the Afghanistan seat in the General Assembly was still held by the discredited regime the Taliban overthrew.  The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways.  The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade.  If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory (as they do already) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region. (The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated).The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the UK and USA frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people.


The Taliban were not the only oppressive regime in the world and it was hypocritical to single them out, especially when many of their practices are shared by friendly, pro-western states such as Saudi Arabia. Their views were not an entirely alien imposition upon Afghan society, but were rooted in the traditions of the Pashtun, one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups.  The war has done nothing to improve the conditions of women and children in the war-zone! Women' rights are already being violated in both coalition countries and the war-zone. Rape, murder and theft are soaring the world over. While petty financial crimes are reduced. [1] Domestic violence especially against women and children is on a steep climb and remains largely under-reported. Only 35% cases are reported in the UK  The proposition has however provided evidence that the conditions of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have deteriorated as a consequence of the war: air strikes, drone attacks, physio-psychological trauma and so forth.  The proposition has time and time again asserted that the war must be put to an end and the only means to win it in real terms is to talk the Taliban out of it. Both the Americans and British have a history of accomplishing peace with groups that the Taliban roots from by bargaining with them to renounce their natural guerrilla-fighting instincts.  [1] Crime Statistics,  , Domestic violence statistics,


The Taliban supports terrorist organizations, so they are not to be trusted.  The Times Square attack and the Twin Tower attacks are examples of how the Taliban are actually cultivating terrorists to carry out international terrorist acts. The Taliban sheltered international terrorists, of whom Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation were the most prominent. In addition to Al-Qaida’s strikes against American targets worldwide, fundamentalist terrorists trained in Afghanistan have been active in Chechnya, Kosovo, Central Asia, Indian Kashmir and China. This has resulted in the destabilisation of the region and contributed to a great deal of human misery. Therefore, the US and UK cannot afford to risk their nation's security by leaving Taliban to raise, equip and fund terrorists. Even for their own safety, they cannot leave the Taliban in power. The Obama administration is working on establishing a stable government - a government that has trained police force, trusted government officials and better educational system. Therefore, letting the Taliban share power means they will try to reinforce their own system which means none of the above can actually happen. This is not acceptable. [1]  [1] The Economist, Debate: This house believes that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, May 17th 2010,


The Taliban manipulates the drug trade according to its will, so it should not be included into the government.  The Taliban are responsible for flooding the world with heroin produced from the opium grown there; over 90% of the heroin on the streets of the UK originated in Afghanistan.  In 2000, the Taliban issued a decree banning cultivation. [1] By 2001, production had reportedly been reduced from 12,600 acres (51 km2) to only 17 acres (7 ha). Opium production was reportedly cut back by the Taliban not to prevent its use, but to increase its price, and thus increase the income of Afghan poppy farmers and tax revenue. [2] Therefore, the regime relied upon levies on the movement of drugs as one of its principle sources of funding. No other government has ever been so complicit in a trade that kills and ruins lives all over the world.  [1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST,   [2] Benjamin, Daniel, The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, New York: Random House, c2002, p.145) (source: Edith M. Lederer, "U.N. Panel Accuses Taliban of Selling Drugs to Finance War and Train Terrorists," Associated Press, 2001-05-25.


The Taliban failed to provide good government for Afghanistan.  The Taliban is more concerned with religious purity than the physical welfare of the people. As a result, millions of Afghans still live in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, while millions of others are desperately short of food and face starvation. The Taliban made the situation worse by harassing UN workers and aid agencies, in defiance of the usual diplomatic norms, imprisoning westerners on religious charges and impeding the flow of humanitarian relief to their own people.  During the five-year history of the Islamic Emirate, much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet. Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001. [1]  [1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST,