query: South Korea can handle the situation itself  The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own.  [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,

positive: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally.

negative: Violation of Sovereignty  Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’. [1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter. [2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference. [3]  Censorship by governments can be there for the good of society; for example South Korea censors information about North Korea and forces internet users to use id cards and real names when posting on forums and blogs making them easy to trace. [4] This does not however mean that democracies should be helping South Koreans to bypass this system, South Korea as a nation has decided to place some restrictions on the use of the internet and that should be respected by other nations.  It is simply unfair and unequal to apply one set of standards to one set of nations and different standards to another. If democracies have the right to decide how their internet should operate so should non democracies. The fundamental principle of non-interference should apply to all states.  [1] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.333  [2] Charter of the United Nations, ‘Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles’, 1945.  [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.202  [4] The Economist, ‘Game over: A liberal, free-market democracy has some curious rules and regulations’, 14 April 2011.

negative: Nations should be allowed an ‘official story’  To some the idea of a national story may be an anachronism but history is one of the things that bind a country together. As Benedict Anderson argues nations are ‘imagined communities’ as members of that nation will never know most of the members of that community or even hear about them but despite this there is conceived to be a comradeship between its members. [1] The creation of a national story from the history of the nation that helps create that common unit. French historian Ernest Renan went so far as to argue that ‘Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation’. [2]  South Korean President Lee Myung-bak himself has argued “A textbook of modern history should be written in a way that does not hurt our national pride,” when criticising a South Korean textbook’s interpretation of the dividing of Korea. [3] If this is the case it is difficult to see how there can be any objection to Japan using the same principle.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, 17 November 2006, pp.6-7   [2] Renan, Ernest, quoted in ‘Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780’, The Nationalism Project,   [3] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Textbooks on Past Offend South Korea’s Conservatives’, The New York Times, 17 November 2008,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks It would never work  There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2]  Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013,   [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013,   [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,   [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013,

negative: Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue  The South Korean government issues occasional exemptions to athletes who have won an Olympic gold medal or achieved a similar feat. If we accept that the law ought to be consistent then there is no reason why entertainers should not be proffered the same opportunity. Both professions tend to favour the young and the requirement that military service needs to be completed before the age of thirty mean that either career would be interrupted just at the point when the individual is likely to be at the height of their skills.  Equally both groups bring prestige for Korea as a nation. Entertainers like Jung-Ji Hoon (Rain) have just as much of a following as athletes such as Park Ji-Sung who, along with his team mates on the Korean national team was exempted from military service for reaching the semi-finals of the world cup [1] .  Indeed Rain predominantly works in Korea and has a following throughout the country and the region whereas Park has spent most of his career playing for foreign teams.  [1] Arsenal Forum , August 30 2011

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgian rule in South Ossetia is historically illegitimate and oppressive  Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. [1] Georgia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Even the USSR recognised S. Ossetia as distinct from Georgia, with the Kremlin stating in 1920 that “we consider that Ossetia should have the power it prefers. Georgian intrusion into affairs of Ossetia would be an unjustified intervention into foreign internal affairs”. [2] S. Ossetia was an autonomous region within the USSR. It was not considered part of the same region that is now Georgia, and thus during its years under the USSR, S. Ossetia built up a significant degree of autonomy and independence in its internal functioning. Therefore, Georgia's only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union.  This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia, but moreover Georgia's historical claim on South Ossetia is quite weak even in isolation. This is because S. Ossetia has its own distinct language and history to that of Georgia. Ossetian or Ossetic is a member of the Northeastern Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. About 500,000 people speak Ossetian in Ossetia. [3] , [4] That Ossetia has this distinct language is an important fact in favour of its status as a nation-state and in favor of its independence. Georgia, however, has been accused of committing genocide against the South Ossetians in 1920, 1993, and 2008, with tens of thousands of S. Ossetians dying over the course of these conflicts. [5] The Georgian government has also attempted to suppress S. Ossetian culture and identity, for example banning the use of the Ossetian language in official documents and abolishing S. Ossetian autonomy within Georgia. [6] Georgian rule in S. Ossetia is therefore both ahistorical, due to S. Ossetia's long and recognised history of independence and cultural and linguistic distinctness, and illegitimate, as the Georgian government has waged war upon the very lives and identity of the S. Ossetian people.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.   [3] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [4] Omniglot. “Ossetian”. Omniglot.   [5] Portyakova, Natalya and Sysoyev, Gennady. “Measuring South Ossetia by Kosovo”. Kommersant. 15 November 2006.   [6] Makarkin, Alexei. “How is South Ossetia different from Kosovo?”. RIA Novosti. 9 March 2006.

negative: 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: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain  As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. [1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements [2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln [3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions.  [1] See #noTTIP,   [2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015,   [3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation,

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world  New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1]  While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2]  New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3]  Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported.  [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Ibid.  [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.

negative: Sanctions can be targeted  The big advantage of sanctions is that they can be as finely targeted as needed. If the sanctioning country only knows which country the cyber attack originated from then they can be broad brush sanctions, but if there is knowledge of which group initiated the attack then the sanctions can be more specific. For example in the case of unit 61398 Of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that Mandiant showed has been attacking US companies [1] the United States could target sanctions at the People's Liberation Army by tightening weapons bans. Alternatively if the hackers are private then banning the import of certain computer equipment into that country would be appropriate. If individuals are known then the sanctions can be even more targeted, for example by freezing any bank accounts held outside their own country as the US did against North Korea when it sanctioned Banco Delta Asia through which North Korea laundered money from criminal activities. [2]  [1] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,   [2] Noland, Marcus, ‘Why Sanctions Can Hurt North Korea’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2010,

negative: Sanctions have also failed in the long term. A recent study found that sanctions were used 116 times between 1914 and 1990, and after 1973 were only effective 24% of the time1. South Africa is not an appropriate example because the US and EU had a cooperative relationship with the country prior to sanctions therefore increasing the impact the trade restrictions had. Sanctions are now mostly used against isolated countries, like North Korea and Myanmar, who do not have a close relationship with international actors, and for whom cutting off trade is not such a detrimental loss. Since the countries sanctions are currently being used against do not fit the profile of South Africa, sanctions are ineffective and success in South Africa is irrelevant. 1 Gilboy, George (2008), "Political and Social Reform in China: Alive and Walking", Washington Quarterly, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

negative: economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards Development has many facets of which pure economic growth is a priority, especially in the context of a developing nation  It is a nation’s own sovereign decision to decide its own standards and pace itself. It is a sovereign right of self-determination of a nation to freely comply or refuse to comply with international standards. It is unfair to back a developing nation up against a wall and force them to ratify higher standards in return for aid.  It is notable that the countries that have developed fastest have often been those that have ignored the whims of the aid donors. The Asian tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, later followed by South East Asia and China) did not receive aid, but preserved authority over their developmental policies. Their success story does not involve the international labour standards and goes against many of the policy prescriptions, such as free trade, of international institutions, such as the World Bank and the ILO [1] . This shows that nations that follow their national interest rather than bending to the whims of donors are the ones that ultimately do best economically. These states only implement labour standards when they become beneficial; when it is necessary to build and maintain an educated labour force.  [1] Chang, Ha-Joon, “Infant Industry Promotion in Historical Perspective – A Rope to Hang Oneself or a Ladder to Climb With?”, a paper for the conference “Development Theory at the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century”, 2001,

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: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia's government is democratic and modern in its institutions. It is fully capable and intent on governing S. Ossetia democratically and honestly. Moreover, if the aim of the S. Osseitans' is to join with Russia, upon seceding from Georgia (as seems likely), then the many arguments it is putting forward in support of its national identity and right to self-determination do not apply in the same way, as they would be simply exchanging minority status in one state for minority status in another, and not truly seeking their own homeland where Ossets would be a majority, as they claim. This means that arguments about Ossetian being its own language and the Ossets having a long history of self-rule are not in fact arguments for secession, as secession would simply result in a transfer to Russia and not a truly Ossetian state. Therefore, the real question is: does Georgia or Russia have a greater claim to S. Ossetia as part of its territory? The historical arguments made by proposition clearly should Georgia to have a greater claim here.

negative: The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom  The internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result. [1]  [1] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Korea Policing the Net. Twist? It’s South Korea.”, The New York Times, 12 August 2012.

negative: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [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.

negative: The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]  The United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: "There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom." [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]  [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.  [2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.  [3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.  [4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE.

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia has a right to territorial integrity  Georgia has a legitimate sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity as well as the social contract accompanying it. Georgia has the right to take action to secure the integrity of these things, unless blocked by a higher international authority. Internationally, S. Ossetia's independence is recognised by only five nations (including Russia), demonstrating that the international community is not convinced that S. Ossetia's claim to self-determination trumps Georgia's claim to territorial integrity. [1] In order to obtain independence, it is important that a country be recognized diplomatically by a significant number of the members of the United Nations. This is important in large part because it ensures that a state will have viable diplomatic relations internationally if it becomes independent. It also demonstrates that the international system supports a certain action being taken internationally. Thus Georgia's claim should continue to stand until the international community changes its mind, and at the moment the international community has legitimate concerns regarding the regional instability and conflict that an independent S. Ossetia might foster. Moreover, as shown above the S. Ossetian state is entirely dependent on Russian support, and so it can be accurately stated that the issue of S. Ossetian independence, and its threat to Georgian territorial integrity, has arisen only because of Russian interference within Georgia. Even those who argue that any region has the right to self-determination would probably reject the idea that nations have the right to foster and encourage parts of other nations to secede from their current state and join another. The S. Ossetian independence movement can thus be correctly seen simply as Russian aggression against Georgia for its own advantage, not an issue of self-determination.  [1] RIA Novosti. “Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. RIA Novosti. 4 September 2008.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west If de facto boundaries exist for a long enough time they gain legal force. The border between North and South Korea is a legal armistice line, rather than an official international boundary, but anyone attempting to make that argument upon crossing it would be likely to receive a cool reception.  The boundaries of the West Bank were de facto recognized, first when Israel and Jordan agreed to abide by them for twenty years after 1948, second when Jordan ceded all claim to the territories, and third implicitly by Israel itself which has made no claim to annex the territory, even in areas where settlements are located. They have not bothered with this sort of diplomatic care when it comes to the Golan Heights which they annexed. [1]  As a consequence it can be implied that at least Israel believes that its claims to the West Bank are questionable, and would like to ensure them through negotiation and this makes the claim that they don’t know exactly what they are doing in the West Bank and that it’s a de facto violation of International Law something less than plausible..  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Golan Heights’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012

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

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] 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.

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be S. Ossetia has an effective democratic government which carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. It has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc. [1] (4) All this clearly points to the viability of an independent S. Ossetian state -a fact which already exists on the ground. Or, if it wants, after independence S. Ossetia is morally within its rights to re-join with its kith-and-kin in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Of course, it would have to first separate from Georgia, whereupon it will have the capacity to then decide to join Russia. Moreover, few states n the world are truly self-sufficient, and there are plenty of poor landlocked countries, so in this sense S. Ossetia would not be unique. Furthermore, poverty from continual conflict is an argument to end the conflict, not against independence.  [1] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.

negative: Celebrities, unlike athletes, work for themselves whereas athletes represent the country. Military service means representing the nation to the rest of the world as does being an athlete, that’s the reason for the exemption, not simply a matter of celebrity.  The psychologist Hwang Sang-Min [1] has made clear that “Entertainers are thought to work for their own sakes. That’s the difference.”  Park Ji-Sung and his teammates were representing their country and achieved a national first. Granting an exemption recognised their accomplishment on behalf of the country. In a very literal meaning of the phrase they performed national service.  Equating such an accomplishment with a performer who is simply doing their job – for which they are well paid – misses the point of the exemptions. Singers and actors happen to be Korean; they are not acting or singing for Korea. Indeed given the speed with which some performers have given up their nationality in a bid to avoid national service, comparing it to a genuine national accomplishment seems absurd.  When actors such as Song Seung-heon attempted to avoid national service they were rightly decried and their actions have far more in common with the sons of politicians and businessmen who seek to use their status to avoid the draft.  [1] Salon.com , Jim Lee, Pop Sensation Rain Joins the South Korean Army

negative: Eritrea has been responsible for the majority of this animosity. The country was responsible for aggressively attacking Yemen in 1996. In 2008, Eritrea attacked along the Djibouti-Eritrean border claiming the territory was rightfully theirs1. A theme emerges from these examples, confirmed by President Afewerki of Eritrea when he openly stated he has sought the removal of neighbouring regimes2. The excuse of adopting a siege mentality has also enabled the president to increase his powers and suppress internal dissent3. It is therefore more likely that the government, rather than external players, have contributed to Eritrea’s siege mentality.  1) Mesfin,B. ‘The Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute’, 15 September 2008  2) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998  3) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’, 3 October 2013

negative: The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security  The timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan means withdrawing by the end of 2012, regardless of the security situation, and handing over the conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaida (which will almost certainly still be going on) to a largely Afghan force which is ill-prepared to handle the war on its own. This means that proponents of the timetable withdrawal must support pulling NATO forces out of Afghanistan even if the war is going badly at the end of 2012 and it is clear that the withdrawal will benefit the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the battlefield. "Afghan forces simply do not currently have the capacity to do the protecting themselves at this point and, given the challenges of building up new institutions in Afghanistan after decades of war, will not necessarily have the ability until by the end of 2012.” US and NATO forces are needed to mentor and partner with Afghans as they build up an army and police force largely from scratch. Withdrawing before this task is completed adds up to a prescription for a drying up of intelligence and a Taliban victory. [1]  If the Taliban were thus to come to power in Afghanistan after the timetabled withdrawal, al-Qaeda would not be far behind. The USA's top nemesis would be able to salvage a victory in the very place from which it launched the 9/11 attacks eight years ago. Al-Qaeda would have its favourite bases and sanctuaries back, as well as a major propaganda win. [2]  This defeat for the West in Afghanistan would embolden its opponents not just in Pakistan, but all around the world, leaving it open to more attacks. [3]  The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam, as its state power is tenuous. Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability. [4]  Therefore success in Afghanistan is key to the security in Pakistan. The US has even more reasons to care about the security of Pakistan when the India-Pakistan conflict is considered, especially as both sides of this have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have come within a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. If Pakistan were to fall apart, it would potentially leave nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war with India. It is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest, even if this means keeping the troops there past the timetabled withdrawal. [5]  The War on Terror cannot be won if the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan and rely more simply on offshore military resources. During the 1990s, when the US tried to go after Osama bin Laden without access to nearby bases by using ships based in the Indian Ocean, the two- to four-hour flight times of drones and cruise missiles operating off such ships made prompt action to real-time intelligence impractical. [6]  Since 1979, the US has been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. It has fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and it is uncertain now how this conflict will evolve. However the US should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it is in the US and NATO'S long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if they do so, extremism will wither. [7]  The timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan could mean withdrawing before this struggle has been won, and handing a base for exporting terrorism to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first, and so the security dimension here is key. Therefore, in order to protect the security of the US and other NATO countries, the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan should be abandoned, and the troops should remain there until the job is done.  [1] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [2] ibid  [3] The Economist. "Obama's War". 15 October 2009.   [4] ibid  [5] Foust, Joshua. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. 27 August 2009.   [6] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [7] Brooks, David. "The Afghan Imperative". New York Times. 24 September 2009.

negative: US spending should focus on defence rather than aid  Romney believes that the United States should be focusing more on national security; however this in turn does benefit other nations so could be considered aid. Governor Romney was quoted as saying “foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.” [1] When it focuses on its own national security the United States is providing public goods for the rest of the world. These include reducing the incentives for others to engage in the use of force – ‘the global policeman’, maintaining open global markets, maintaining a virtual commons in cyberspace, preventing weapons proliferation [2] and maintaining freedom of navigation just as the United States is doing in the South China Sea. [3] All of these to a greater or lesser extent need US military forces to maintain them.  The Romney campaign rejects the notion that the United States has an obligation to rely on foreign aid in its international development efforts, wanting to “[cut] the ongoing foreign aid commitments” and “[you] start everything from zero”. Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, has proposed a budget that includes cutting international affairs and foreign assistance by 29 percent in 2012 and 44 percent by 2016, which would dramatically cut funds for USAID and their foreign aid programs. [4] The Republican party believes that cutting down all sorts of government spending, including international spending, would help bring the economy out of the deficit and back towards a balanced budget.  [1] Rosenkranz, Rolf, ‘At GOP debate, presidential candidates vow to cut foreign aid’, devex, 20 October 2011.  [2] Nye, Joseph S., ‘America and Global Public Goods’, Project Syndicate, 11 September 2007  [3] Cronin, Dr. Patrick M., ‘Averting Conflict in the South China Sea’, Center for a New American Security, 4 September 2012.  [4] Smith, Adam, et al., ‘U.S. foreign aid is not a luxury but a critical investment in global stability’, The Seattle Times, 17 April 2011.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform  It is a natural conclusion that a repressive regime, which operates largely by force and the control of its population, will react rather negatively to an action by the West that appears to be a calculated, public, and on-going subversion of their power in favour of criminal dissidents. The result of such action by Western democracies will not be any positive discourse between the targeted regime and the West, but will rather cause a breakdown in communication. They will be reticent to engage for the very reason that the states seeking to influence them are clearly not interested in dealing on an equal footing, but rather wish to undermine their way of life in favour of asserting their own superiority. The best way to actually get talks about reform started, and to empower those who wish for more democracy and press freedom, is to patiently engage with these regimes, to coax them peaceably toward reform without threatening their core aims. [1] Aggression toward them will generate aggression in return as is shown again and again by North Korea and the responses to its actions by the United States. While incremental change may feel glacial, the long game is the only way to get changes without letting blood flow through the streets. The only possible outcome of this policy would be a harsher crackdown on bloggers by these governments.  [1] Larison, D. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. 17 December 2012.

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

negative: Bridging the north south divide  The UK has a north south divide in terms of wealth and income. London and the South East has for the last few decades done much better than the north; while industry and mining in the north has declined financial services in the south have boomed. The result is inequality between regions. High Speed Two will help to solve this inequality by increasing connections between north and south. The government “suggests that HS2 could provide a boost to the Birmingham city region equivalent to between 2.1% and 4.2% of its GDP. For the Manchester city region the figure is 0.8%-1.7%, for the Leeds city region 1.6%”. [1] This is because businesses will be more likely to invest there when there is better infrastructure, companies based in London in particular will be much more likely to see the benefits of investing in, or partnering with businesses in the north when they can easily reach those cities.  [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  p.99

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China has changed a lot since Tiananmen  China has changed over the past two decades, becoming more open to the world and more open domestically. For example it is experimenting with democratic elections at village level and since 1998 begun extending these to townships. [1] It has also effectively scrapped the repressive one-child policy. Internationally China is a responsible member of the international community, as befits a permanent member of the UN Security Council. At the United Nations, although it occasionally abstains from votes, it very rarely threatens to use its veto power in the Security Council, it has only used the veto six times since 1971 when the PRC joined the UN [2] - unlike the USA, for example. Its "peaceful rise" can also be seen in its hosting of the six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear programme. And China is increasingly willing to operate within regional diplomatic frameworks covering East Asia, SE Asia and Central Asia.  [1] Horsley, Jamie P., ‘Village Elections: Training Ground for Democratization’, 2001   [2] Sun, Yun, ‘China’s Acquiescence on UN SCR 1973: No Big Deal’, 2011.

negative: Russia has vowed to veto any such western resolution arguing that "To adopt the resolution would be...direct support for the revolutionary movement… To pressure just one side means drawing [Syria] into a civil war and interference in the internal affairs of the state." [1] Moreover even if such a resolution was to get through the UN Security Council it would have little impact. Sanctions have a poor track record in bringing regimes to the table when they believe they are threatened. Sanctions have not worked against Iran [2] or North Korea, and the sanctions imposed against Libya last year in a similar situation clearly failed as armed intervention was needed. [3]  [1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.  [2] Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, Eskandar, and Sahmi, Muhammad, ‘The Sanctions Aren’t Working’, Foreign Policy.com, 5 July 2012.  [3] Farge, Emma, ‘Special report: In Libyan oil shipment, sanctions prove dumb’, Reuters, 16 May 2011.

negative: Regulating the internet doesn’t stop spamming  Restricting internet traffic by blocking ports doesn’t reduce spam at all: spam networks will be able to find another means of sending mass-emails within hours, if not seconds. [1]  But there’s another consequence of regulating internet traffic this way: it makes internet traffic and email slower and more cumbersome, hampering small businesses and companies working mostly through online channels. It thus hinders the smooth functioning of the economy and hampers innovation. [2]  [1] Zdnet, ‘South Korea to block port 25 as anti-spam countermeasure’, November 15, 2011. URL:   [2] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL:

negative: NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer  In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction. [1]  [1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.