query: Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.  Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.  1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010,  2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011,

positive: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted.

negative: Factionalism is too strong  Since the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in order to ensure personal and familial security and livlihood. This has degraded hopes of a relationship of trust between the state and people, causing people to committ themselves to differing factions, gangs, tribes, and parties in order to sustain themselves. It is apparent that the resulting factionalism may stand as a barrier to democracy, as parties hold fast to ideological committments and interest groups instead of political compromise and power-sharing.  This is especially rampant in post-conflict states, as is the case in Iraq. The current Iraqi government took 249 days to form. [1] The conditions for creating a stable government in Iraq seem to be based more on appeasing all the relevant groups than creating a working government. Lebanon, perhaps the most democratic Arab country also has its problems, the national unity government collapsed this month after 11 ministers from Hezbollah and its allies resigned. [2] , [3] The third example of an emerging democracy is of course Palestine. President Mahmoud Abbas, elected in 2005, continues in office despite his term having expired in January 2009. He extended his term, which opponents say breached the Palestinian Basic Law. [4] In 2007 clashes broke out between Fatah and Hamas, the two most prominent political parties, as a result of over a year of attempted political sabotage after Hamas won the election and Fatah refused to form a coalition in order to govern. These examples show that in environments where there are high levels of violence and conflict, factionalism takes hold over democratic governance. When law and order become difficult to establish under normal means, these regimes tend to seek security through autocracy and de-facto martial law, as has been happening under Maliki in Iraq or under Hamas and Fatah in the Occupied Territories.  Libya may face this same challenge after its July 2012 election, as tensions remain high after the country was divided between Qaddafi loyalists and the patchwork rebel network. Egypt also faces the risk of the military seizing power from the civilian government, as SCAF has already given itself additional powers and intends to create a shadow council that would allow it to veto parliamentary decisions.  [1] Ranj Alaaldin, The Iraqi government’s patchwork alliance may struggle to survive, guardian.co.uk, 24th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] Hezbollah and allies topple Lebanese unity government, BBC News 12th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Lebanon is the most democratic Arab country, ranks 86th Globally, iloubnan.info, 25th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [4] Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas challenges Abbas term extension, The Jerusalem Post, 29th September 2008,  Accessed 19/05/11

negative: Even if the outcome is a stable democratic Iraq, the war was still a costly, illegal, ideologically-driven mistake  The cost of the Iraq war has been astonishing both in the lives and treasure spent and the resentment and chaos stored up for the future. Even if the result had been Switzerland on Sinai, it would still not have been worth it. There have been more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths [i] . It has been the most expensive US war other than WWII in constant 2011 dollars, costing more than $400 billion more than Vietnam, [ii] and what is left is a failed state in the making.  The war was poorly conceived, recklessly enacted and devastatingly badly concluded. The secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted the war fought “on the cheap” using a much smaller force than the pentagon or independent analysts thought was necessary. [iii] With the allies now withdrawing from Iraq the world’s best hope is that the US and its allies will be sufficiently cowed by public opinion as to never try such folly again. That, perhaps, would be a benefit.  [i] Iraq Body Count  [ii] Daggett, Stephen, ‘Costs of Major U.S. Wars’, Congressional Research Service, 29 June 2010  [iii] Weinraub, Bernard, and Shanker, Thom, ‘A NATION AT WAR: UNDER FIRE; Rumsfeld’s Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield’, The New York Times, 1 April 2003

negative: Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force  Constant political instability and war in and near the Middle East call for a united single force charged with the defence of EU countries lying close to the volatile areas.. Turkey is a prime candidate for EU membership, and with its location on the border of both Syria and Iraq, will require support if its refugee problem is to remain manageable. The revolutions in Northern Africa also call for a stabilising force in the region, particularly in Italy where a ‘refugee crisis’ has coincided with the attempts of anti-Gaddafi Libyans to flee the country [1] . If the EU is to take its growing role upon the world stage seriously, it needs a dedicated defence force to make an impact in the region.  [1] Day, M. (14 May, 2011) Flood of North African refugees to Italy ends EU passport-free travel. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

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

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Clearly transparency in real time might cause some problems allowing the disruption of ongoing operations. However most of the time information could be released very shortly afterwards rather than being considered secret for 25-30 years. [1] A much shorter timeframe is needed if the transparency is to have any meaning or impact upon policy. In the case of WikiLeaks most of the information was already a couple of years old and WikiLeaks said it made sure that there was no information that could endanger lives released.  We should also remember that a lack of transparency can also endanger lives; this might be the case if it leads to purchases of equipment of shoddy equipment without the proper oversight to ensure everything works as it should. For example many countries purchased bomb detectors that are made out of novelty golf ball finders, just plastic, that do not work from a Briton looking to make a fast buck. It has for example been used to attempt to find car bombs in Iraq. A little transparency in testing and procurement could have gone a long way in protecting those who have to use the equipment. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.8  [2] AFP, ‘Iraq still using phony bomb detectors at checkpoints’, globalpost, 3 May 2013

negative: Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]? The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].  [1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012  [2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013  [3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org  [4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014

negative: Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is now functioning as one of very few democracies in the Middle East  It's important to be clear that this debate is looking at the results of the Iraq war and, by any definition Iraq is in a much more stable and secure position than it was in 2003 when American, British and other international troops arrived in the country.  Whatever one thinks of the initial justifications for the war there is no doubt that the country, the region and the world are better and safer places without Saddam Hussein [i] . It is easy to criticize the allies but it is worth bearing in mind that the alternative was leaving in power a man who had committed genocide was a vicious and brutal dictator under whose regime extra-judicial execution and detention, mass-murder and torture were commonplace [ii] .  [i] Richard Miniter. “Was the Iraq War Worth It?”. Hudson New York. 2 September 2010.  [ii] Interview with Donald Rumsfeld. Inside Politics. NPR. 14 February 2011.

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

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.

negative: The G8 countries are the world’s most powerful countries. As such most of the powers involved in the G8 have at some point been involved in aggressive foreign interventions. The Iraq invasion did not lead to calls to throw the US and UK out, neither did the bombing of Libya lead to France’s expulsion. Using Russian actions in Ukraine as an excuse would be simple hypocrisy.

negative: All modern military roles are combatant anyway  Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. [1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol.  For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. [2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead, [3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422. [4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service.  [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010.  [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005.  [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org.  [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense.

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

negative: Eurobonds create a long term burden  Introducing Eurobonds will increase the burden for the European Union as a whole and change the responsibility in the long-term. Right now, countries are willing to help one-another and the best example is the European Stability Mechanism, a program designed to help countries in distress with major economic potential. [1] This is happening because the European Union is not fully responsible for the mistakes of the countries in the Eurozone. Of course, Eurobonds is just taking a step further but it also promotes a bigger burden for the union. Such a long term burden should not be decided and imposed in a time of crisis. If we let the European Union and the ECB decide to back national loans and approve Eurobonds it will effectively be imposed upon the people. The idea is not popular with many national electorates and such a decision will have to be taken without their consent. Germany is the clearest example, in a ZDF television poll, 79% said that they are opposing the idea of Eurobonds. [2] The real problem is that this is a one way street, it would be very difficult to reverse course as interest rates would immediately shoot up again thus immediately recreating the crisis if there were such an attempt. Any attempt at imposition without a clear democratic mandate throughout the union could seriously damage the EU by creating a popular backlash.  [1] European Stability Mechanism, ‘About the ESM’, esm.europa.eu,   [2] AP, ‘Poll: Germans strongly against eurobonds’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 25 November 2011,

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Promoting democracy promotes peace.  By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.

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

negative: Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.  Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property.  [1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12,

negative: The cost of intervention is too high  The cost of intervention is too high. The United Nations has neither the money nor the support of the international community to undertake speculative missions. Already it fails to meet its targets for troops to provide peacekeeping in countries which request its help. The USA already contributes nearly a quarter of the UN's peacekeeping budget and cannot afford more at a time when it is already stretched by major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is difficult to see where else the necessary funds could come from. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is expected to cost as much as $15 billion over the next ten years, ‘plus the cost of training a new army and police force’. [1] At a time of financial austerity, American citizens are entitled to ask whether their money is being spent prudently. The lives of intervening soldiers are not pawns, they should not be unnecessarily sent into death-traps like Somalia in 1990. [2]  [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:   [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

negative: Ushered in the liberation of Libya.  The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.  Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.  After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012  [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org  [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013

negative: There is little interest in unification among young people in South Korea  There is one very obvious historical example which speaks to attempts to unite Korea by force: the 1950-53 war. It seems unlikely that even the most ardent supporter of reunification south of the border would be keen to repeat that fiasco which had at least 910,000 battle deaths and total death toll up to 3.5million. [1]  In addition, the younger generations have much less interest in the proposal than their parents and grandparents did.  As a result the grand coalition would run the very real risk of one of the component parts actively opposed to the proposal and the other half at the very least unhappy about it.  The assumption that the North Korean army will simply roll over or melt away is reminiscent of the ideas about swift victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and so it seems unlikely that the US public would be too keen to sign up for a second Korean War.  Ultimately to work this proposal needs the support of the peoples of North and South Korea as well as those of, at least, the US and China. There is precious little evidence that any of those things are true.  [1] ‘Inter-State War Data’, Correlates of War v.4.0, 1816-2007 , ‘Korean War’, Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

negative: There are certainly difficulties in seeing how an independent North Korea could be reasonably expected to joined the global community of nations. However, that is not the case here. There are still ties between the North and South, of blood and kindred if nothing else, two potent forces in Korean culture and Confucian thought.  The situation is different from Iraq and the lessons of the De-Ba’athication process appear to have been learnt; that middle ranking, and often senior, apparatchiks do not necessarily have a loyalty to the former regime. De-Ba’athication was much more extensive than its equivalent in post-communist Europe where generally only those over a certain level were excluded [1] while after World War II very few Japanese were excluded from the bureaucracy. [2] It seems unlikely that the mistake would be repeated.  The closest analogy to where the North is now is not the oft-cited East Germany but South Korea’s own prodigious economic growth. On the basis of which there should be huge optimism at the prospect of reunification.  Reunification looks almost inevitable as the state quietly implodes. The leadership in North Korea are not fools, they see the economic data and know that change is needed. There is even talk of not accepting Kim Jong Un’s designated successor.  As a result reunification can take place after a long period of decline which leaves the country needing even more effort and money to rebuild or following decisive action.  There is every reason to suspect that there is genuine dissatisfaction in the North and certainly the accounts and actions of defectors would suggest this to be the case.  [1] Williams, Kieran et al., ‘Explaining Lustration in Eastern Europe: ‘A Post-communist approach’’, SEI Working Paper No 62, 2003, p.2  [2] Arato, Andrew, ‘The Occupation of Iraq and the Difficult Transition from Dictatorship’, Constellations, Volume 10, Number 3, 2003, p.9

negative: One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.  Nobody is suggesting that Mehanna planted a bomb – or even attempted to. His crime, if it deserves such a word is to hold an opinion and to have expressed it. That opinion was that current American military policy in the Muslim world is wrong and to suggest that those living there should be opposition to the major powers of the age attempting to impose their will, through force of arms, on a people in a different country.  Such an opinion is not only shared by many – if not a majority – of commentators in the West but could easily have been voiced by Washington, Jefferson or Adams [i] . There are two fundamental differences between Mehanna and the Founding Fathers: firstly they went further and called for violent opposition, secondly they were wealthy and white. It may be tempting to argue, “But wait, they were also Americans” – no they weren’t they were subjects of the British Crown. One might be tempted to argue that they were born in North America, fine but Mehanna is a faithful son of Islam – like Washington, simply defending his birth right.  Rather than recognising the similarities [ii] a court, sitting not that far from Concorde, site of the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, decided to tear up the Declaration of Independence, or at least its spirit and imprison a young man for the ideas in his head. Although the analogy with America’s fight for independence from Britain may seem far-fetched, it provided the core of Mehanna’s speech [iii] at his sentencing hearing although, apparently, too little affect.  [i] To take one example, here’s a review of American Insurgents, American Patriots. Found here .  [ii] Daily Mail (AP). Al Qaeda Terrorist from Wealthy Boston suburb given standing ovation by family as he starts 18-year prison sentence. 13 April 2012.  [iii] Mehanna, Tarek, ‘Tarek’s powerful sentencing statement’, 12 April 2012,

negative: Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm  We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified [1] . For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi [2] . As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action [3] . Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.  [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”,   [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News,   [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times,

negative: 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,

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.  [1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011,

negative: Sanctions are a proportionate response  Cyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths), [1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost.  The only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices. [2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services.  [1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011,   [2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013,

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world  Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.  Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.  Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.  [1]  ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010  [2]  ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010

negative: Religion does not motivate foreign policy  Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.  Nations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]  With religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.  [1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012  [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be South Ossetian independence will help prevent future conflict  The status quo in the region is one of militarized clashes and tensions. It is important to recognize that South Ossetia has been de facto independent for some time. If it does not achieve independence, the proposed alternative is that it re-integrate into Georgia. Yet, of South Ossetians have made it clear that they will not accept this. The only possible course of action, therefore, would be to force over 100,000 South Ossetians to live under the tyranny of the majority of the Georgian state. This would not only be a clear violation of self-determination and basic democratic principles, but it would also risk a protracted war or insurgency in S. Ossetia against any re-assertion of Georgian authority. S. Ossetia and Georgia have been battling each other for over a century. Georgia has been accused of ethnic cleansing there, and of launching a 'war of aggression' which killed a large number of S. Ossetian civilians in 2008. [1] This war, as the culmination of Georgian aggression against S. Osstia, has made finally made any sort of reconciliation between the two impossible, and hardened S. Ossetian desires for independence. Keeping S. Ossetia within Georgia will simply prolong this ethic struggle, which has demonstrated itself to be irreconcilable in the foreseeable future. This conflict could easily draw in other powers (such as Russia) and cause a wider war once again. Granting S. Ossetian independence, therefore, would help avoid future conflicts and their awful humanitarian consequences.  [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.

negative: If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.

negative: Even if we do have an obligation to end mass suffering and indiscriminate killing, invasion is not the way to do so. Western intervention will inevitably increase the collateral damage by escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that intervention will solve this conflict in the long-run instead of simply causing another endless war like the one in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, even if we have an obligation to intervention, invasion is not the way to do it.

negative: Youth are not represented in politics  Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.  [1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,   [2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission,  , accessed 3 May 2013  [3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012,   [4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012,

negative: The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property.  Regarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC.


query: The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence.  The US’ Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START. “The Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond.” [1]  Both US Military and civilian leaders insist that the new START treaty will still allow the US to deploy effective missile defenses, something which Russia was opposed to, and so will not affect US missile defense plans. The main limit on missile defense is that the treaty prevents the conversion of existing launchers for this purpose this would be more expensive than building new missiles specifically for defense purposes. [2]  Furthermore, as Joe Biden argues, New START is important to Russian cooperation on missile defense: "This [missile defense] system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December." [3]  In many ways, in the 21st Century having an abundance of nuclear weapons, particularly having too many, is more of a liability than an advantage. The United States will be far safer with fewer nuclear weapons in the world and a stronger, more stable relationship with Russia under New START, and this is desirable. Therefore it is clear that New START maintains the important parts of US nuclear capabilities while removing the over-abundance which may become a liability due to security and medical concerns, and so New START should be supported.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] ibid  [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

positive: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.

negative: 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,

negative: 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,

negative: Russian and US economic interests conflict  Good economic relations are possible only as long as long as The USA believes that Russia is genuinely trying hard to bring its economy into line with the Western world. Both Putin and Medvedev have emphasised that the country’s economic interests will always determine Russian foreign policy. Most particularly foreign policy has been driven by oil and natural gas. This has involved a conflict with the United States over the construction of pipelines. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) gas pipelines are specifically built to diversify European energy supplies away from dependence on Russia but were only built due to unequivocal US support. [1] Building these pipelines is directly against Russian interests. Russian economic interests include, amongst other things, close trade links with autocratic regimes, particularly in the former USSR, and exporting weapons and nuclear technology to China and Iran. In the example of Iran Russian economic interests have meant that Russia has blocked US efforts to get sanctions. [2] An area of particular conflict with the US is the Russian building of an $800million nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Similarly Russia sold Iran $1.7 billion of arms between 2002 and 2005 including anti-aircraft systems so making any potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States much more dangerous. [3] Thus, close economic cooperation between two states whose economies are driven by very different goals is improbable.  [1] ‘Pipeline politics? Russia and the EU’s battle for energy’, EurActive.com, 20/8/09,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Tony Karon, ‘Iran Diplomacy: Why Russia and China Won’t Play Ball’, Time, 22/3/06,  accessed 6/5/11  [3] Mark N. Katz, ‘Russian-Iranian Relations: Functional Dysfunction’, Mideast Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2009,  accessed 6/5/11

negative: Russian and US strategic interests conflict  Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia. [1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.” [2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets.  [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008,   [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org,  accessed 27/4/11

negative: Russia gets what it wants  There have been many suggested motives for Russia’s sending military forces into Crimea. Providing a lease on Crimea to Russia would provide a solution to most of Russia’s main objectives; the Russians in Crimea are protected, and the Russian hold on its Black Sea base is secure. More importantly the crisis started after the defeat of President Yanukovych and the resulting blow to Russian prestige in what Russia sees as a zero sum game (if one side wins the other automatically loses to the same extent). An invasion or Crimea regained Russian leverage but left Russia with little room to manoeuvre as any climb-down would leave Putin with nothing. [1] A lease gets out of this zero sum problem as both can gain. A lease would enable Russia to make an agreement with the Ukrainian government and recognise that government without having to lose face as any other solution which maintains Ukrainian territorial integrity would.  [1] Crowley, P.J., ‘Crimea: Putin’s mission accomplished’, BBC News, 3 March 2014,

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

negative: In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process.  "The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (Kimball, 2005).” Even if countries could rapidly produce a bomb without any testing they would not be able to see if it works and any state engaged in breakout would take time to make their bomb deployable on delivery vehicles.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons  The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.

negative: Nuclear weapons provide the source of the greatest possible barbarity in warfare; therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that their abolishment would only exacerbate conflicts. States do not start wars with major powers contemporaneously merely because those major powers happen to have nuclear weapons; traditional deterrence will still be as effective as it is currently. Furthermore, the abolishment of nuclear weapons would allow thereafter mutual co-operation on the issue of non-proliferation without the current fear that others are only concerned with preventing proliferation in countries likely to be opposed to their interests.

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

negative: Need to protect Russian civilians  It is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”. [1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev.  The Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.” [2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine? [3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people. [4]  [1] RT, 1/3/2014  [2] RT, 27/2/2014  [3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014  [4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014