query: Should recognise a democracy  São Tomé is a multiparty democracy and has been since 1995 with free and fair elections. [1] The country is eleventh on the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. [2] It should therefore be supporting its fellow democracy; Taiwan. As a country that was a colony of Portugal for five hundred years having only secured independence in 1975 São Tomé should not wish to support a country that colonises others such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia, seeks to colonise Taiwan, and engages in aggressive actions to seize small islands in nearby seas.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Sao Tome and Principe’, U.S. Department of State, 2012,   [2] ‘The Ibrahim Index of African Governance’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation,  accessed 10/2/2014

positive: africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland Democracy and history have little to do with recognition; PRC is recognised by many democracies around the world. The PRC is also on the side of former colonies having itself suffered a ‘century of humiliation’. The PRC is an observer of the Non Aligned Movement which contains almost all countries that have been colonies. [1]  [1] ‘The Non-Aligned Movement: Background Information’, Government Communications South Africa, 21 September 2001,

negative: A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption  Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them.  There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2  1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013',   2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013,  , p.5

negative: Is the IIAG a good measure of ‘good governance’?  How do we define, classify, and recognise good governance? The Mo Ibrahim Foundation has created the Ibrahim Index. The IIAG calculates governance across Africa and assesses it over time. The IIAG shows governance has improved across the continent since 2000; and in 2013 classified Mauritius with the highest rank and Liberia as showcasing the greatest positive change over 13 years. But does the index have the right weighting? Where ‘good governance’ is found changes depending on the weighting applied. Even odder is that although the foundation has this index it is not actually used when awarding the prize, this is awarded by a committee to those who pass the criteria that don’t include the IIAG (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013). The prize is therefore methodologically unsound as a way of looking at and promoting good governance

negative: africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland PRC is clearly the China that matters  The Chinese civil war is over, and it is clear that it is the People’s Republic that has won. The 1992 consensus (though the term was coined later) between Taiwan and the PRC is that there is “one China, Different Interpretations” about who controls that China. [1] If there is only one China then it is clear which of the two China’s that one is. The PRC is 266 times larger than RoC, has 58 times the population, and its economy is 13.7 times bigger (by purchasing power parity). [2] States should be recognising the PRC as the “one China”.  [1] Kan, Shirley A., ‘China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei’, Congressional Research Service, 26 August 2013,  , p.47  [2] All figures from The World Factbook, China and Taiwan pages  ,

negative: Poverty may have something to do with countries becoming dictatorships but little. That it is about the efficiency of government is much more credible, this is partially why India, with a large native civil service at independence is one of the exceptions. In practice the reason here is that these nations were subject to being downtrodden through colonialism. There was little opportunity provided to create native institutions so any cobbled together rapidly at independence collapsed.  Many of the countries that were poor at independence are still poor now, yet the story of Africa is no longer one of constant violent dictatorship but increasingly one of stable democracies with reasonably fair elections. The number of democracies in Africa has increased from three in 1989 to 24 in 2008.(1) This transition then benefits the economy. An analysis by The Economist finds that over the ten years to 2010, six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies were in sub-Saharan Africa.(2)  The Arab Spring meanwhile demonstrates that the population in poor countries can be organised enough to oust authoritarian leaders through large scale protest. Since they are the ones who suffer from corruption there is no inherent reason why poorer peoples should be more likely to submit to a dictatorship.  (1) Freedom House, ‘Electoral Democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa’, African Election Database, accessed 22 November 2013,   (2) Graphic detail, ‘Africa's impressive growth’, The Economist, 6 January 2011,

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.  POINT  The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2.  1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010,  2 Doyle , Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

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

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is a threat to regional stability  China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict.  [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010.   [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010.   [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005.   [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000.

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: ights punishment philosophy ethics life house believes capital punishment Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,

negative: europe middle east politics house supports admission turkey eu Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.  Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,

negative: Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.

negative: This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries  The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict.  Democracies already show that they are aware of the conflict they create through their promotion of human rights by toning down their rhetoric in relation to the most powerful non-democratic countries. The British Council has for example invited Liu Binjie, China’s censor in chief, to lead a delegation to the London Book Fair which is celebrating Chinese Literature. [1] It is double standards to be lauding autocrats in public and yet seeking to undermine their countries through helping dissidents.  [1] Jian, Ma, ‘Britain’s Cultural Kowtow’, Project Syndicate, 12 April 2012.

negative: Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered  Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.  Moreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.  [1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012  [2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State

negative: Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad  It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]  Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.  [1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009,   [2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002,   [3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.

negative: Self determination  The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". [1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.” [2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians.  [1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966,   [2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013,

negative: The islanders are the only ones who can decide.  It is the Falkland Islanders themselves who have to decide whose sovereignty they should fall under; British, Argentine or even potentially their own. The Falkland Islands are a democracy with a democratically elected Legislative Assembly and Executive Council (made from members of the Legislative Assembly). Similarly it has its own courts. The self-determination of the islanders is prominent in their constitution. [1] The Falklands have therefore been recognised by the British government as a nation just like the Scots, Welsh and Irish. This means that the decision on any change of sovereignty in the future will be up to the islanders alone to make. [2]  It is no longer up to Britain to simply cede the islands even if they wanted to.  [1] The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, Statutory Instruments, 2008 no. 0000,   [2] Ivanov, Lyubomir, ‘The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People’, February 2003,

negative: The veto is wielded as an ideological tool.  In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. The P5 are able to use their veto powers not to enforce legality, justice and transparency in the international environment, but rather appease their allies and punish their enemies. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan1. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security, but the substantiation of internal security. 1 He, Yin, 'China's Changing Policy on UN Peacekeeping Operations', Institute for Security & Development Policy, July 2007,

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: olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko Europe must not give approval to this regime.  Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2]  Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16.  [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012.  [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 .

negative: africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland China is interested in African states; for decades many African states were seen as ideological partners, and now they are economic partners. [1] A President’s first overseas visit is always symbolic; President Xi’s firs visit was a four country tour taking in Russia and three African countries; Tanzania, South Africa, and Republic of Congo. [2] This shows how important Africa is to Beijing.  [1] Qichen, Qian, ‘Ten Episodes in China’s Diplomacy’, HarperCollins, 2006, Chapter 8 pp.191-230  [2] Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, ‘Africa: China's New President Concludes First Foreign Visit With Fruitful Results’, allAfrica, 1 April 2013,

negative: Recognition when credit is due  The past few years have seen African governments, and heads of state, reluctant to leave office; driving political coups; and leading violent crimes against humanity. Mugabe, Kabila, and Kenyatta are but a few articulating the years of sustained bad governance. The prize is only awarded when credit is due - if leaders have made a significant positive impact this will be recognised and rewarded. The prize is therefore for absolute gains in governance, not relative to other countries.  As the prize is not always awarded it avoids the pitfall that distributing a financial prize where no change has been made to political institutions would reinforce a system. The state would continue to function on undemocratic governance, and the reward would become a new example of dead money [1] . Instead it encourages improved control over aid and money transferred to African states, it shows that rewards are given based on merit. The Mo Ibrahim prize therefore encourages the good institutions that are necessary for prosperity (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013).  [1] See further readings: Moyo, 2009.

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be A South Ossetian state is unviable  There are many factors that make South Ossetia unviable as a state. South Ossetia is very small with a very small population. It is also a landlocked state and very poor. These facts make it unlikely that South Ossetia could act effectively as an independent state. The result is that it would become dependent on other states. [1] This can already be seen from the fact that S. Ossetia has only been able to secure its current de facto independence with substantial military and foreign aid from Russia. [2] S. Ossetia is economically unviable as an independent state. It is landlocked and only has meaningful road access to the sea through Georgia. S. Ossetian GDP was estimated at US$ 15 million (US$ 250 per capita) in a work published in 2002. S. Ossetia is arguably lacking in the basic economic necessities for autonomy. Indeed, a $15 million GDP would make South Ossetia one of the poorest nations in the world. Particularly following a war with Georgia in the 1990s, South Ossetia has struggled economically. Employment and supplies are scarce. The majority of the population survives on subsistence farming. Virtually the only significant economic asset that South Ossetia possesses is control of the Roki Tunnel that links Russia and Georgia, from which the South Ossetian government reportedly obtains as much as a third of its budget by levying customs duties on freight traffic. The separatist officials admitted that Tskhinvali received more than 60 percent of its 2006 budget revenue directly from the Russian government. [3] [4] Finally, S. Ossetia has a population of roughly 70,000. [5] This would make it one of the smallest states in the world. This fact, combined with its high level of poverty, makes it a poor candidate for independence, and shows that its “independence” would compel it to become even more dependent on Russia, or else risk disintegrating as an unviable state.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [3] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.   [4] Vaisman, Daria. “No recognition for breakaway South Ossetia's vote”. The Christian Science Monitor. 10 November 2006.   [5] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.

negative: We should not be tarring the AU with the failures of the OAU. The objectives of the AU are different than that of the OAU. To begin, it is modelled on the European Union, a successful blueprint for building regional institutions and alliances. Second, the AU has already accepted the need for more coercive measures and as a result used sanctions nine times between its foundation and 2011 in response to unconstitutional changes of government. [1] The common electoral standards already call for independent observers before and after any national election so encouraging good governance. And the peace and security council has the authority to send troops to stop crimes against humanity or war crimes. The buzzword at the AU is "people-centred" as opposed to the OAU’s focus on state sovereignty.  [1] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, pp.17-18.

negative: The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.  Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away.  However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability.  a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;,   [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011,   [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006,  accessed 19/5/11  [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org,  accessed 19/5/11

negative: Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic. [1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government. They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary. The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands.  [1] R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983,

negative: The requirement for unanimity is undemocratic  European Union has been based on principles of solidarity and mutual help. This means that sometimes, in order to ensure the ‘greater good’, one has to forgo a bit of his own self-interest. Because European Union holds together 28 culturally and economically different countries, qualified majority voting is sufficient to ensure that no state will be harmed by the decisions made on the international level. The fact that some states would like to retain their right of veto undermines the basic principles of the EU because no such process, where a single state is able to prevent majority from adopting a measure can be called democratic. It this system the minority, or individual state, can ignore the will of the majority indefinitely. Moreover, Zamora (in Sieberson, 2010) [1] states that “international agreement is impossible to obtain when any single participant can block a decision; to achieve unanimous consent… a decision must be diluted so as to please everyone,” concluding that such result is unsatisfactory and prohibits effective functioning of an international organization, mainly in regards to urgent, practical problems.  [1] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 932, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination (for example, viability as an independent state and an authentic internal drive for independence), and S. Ossetia arguably does not meet many of these criteria. Therefore S. Ossetia possesses no absolute right to self-determination, and its calls for independence must be evaluated in the context of what the consequences of independence would be. Furthermore, no countries recognized South Ossetia's 2006 referendum and vote for independence at the time it was carried out, and few do now. Without such approval, the referendum should be considered illegitimate. The European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, denounced the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [1]  [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.

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

negative: Who's on the committee?  Who decides whether governance is going in the right direction within the African continent? The prize committee includes six individuals who make the decision of who is worthy of the reward, and whether it is granted. The panel includes leading figures, not all of whom have held elected positions such as Mohamed ElBaradei, and not all of whom are African, such as Martti Ahtisaari and Mary Robinson (Mo Ibrahim Foundation Prize Committee). Among these distinguished panellists the voice of Africa’s population is missing. A prize about good governance should incorporate a people’s vote as good governance is only relevant if it helps the people. Moreover without a public voice there is a lack of transparency in the workings of the committee and the decisions made. Hardly a good standard for a governance prize.

negative: With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.” [1]  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012,

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: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?


query: No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists  Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed. [1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders. [2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice.  [1] African Union, 2013, p.1  [2] Williams, 2011, p.9

positive: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge While the AU cannot completely prevent conflicts from breaking out it is establishing a Continental Early Warning System. This will use publically available information and involve organisations at all levels from international to local to enable the AU, and any threatened states, to take preventive action in the common good. This is linked to regional organisations such as ECOWAS which has its own conflict prevention mechanisms and has the authority to react with peacekeeping, mediation of disputes or other peace building mechanisms. [1]  The AU can also ensure any conflicts that do break out are ended quickly. The creation of the African Standby Force should give the AU the strength to react to crises and prevent conflicts escalating.  [1] Cilliers, 2005, pp.1, 10

negative: Africa prizes sovereignty  In Africa as elsewhere where there has been decolonisation the countries prize their independence. This is entirely understandable, but it makes it unlikely that they will be willing to forgo their sovereignty in the near future. Indeed notwithstanding the goal of integration one of the objectives of the AU is ‘To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States’. [1] So long as there are internal conflicts and a need for state building then it is correct that this should come first before integration. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has noted, "no amount of aid or trade will make the difference" unless war ends on the continent. [2] Moreover the larger nations in Africa; South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya need to be on-board if any real union is to be effective. However sovereignty is more important to these states as they have real influence as independent nations and as a result they are the least enthusiastic about integration. [3]  [1] ‘African Union in a nutshell’, African Union.  [2] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.  [3] Soares, Claire, ‘Ambitious plan for a new Africa: Welcome to the U.S.A (that’s the United States of Africa)’, The Independent, 30 June 2007.

negative: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge Africa is the most warlike continent  In 2012 Africa had the most distinct conflicts of any region with 13 ongoing conflicts. [1] While Africa and Asia have throughout most of the last fifty years had roughly similar numbers of conflicts – approximately 10 per year [2] - Africa has had many more non state conflicts and the number has not declined since 2004 when there were 20 non-state conflicts; in 2011 there were 22. [3] All in all there is little hope of managing to end all these conflicts by 2020.  [1] ‘Armed Conflicts 2012’, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2013,   [2] ‘Armed Conflict by Region’, UCDP, 2013,   [3] ‘Non-state Conflicts by Region, 1989-2011’, UCDP, 2012,

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: imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory  While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan. For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world. [1]  A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such. [2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory. [3]  [1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines,  , p.182  [2] Yu, 2013,   [3] McAdam, 2010,  , p.8

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

negative: Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict  Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]  Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.  [1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)  [2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

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

negative: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge Progress in ending conflict in Africa  Conflict in Africa is slowly being ended. In 1992 there were 18 conflicts in Africa; by 2009 this had been halved to 9. [1] But a decline in the number of conflicts is not the only positive trend in African conflicts: there has also been a decline in the size of wars. They have changed from wars between two organised armies to being small scale insurgencies. In 1984 the conflicts were on average causing more than 20,000 battle deaths per year, but by 2008 only around 1,000. Even the number of incidents of genocide and mass killing has been going down from 9 in the 1980s to five in the 2000s. [2] Ending war might therefore be considered to be ambitious but it is not against the trend and not inconceivable.  [1] Straus, 2012, pp.183-184  [2] Straus, 2012, pp.189-191

negative: Many of those 122 States Parties have repeatedly shown their reluctance to co-operate with the ICC. Among the African Union states, only Botswana has shown its complete commitment to the Rome Statute. It appears that even South Africa may ultimately be more supportive of the AU than the ICC. [1]  [1] Miruthi , p.4

negative: The fact that the Sudanese president has been able to travel freely to several countries without being arrested does not indicate that he or other would-be criminals are undeterred by the threat. Though the African Union has strongly advised its member states to ignore the arrest warrant and most have obliged, more recently Malawi and Kenya prevented Al-Bashir from attending summits. Even when Nigeria allowed his attendance at an AU summit last year, Al-Bashir fled within a day of arriving, after local human rights groups filed a court action.  The Democratic Republic of Congo has surrendered several suspects to the ICC and this was enough to induce another suspect to surrender. [1]  [1] Roth, "Africa Attacks the International Criminal Court."

negative: The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts but that does not prevent its classification as an armed conflict; soldiers are still dying in fire-fights, territory is still being fought over and the threat to homeland security is very real and visceral. According to the Bush administration, the war on terror represents a new ‘paradigm of war’, whereby the civilians directly engaged in hostilities, ‘enemy combatants’, are not permitted to enjoy the privileges of international humanitarian law. Prisoner of war status is ‘reserved (for) members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict…who must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to POW status upon capture’ 1. Regarding the ICCPR, it has a specific derogation clause that states ‘in times of public emergency’, the states may excuse themselves from the strict provisions of the covenant. This would, in the context of threats to the safety of civilians, permit states to intern without trial enemy combatants.  1. International Committee of Red Cross, 2005

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: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013

negative: There is already some African integration that can be built on.  While African integration has been slow there has been real progress in constructing the building blocks to allow further integration. African countries are already somewhat integrated: for example 14 countries in West and Central Africa use the CFA franc as currency [1] and there are regional blocks in West Africa and East Africa. The existence of these regional free trade areas the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern African Countries (COMESA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) will eventually provide the springboard for further integration throughout the whole of Africa. [2] The latter three of these communities have signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on integration and harmonise areas such as trade. [3] More importantly, despite problems with the creation of a single currency, the EU remains a good model for the AU: no one would suggest that the EU is in danger of being disbanded. Though its members might have differences as to its exact structure, that debate is no different than in any other confederation.  [1] Musa, Tansa, ‘Cameroon, BEAC see no CFA franc devaluation’, Reuters Africa, 28 November 2011.  [2] ‘Developments in Regional Integration in Africa’, African Economic Outlook, 28 April 2012.  [3] ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Inter Regional Cooperation and Integration Amongst Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC)’, 19 January 2011.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The international system is based on equality and non-interference  Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945,   [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),   [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151

negative: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge Increasing the number of peacekeeping missions does not always mean that the result will be peace; clearly if there is a need for peacekeeping or even more so combat troops then peace has broken down. The United Nations has almost 70,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa ,yet new conflicts and crises keep erupting; in 2013 there were new conflicts in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. In the case of Southern Sudan this is despite there being 7500 UN peacekeepers in the country. [1]  [1] Raghavan, Sudarsan, ‘Record number of U.N. peacekeepers fails to stop African wars’, Washington Post, 4 January 2014,

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

negative: Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state  In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, Israel and their allies.  There are plenty of nations that do not function in line with European and North American concepts of statehood, Afghanistan for example, however they take their seat at the UN and add their voice to the choir of nations [i] . There are even other member states that are not recognised by every other member state, Israel is not recognised by 33 UN members [ii] and the People’s Republic of China is not recognised by 23 UN members. [iii]  [i] John Quigley. “Statehood for Palestine: International law in the Middle East Conflict”. Cambridge University Press, 2010.  [ii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: Israel’, U.S. Department of State, 10 December 2010,   [iii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: China’, U.S. Department of State, 6 September 2011,

negative: Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S.  When there is an internal conflict such as this it is almost always a weak government that is to blame for not preventing an escalation of violence. The government is to blame as it is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force, conflicts such as this drugs war occur when that monopoly on violence is broken. In Mexico the election of Vicente Fox as president may have been a democratic triumph for ending the 70 year one party rule by the P.R.I. but in terms of the effectiveness of the central government it was not a success. The National Action Party has been weak in the lower house and senate so unable to advance a legislative agenda. [1] An inability to legislate significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to respond to the drugs crisis. This reduces the ability of the Federal government to step in and sort out local problems. There has been an upsurge of social unrest of all types, not just drugs violence but protests, riots and strikes as well. [2]  Drugs traffickers have taken over many local areas, the local government, police and even some of the army has been penetrated by the drugs traffickers. This leaves the local government unable to do anything against the traffickers. It was not the drugs traffickers who created the institutional problems that allowed the government to become penetrated in the first place; corruption, inefficient police forces and a weak judiciary were already a problem. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘The siesta congress’, 21 January 2012.  [2] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report.  [3] Freeman, Laurie, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), p.2.

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

negative: Undermines US position on internet freedom  The United States, along with Europe, has been the key voice arguing for freedom on the internet and in particular that the internet should not be controlled nationally. Russia and China in particular have been advocating for much more control over the internet by states with Russia’s proposal advocating that “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet” and “Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy… on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment”. [1] Essentially every state should have the right to censor and surveil their chunk of the internet. With the United States already doing this countries that have previously been wavering may be much more inclined to support these proposals over US objections. [2] The US would stand to lose out as it is currently the country with most control over internet governance.  [1] Russian Federation ‘Proposals for the work of the conference’, International Telecommunications Union, 17 November 2012,   [2] Dourado, Eli, ‘So much for America’s internet freedom agenda’, theguardian.com, 7 August 2013,

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.

negative: The veto power reduces the risk of nuclear escalation.  The P-5 veto holding members of the UN SC are unique in that they are the only countries that have nuclear arsenals (not simply a small stock of nuclear weapons). They are the only countries with the power to initiate full-scale nuclear war. Therefore, it is important that that they be able to end measures with their veto power to ensure that measures are not realized that could foment serious international tension and possibly nuclear war. In other words, 'you give (veto power) to the nations who- thanks to their nuclear missiles- already have effective veto power anyway'1. The gift of the veto power encourages such nuclear states to act within the system, ensuring that 'they have a stronger stake in acting within the system than acting outside of it'2. 1 Beck. (2004, December 5). The Security Council Veto Power, or Got Nuke? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Incite: 2 Fassbender, B. (1998). UN Security Council Reform and the Right to Vote: A Constitutional Perspective. Hague: Kluwer Law International.

negative: The UN charter is against it.  Article 2 of the UN charter requires all member states to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’.  Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which authorised the deployment of an international force to Kosovo to manage security and governance, explicitly affirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the name for the Union of Serbia and Montenegro which ended in 2006) and the other States to that region. [1]  Recognition of an independent Kosovo is a violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia and thus a violation of the rights of the Serbian state.  [1] UN Security Council Resolution 1244

negative: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge Africa is not the most warlike continent in terms of the frequency or duration of conflicts. Asia had 1.88 wars per country from 1960 to 2008 compared to 1.65 per country in Africa. [1] Moreover many more of these armed conflicts are internal and are smaller.  [1] Straus, 2012, p.186

negative: That the ICC is investigating the conflicts that under some analyses may be the gravest within its jurisdiction does not mean it is not biased. Complementarity in itself shows bias; it allows countries that are considered more developed off the hook ensuring that the ICC will only look at the least developed. African states have signed up to the ICC but the result of their belief in international criminal justice has been that those who attempt to avoid international justice by not signing up to the statute have succeeded while those who accept some form of justice have been targeted.

negative: The AU faces immense challenges that did not affect Europe  The AU’s model, the EU, is a work-in-progress. Even in Europe, there is some concern that the EU will not hold and the Euro crisis has shown the difficulties in integrating economies. Even if the EU were a perfect model, it was established in a time of peace. In Africa, war still rages in parts of the continent; such as Somalia, Congo, and Mali. And in Europe, unification is broadly supported by international and economic heavyweights: Britain, France and Germany. In Africa, the comparable AU anchors are Nigeria and South Africa, neither of which can guarantee AU commitments by themselves.  Africa also has huge economic concerns that don’t plague Europe: most African countries trade with their former colonial masters rather than each other, Africas trade with itself is on average only 10% of trade, [1] and the standard of living varies widely across the continent (e.g. South Africa’s GDP is ten times that of Nigeria).  Finally it should be remembered that it took the EU forty years to establish a shared currency and a central bank – which is itself showing the strains created by doing so. How will Africa, home to some of the world’s poorest and most corrupt countries, do it any faster?  [1] Giorgis, Tamrat G., ‘Exclusive: Pascal Lamy, “Africa should strengthen trade within itself”, Afronline, 8 Frbruary 2012.

negative: A two-state solution is best for peace  Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.  Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1)  This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2)  Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3)  Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own.  As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

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

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage  The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other. [1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage. [2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons.  [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2).  [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

negative: Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society  Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.  [1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.  [2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1  [3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

negative: Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.  Migrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group." [1]  This is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.” [2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.  Migrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages. [3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected.  [1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009,  .  [2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.”  [3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012,