More capacity is needed on Britain’s railways  Capacity on the railways is a big problem in the UK. Due to growth since privatisation Britain’s railways take as many passengers as it is physically possible to do; more than a fifth of rush hour passengers have to stand. [1] Growth is almost certain to continue as the roads too are at capacity and population continues to rise. The result is more railways are needed. Rail freight meanwhile if forecast to double by the 2040s. The West Coast Main Line is a particular bottleneck for freight with 40% of UK freight services using the line; any increase would have to come at the expense of passenger services. [2] Transferring the main rail services to the high speed line would free up the WCML to increased freight and commuter use so HS2 would not just mean an increase in long distance capacity.  [1] BBC News, ‘London-bound train overcrowding: 100,000 have to stand’, 24 July 2013,   [2] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  , p.50, 54


The UK is densely populated and concentrated in one part of the country so has less need of high speed connections. Other countries having a large number of high speed route miles should not be considered evidence that the UK needs more or that the UK is somehow ‘behind’ as conditions vary between countries.


Faster travel between British cities  The most obvious benefit from high speed rail is that journey times will be less. From London the journey to Birmingham will be reduced from 84 to 49 minutes, Leeds from 132 to 82 and Manchester 128 to 68. [1] While faster journeys provide some economic benefit the are as much a social benefit of making more places accessible by allowing individuals to spend less time traveling and more doing what they want to when they get there.  [1] Hs2, ‘facts, figures and journey times’,


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


This makes the strange assumption that Leeds and Manchester, or even Birmingham is the north. In pure geographic terms they are not even half way up the country from London – what about Newcastle and Scotland?  The evidence for the possibility of a high speed railway helping to solve regional inequalities is decidedly mixed. Theoretically if one region has comparative advantage then providing it with better transport infrastructure should mean that region simply expanding its market – in this case London would likely have the comparative advantage so increasing inequality. [1] While this has not happened with all high speed links what will happen is that the regional hubs may grow but it will likely be at the expense of surrounding towns that are not connected and areas further away from the line. The government’s own figures estimate the cost to the North East of Scotland would be £220million per year. [2]  [1] Puga, Diego, ‘Agglomeration and cross border infrastructure’, European Investment Bank Papers, vol.13, no.2, 2008, pp.102-24,  p.117  [2] BBC News, ‘HS2 ‘losers’ revealed as report shows potential impact’, 19 October 2013,


This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2. [1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big. [2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes.  [1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013,   [2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013,


Estimates and guesstimates. We don’t know exactly how much HS2 will benefit the economy and still won’t even if it is built because we will never know how well the alternative spending of the money would have affected the economy.


Britain is behind the rest of Europe on high speed rail  The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines. [1]  [1]


HS2 would benefit Britain’s economy  Big infrastructure projects often provide a big boost to the economy. HS2 will do this in two ways; the first will be in the economic activity created in building the line and the estimated 3100 jobs staffing the railway. Much more important however are the wider economic benefits. On a cost-benefit basis HS2 is considered to be ‘high value for money’ because it will have a 1:2.3 cost:benefit ratio. This ration however could be considerably better if ridership keeps increasing for longer or faster than expected. The overall benefit to the economy is estimated at £53 billion. [1]  [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  , p.31


The spending for HS2 would not contribute to the deficit as it is investment that will pay back the money over time and will also be creating assets that can in extremis be sold. The high cost by comparison to other high speed networks is almost entirely due to high land prices; this means that any big transport project is going to cost a similar premium.


Some of these costs have already been included in the cost:benefit ratio such as the impact of pollution and greenhouse gases. Moreover there have already been changes made to ensure that the high speed line runs in tunnels through areas where the damage would otherwise be significant. More than 50% of the route to Birmingham will be in tunnels or cuttings and much of the remainder will have barriers to prevent noise pollution. [1] Given the number of tunnels it is wrong to consider the railway one long barrier to wildlife. If it is considered a serious problem then solutions would not be immensely costly – tunnels under the tracks could be constructed for example.  [1] Railway-technology.com, ‘High Speed 2 (HS2) Railway, United Kingdom’,


There are other options  There are plenty of other options that don’t have the disadvantages of HS2 (high cost, environmental impacts etc.) but do meet most of the requirements like increased capacity. First because it is capacity on main commuter lines that is mostly needed it makes more sense to lengthen platforms and trains, and if that is not enough raise bridges to allow double deckers on the busiest routes. The government rejected such an option in 2007 due to the cheapest option costing £2.4billion, which seems cheap compared to HS2. [1]  Similarly if the capacity problem is for freight as a chunk of the business case is then reopening the Great Central Railway could be the answer – most of the track bed still exists. It has been proposed as a useful freight corridor that would help take the load off the West Coast. [2]  Finally terms of faster journey times as already noted there is little need for more speed in the UK but even without HS2 journey times will improve as East Coast and Great Western are to be upgraded to 140mph. And in terms of capacity on intercity rail the better option has been suggested as being lengthening trains and reducing first class – which has been estimated as having a benefit of £6.06 for every pound invested, 2.5times that of HS2. [3]  [1] Millward, David, ‘Britons squash plans for double-decker trains’, The Telegraph, 16 September 2007,   [2] ‘Great Central is the way to go’,   [3] Doward, Jamie, ‘HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report’, 14 January 2012,


Does not easily connect to the continent  Would it not be nice to be able to travel from Edinburgh straight through to Paris without having to stop in London? This was part of the initial dream of the Channel Tunnel with proposals for regional Eurostar services. [1] Unfortunately HS2 will not provide this option. There is a proposed link but it is currently single track and unlikely to be enough even to meet demand for domestic services running around London let alone international services from Birmingham and Manchester. [2] The much more sensible option of not having a terminal station, or at least some through platforms, has been ignored.  [1] BBC News, ‘Regions ‘cheated’ over Eurostar’, 27 January 1999,   [2] Railnews, ‘Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link’, 1 June 2013,


High speed rail never makes a profit  The UK already knows that it is difficult to make rail services pay their way, currently fares from passengers despite regular criticism of them being too high, only cover 65% of operating costs. [1] High speed rail is no different in this regard; most of China’s high speed lines make a loss [2] indeed the only lines to have made a profit are Tokyo-Osaka and Paris Lyon. [3]  [1] ‘Rail ridership hits new highs as will regulated rail fares from January 2014’, Rail.co.uk, 19 August 2013,   [2] Wan, Zhang, ‘High Speed Train Too Expensive’, Chienglish.com, 1 April 2013,   [3] Feigenbaum, Baruch, ‘High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States’, Reason Foundation, 2013,


HS2 is too costly  HS2 is already looking very costly. California’s San Francisco to Los Angeles High Speed rail is 520 miles at a cost of $68billion (£42bln), [1] HS2 will only be 33miles but is already expected to cost about the same £42.6billion. [2] The cost has already grown and there are regular claims even by respected economics analysts such as the Institute of Economic Affairs that it will eventually rise to £80 billion. [3] Britain is only just recovering from a long recession and does not yet have its deficit under control, can it really afford such an immense cost? The money could be spent on a great many other things, not just upgrades to the existing network but schools and hospitals too.  [1] AP, ‘No One Knows Where The Money Will Come From For California's $68 Billion High Speed Rail Plan’, Business Insider, 3 April 2012,   [2] Hs2, ‘Route, Trains & Cost’,   [3] Leftly, Mark, ‘The wrong side of the tracks: Lobbyists for HS2 rail line funded by the taxpayer’, The Independent, 25 August 2013,


This is not a particularly big problem for the project and could easily be fixed by doubling the track later if there proves to be sufficient demand to justify it.


HS2 would damage the England’s green and pleasant land  Railways are supposed to be green – they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than cars or planes. Yet many of those benefits are sacrificed by the desire for high speed which makes these trains much less environmentally friendly than normal trains due to the extra power necessary to reach such speeds. The impact on the British countryside will be immense. The railway will run through four Wildlife Trust reserves, 10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), more than 50 ancient woodlands, and HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result will be the fragmentation of populations of insects, bats, birds and mammals. The Wildlife Trusts argue “The very last thing we should be doing is creating new linear barriers to the movement of wildlife.” [1]  [1] The Wildlife Trusts, ‘HS2’,


We should not just be considering fares as the be all and end all. Successful rail companies elsewhere don’t tend to make a profit on ticket sales but instead through diversification. Tokyu, one of Japan’s private railways, has revenue of $2.63 billion and profits of $587millio but only a third of the revenue comes from rail fares with real estate bringing in about the same amount and much of the rest from retail. [1] Franchises make this difficult to operate in the UK but HS2 might have tracks/land/stations and operating trains integrated so providing an opportunity. Moreover it is wrong to suggest that only a couple of lines have made a profit as this is only a couple of lines have made a profit including the immense construction cost on the loss side of the balance sheet. Most high speed lines at least break even without subsidies after a few years of operation, as has been the case in Taiwan [2] – which is better than Britain’s other railways.  [1] Jaffe, Eric, ‘The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success’, The Atlantic, 18 May 2012,   [2]


None of the alternatives is a comprehensive solution and particularly not to the capacity problem. What happens once the double decker trains are at capacity? Then you are back to thinking of building new lines. Upgrading existing lines would require 14 years of weekend closures to allow the needed capacity increases. This would be “a patch and mend job that would cause 14 years of gridlock, hellish journeys and rail replacement buses. The three main routes to the north would be crippled and the economy would be damaged.” [1]  The difference between HS1 and the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line should also be mentioned. HS1 was a stand alone line that was on time and on budget, [2] WCML on the other hand was £6 billion over budget, four years late and caused immense amounts of disruption to passengers, what’s worse is the proposed upgrade part of the plan to make the line 140mph capable was abandoned. [3]  [1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘HS2 alternatives could require 14 years of weekend rail closures’, The Guardian, 28 October 2013,   [2] Major Projects Association, ‘Delivering High Speed 1: the successes and the lessons’, 7 February 2008,  p.4  [3] All Party Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, ‘A Better Deal For Public Building’, cic.org.uk, September 2012,  , p.24


Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products. Many manufacturers/distributors wish to control their distribution outlets for sound commercial reasons, for example, to protect the image of their brand. This becomes very difficult, possibly impossible, to do if grey imports are allowed, as this circumvents their planned distribution network. It becomes much harder for a manufacturer/ distributor to track their products where they have been used in a grey importation. This can lessen their effectiveness when they need this information, such as for a safety recall. "It is unclear whether adequate mechanisms are in place to adequately recall parallel trade medicines. Batch number recording is not consistently applied throughout the supply chain and in practice may make comprehensive product recall difficult, creating a risk to patient safety". 1  1 Trade and Industry Committee, Eighth Report, 29 June 1999


Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.  Allowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy.  1 Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" 1776


It may be impossible to completely stop such imports however the vast majority of shops will not import these items while they are not allowed to. Opening the market up will simply lead to a flood of imports with a resulting effect on native manufacturing.


Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.  Consumers benefit from grey imports. The economics of grey importation drives sourcing to low-cost economies. Even if retailers take some of this benefit as improved profit margins, typically at least some of it will be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. Grey imports also allow consumers to buy products that may not yet be available in their own market, because they have not yet been released, or because in their market the manufacturer feels there is insufficient demand. Thus, grey imports expand consumer choice.  Many films, DVD's and video games are released in one region months before others, and grey imports allow enthusiasts to access their favoured products earlier than they otherwise would1.  1 Bun, Mara and Horrocks, Steve, 'In Support of Parallel Imports of CDs', Australian Consumers' Association, February 1998


Consumers do not really benefit overall from grey imports. Although manufacturers may reduce prices in some (typically, richer) countries, they are at least as likely to raise prices in less developed economies, depriving consumers there of access to international brands and luxury goods, and so depriving them of a real choice and in some cases the full product.1 In addition, they will still have to pay all the taxes and the losses from lack of regulation which have been avoided in some way or lose the services those taxes provide. The loss of revenue from grey imports can mean that production is limited or even halted going forward, even though there is market demand for more products from the manufacturer. The film industry shows this clearly. Manufacturer protections of their products (for example region specific DVD's and PCs) actually increase costs for all consumers.  1 Etherington-Smith, James, '"Grey" imports: The black and white of it', mybroadband.co.za, 14 December 2010


Free trade involves a principle of free will. The buyer should be able to decide to whom he wishes to sell and on what terms, and if the seller does not accept those terms then the buyer should be able to refuse to deal with him. Manufacturers can have many good reasons for choosing to price goods at different levels in different countries, such as their wish to build a long-term brand preference by cheaper initial marketing in a developing economy, or their desire to maintain an aura of exclusivity in mature markets through high pricing and confining sales to specialist retailers. Grey imports result in the manufacturer/ distributor effectively losing some, and often most, control of their pricing and retailing strategy in the importing country. This reduces their capacity to position the brand as they see appropriate. In extremis, a company can be put out of business in one nation by its own operations overseas!


Impossible to Stop.  Governments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards  1 BBC News, 'Tesco defeated in cheap jeans battle', 31 July 2002,


The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade  Allowing grey imports is consistent with the basic principles of free trade. (Free trade principles – WTO1) If a manufacturer/distributor is selling the same item at different prices in two countries, free market economics suggests that the rational purchaser will purchase in the cheaper of the two, presuming, for example, that the difference will not be wholly swallowed up by transaction and transportation costs or taxes. If this logic holds for a consumer choosing between two jeans shops in his town, it must also hold for a retailer choosing between a jeans manufacturer’s price lists in two countries. Until recently, there was an information asymmetry (rational markets requiring information symmetry), as the manufacturer knew about their differential pricing, but the purchaser did not; information technology has now changed the equation and allowed the market to operate more efficiently. Not only this, but consumers can already buy products from pretty much anywhere in the world, as long as they can pay the postage.  1 World Trade Organisation "UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS", WTO 2011


A free flow in goods is a desirable end in itself. The rational, efficient supply chain of grey imports reflects the ideal of the free market. Moving it from the shadows to a position of legitimacy would make it even more efficient, by reducing the effort currently employed to keep the imports' trail hidden, etc. There is also job creation involved in the distribution network. For example, the logistics and transportation activities involved in grey imports will create new work as the trade grows.


Grey imports benefit the importing economy. As some grey imports will be products originally targeted at a foreign market but which turn out to achieve some popularity in the host market, they increase foreign trade. In this way, grey imports act to internationalise consumer tastes and cross-cultural understanding. Through the downward pressure on retail prices, grey imports will also encourage industry to more efficiency, as ultimately factory gate prices will be expected to fall too. This leads to rising living standards in the cheaper economy as prices balance out, as we can see in for example China, with it's recent massive rises in living standards.1  1 Mortishead, Carl, ‘China’s rising living standard cranks up resource competition’ The Australian, 18 October 2007


Once a good has been sold, manufacturers have no business telling their customers how to use it. This includes selling that good on.  In general we do not accept as moral or socially permissible the idea that the makers of a good can tell their customers where and when they may use that good, who they may give it to, where and when. Car manufacturers do not sell cars on the basis you will only drive to the shops and back, clothes makers do not sell clothes on the basis you will only wear them on Sundays or every full moon. Limiting customer ability to resell items they have paid for in full is irrational and immoral.


Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products.  A free flow of goods is not always an automatic good. The extra transport and pollution involved in grey imports alone is a serious argument against it. Grey importers often do not make clear that products sold under the same brand name in different markets are in fact sometimes tailored to suit the local market environment. So, for example, one of the reasons for lower pricing in some products in particular countries is that they do not include all of the same ingredients as a product sold under the same brand name in another country. This can be, for example, because the performance needs (e.g. the climate), regulatory framework, or consumers' willingness to pay in the two countries vary. Accordingly, in the importing country, consumers may end up paying for a familiar brand that is not actually as well designed for their needs as the domestically marketed version. 1 There are many practical problems with grey importation. For example, consumers may not understand usage instructions.  1 Santos, Botchi, 'Why locally sold cars are still better than grey-market options, 26 January 2010


Grey goods come into the country, but money goes out, weakening the economy.  Grey imports damage the importing economy. By reducing the profitability of the manufacturer/distributor in the importing country, grey imports accordingly often lessen the amount of money that the company can invest in its operations in that country. This is a vicious circle which may reduce demand and so lead to greater inefficiencies in official importation. An acceptance of imports – especially of unclear provenance – hastens the demise of the manufacturing base of the importing country.1 The manufacturer will have less reason to support the brand locally through, for example, advertising, as the benefit does not show up in their local results and, in any case, grey imports tends to start focusing consumers’ minds on price rather than the brand identity. This can be detrimental to the advertising and media spend in the importing country, which for a premium consumer goods brand (e.g. perfume, clothing) could represent quite a significant economic benefit.  What is a loss for the economy is also of course a loss for the government. The United States Internal Revenue Service estimated 15% of workers did not pay taxes, a $345billion shortfall from what should have been paid in large part as a result of workers in the grey economy of which there are more than 140,000 in San Diego alone.2  1 Peacock, Louisa, 2010, ‘Go East, if you want that top job’, The Telegraph, 19 November 2010 ,  2 Calbreath , Dean, ‘Hidden economy a hidden danger’, Signs On San Diego, 30 May 2010


While we do not see limitations on reselling by customers in general, there are, in fact, a good few occasions where such limitations on reselling and use occur. Books and other media are limited through copyright laws in their ability to be legitimately re-sold, motor insurance is indeed sold at least partly on the basis of what you are going to do with your vehicle.


We need to be critical of the cumulative potential of the tax model proposed. Firstly, the theory of the state’s capacity and how it functions in practice differ substantially. The idea of taxation acting to enhance the productive capacity of a nation is based on assumptions that the institutions, human resources, and state-capacity, are already present. This is not always the case in Africa.  Corruption and bad governance are prevalent. Reforms in 1996 to curb corruption in the TRA were reversed due to misunderstanding the nature of corruption amongst tax officials and administration (Fjelstad, 2003). Tax-revenue performance remains comparatively low [1] , there is little reason to simply altering what taxes there are will change this.  Finally, alternative methods can be used to assist rural infrastructure projects, and enable national savings. For example, revising the role of agricultural marketing boards [2] .  [1] See further readings: Gray and Kahn, 2010.  [2] See further readings: Baffes, 2005.


Building productive capacity through increasing revenue  Between 2003-2009 the annual growth rate of mobile cellular subscriptions in Tanzania was 44.21%, higher than the average in Africa (Ondiege, 2010). Estimations suggest around 18bn Tsh [1] will be collected a month through the SIM card tax model (Rweyemamu, 2013). In 2012, Tanzania’s total GDP was calculated at ~45tr Tsh [2] - the tax could therefore provide almost 0.5% of GDP in taxes. Such a boost in government taxation will enable projects such as improving rural infrastructure (including potentially mobile phone coverage!) or help reduce the deficit. That one tax can raise so much shows the potential of this kind of taxation.  [1] Equates to ~11.2mn USD (January 2013).  [2] Calculated based on World Bank Data (2013) and exchange rate as per January 2013.


The SIM card taxation is an inequitable model for Tanzania’s poor. The tax fee proposed will have detrimental effects to low-income users, whereby the cost exceeds the amount of money they spend on their mobile. For example considering the cost of tax, living, and mobile phone usage, the poor may be placed in a vulnerable position. Evidence suggests 8 million out of 22 million SIM card owners will be affected - with the rural poor feeling the greatest economic burden [1] . The burden of taxation may simply mean the poor can’t afford a phone.  Taxation cannot be promoted without recognising the constraints on household savings and income. Universal benefits are debatable when the initial disposable income is polarised to start - the price tag is not-so-small for some.  [1] See further readings: BBC, 2013; Luhwago, 2013.


The importance of mobilising domestic resources  In order to sustain development and growth nations need to build domestic resource mobilisation capacities - through collecting tax and savings. Domestic resource mobilisation enables the transition into a capitalist mode of production - poverty can be targeted and sufficient economies built. Social and economic facilities can be provided. To meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and enhance performance capacity African nation-states need to improve the amount of funding they raise through taxes [1] .  In order for development to be assisted, international donors and intervention needs to focus on encouraging innovative models of taxation such as taxing mobile phones. Such taxes don’t have the track record of failure other taxes have providing a new opportunity to redesign the taxation system. Initiatives such as the mobile phone tax provide a trial for such a new model helping to gain support for future changes.  [1] See: UNCTAD, 2007.


Taxation remains a vital component of domestic resource mobilisation however focus needs to be placed on improving Tanzania’s top revenue sources before innovative new models. Although the performance of tax collection has improved - with tax revenues rising by a rate of 15.7% between 1996/97 and 2007/08 (AfDB, 2011) taxation does not reach many areas that could be taxed; despite increasing exports of minerals and natural resources,


A fair tax  The model is for rolling out a tax for all, on a commodity used by all. The cost is small and fair, only applying to individuals who are able to afford to buy and use a working mobile phone. Those who can afford multiple phones will be hit harder so this is a progressive tax.  Arguments suggesting the tax cost is unreasonable fails to look at the politics constructing such a discourse and manipulating what collected tax can do. Motivations for opposition are not necessarily emerging out of concern for individuals’ well-being, but rather have alternative motives. The MOAT (Mobile Operators Association of Tanzania) oppose the tax fearing profit margins may decline; and politicians may use fear over the new tax policy to gain political support for oppositional parties. The opposition of the operators however merely reaffirms that it is a fair tax and those who would support opposition to the measure can be won round through explaining this.


The SIM card tax is actually under-ambitious for potential change to be maximised. Nevertheless, the tax initiates a step in the right direction. Firstly, it will ensure reductions are made in tax avoidance. Secondly, the model shows the potential role the private-sector can play in tax collection. Decentralisation, and shifting responsibility, to independent providers means valuable resources can be collected outside of the criticised TRA structure. For example, the Association of Tanzania Employers may be granted greater involvement in enhancing corporate tax collection. Estimations suggest corporate tax exemptions resulted in annual revenue losses of 4% between 2011-2012 (Gaddis, 2013).  The SIM card tax indicates domestic resources can be mobilised by engaging in public-private partnerships. For progressive tax systems, Tanzania needs to utilise private actors.


With mobile phones now a crucial commodity for everyday life, the digital revolution will not be stopped by the SIM card tax. The initial reaction to the tax may result in a temporary decline in new subscriptions and SIM card set-up, however, in the long-run subscriptions will continue to rise. Many people are willing to spend large amounts on a new phone; the addition of a tax will not deter them.


Taxes cannot be justified while the network is poor  Can taxation be justified when the network remains poor, limited, and temperamental in numerous locations? Network coverage in Tanzania is 2G and geographically concentrated (see MDI, 2013). It must be improved before the government begins to use it as a tax resource. Tanzania’s Right to Information Act recognises that government transparency and public information is a right. Therefore increasing costs on how people access information, and failing to provide good service, neglects individual rights. A right to information is not just a right to information for those who can afford the tax.


Quick-fix policies: a failing model of implementation  Tax evasion remains a key concern across Tanzania. There remains a low tax base and high evasion. Imposing a quick-fix solution by taxing mobile phones fails to solve underlying issues. The model is widening the base of taxation, whilst neglecting the issue of tax evasion.  Therefore, to what extent will the model provide future benefits? Domestic resource policies need to ensure the taxation enables state-building and future capacities to impose tax more effectively and equally. The model relied on MOAT to collect taxes monthly, reducing the need for the TRA to construct a functioning tax-collection system or resolve social resistance to taxation. This then is effectively privatising a vital state function.


Halting the technological revolution  The tax creates disincentives when we consider the potential losses that will result in the technology sector. The technological revolution in Tanzania will be jeopardised. The growth of mobile phones across Tanzania indicates the emergence of a ‘network society [1] ’ but if the population stops buying mobile phones this will end. Taxing SIM cards may deter individuals from buying mobile devices, due to the additional cost. Further, alternatively if the manufacturers and providers attempt to take the burden of the tax to keep the price of a mobile down then supply will be affected. Currently individuals use multiple service providers to get cheaper phone call rates; however, this would no longer be a sensible option.  Taxing SIM cards will introduce costs to the entrepreneurship and service provision operating through mobiles. Technology holds great benefits within the twenty-first century; imposing taxation acts to exclude access and limit potential job opportunities. Mobiles have taken services to the people [2] - a vital resource for health services and information, aid distribution, banking, and commerce.  [1] See further readings: Castells, 2011.  [2] See Ondiege, 2010 on mobile banking. In Tanzania, where for every 100,000 people there is one bank, mobiles have enabled banking to penetrate across society.


The SIM card tax will provide positive knock-on effects for network expansion and improvement. By enforcing tax payment to individual users, mobile phone customers are able to demand better service quality and distribution. The public-sector have the obligation and responsibility to ensure tax can be justified so will encourage the development of the network – and if necessary use some of the taxes raised to pay for it.


Even though this point correctly presents a theoretical possibility, the reality is different. Europe has since come up with an alternative solution that means the need for unanimity does not always mean decision-making can be slowed by a spoiler; the opt-out. Countries can negotiate to opt out of further integration on areas where they believe their national interests are threatened. This then allows all the other states to carry on with integration without risking a veto from the states that do not wish to follow that path. What further corroborates this point is that since Luxembourg accord, nothing similar has ever occurred, and even the compromise allowing for invoking national interests to halt QMV is no longer used. Thus it is irrational to fear “empty chairs” now, when all the states are aware of the possibility of a stalemate, and would, perhaps, never wanted to be held accountable for such situation.


Unanimity requirement gives an enormous bargaining leverage to the hands of individual states  Unanimous voting provides states seeking additional gains with a tool to actually achieve their egoistic goals. In order for the whole Union to pass legislation that would be beneficial to all, a single state has power to negotiate further benefits for itself, thus holding up a deal and sometimes making it less beneficial for others. Similar concerns were expressed in the EU Commission White Paper on European Governance as consensus requirement “often holds policy-making hostage to national interest”. [1] What is more, such behavior sets dangerous precedents that nations can put national interests in front of communal, effectively deteriorating the cooperative spirit of the EU and eventually destroying it altogether. As Sieberson claims [2] , such was the case of French objections to the Treaty of Rome regarding the wider use of qualified majority voting in the fields of agriculture and the internal market. In the ‘empty chair crisis’ France boycotted Council meetings for seven months, until the deal called Luxembourg accord [3] was struck. “The Luxembourg accord is widely believed to have created a period of stagnation in the Community… Paul Craig describes this period as “the prime example of negative intergovernmentalism.” [4] It prevented consolidation of Europe and ensured the EC remained intergovernmental by effectively curtailing qualified majority voting as any state could veto by invoking national interests.  [1] European Governance, A White Paper 2001, Commission of the European Communities, pp. 29, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [2] 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. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [3] Eurofond 2007, Luxembourg Compromise, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [4] 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. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .


This argument is based on the premise that federalization is a great idea. But, is it? It is hard to assess the extent to which federalization of the EU help make it a better union. What is clear, however, is that there are a whole load of questions to be answered before a federal union is attempted. As Cocodia [1] concludes “…if it must be, [it] ought to be a very slow and cautious project which should not be embarked upon unless issues such as group relations, societal culture/language and trust have been properly addressed.” These group relations and trust require that individual members concerns not be ignored. A sustainable federal union would be able to coexist with a veto because it would mean interests are close enough together that it would almost never be used.  [1] Cocodia, J 2010, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’, Crossroads, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 57-81, viewed 1 October 2013, <  .


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, <  .


This is not completely true. The EU’s very economically successful pre-crisis state suggests that many of the decisions adopted by the EU are not “diluted to the point of being ineffective” and that in fact, EU works quite well. Although there are stark differences between individual member states they are able to overcome them and work meaningfully as a collective when progress is necessary. States are willing to sacrifice their interests in some areas if they get something in return elsewhere, or believe they will in the future. Therefore even if we accept the assertion that unanimous requirement is undemocratic, in a society with knowledgeable individuals, the veto is only used as a last resort. Thus what happens is that the allegedly "undemocratic" process functions as well as democratic process, but on top has an additional check or balance to prevent anything that is found particularly egregious to pass.


Disposing of unanimity requirement would make it easier advance the long-needed federalization of the European Union  With Greece as a trigger, the Eurozone and the whole EU have significantly suffered in the last five years as a result of massive and still on-going economic crisis. The Euro currency is, damaged by the vast differences between individual Eurozone members, with respect to their fiscal and monetary policies. While some states (commonly referred to as PIIGS) do have bigger problems with their finances, it is unthinkable for the others to be held responsible when serious issues, such as an inability to pay the debts, arise. Nevertheless, this was the case with Greece, when tens of billions of taxpayers’ money were used to service debts of one irresponsible state. Despite more than 50% of private sector debt being cut down by creditors, the threat of Greece’s default still lingers in the air. Getting rid of the unanimity requirement would make Europe much more able to respond quickly to crises. In the long run it would make negotiations for a federal union much easier, eventually turning it into reality. Achieving political integration and the abandonment of the veto that would come with it would then enable solutions to economic problems benefiting the whole even it unpalatable to some. Such position is also taken by Jacques Attali, a French economist who argues that “the institutional reform towards a federal Europe is necessary to implement a common fiscal and budgetary system.” [1]  [1] Attali, J 2012, ‘Attali: A federal Europe is the only crisis exit strategy’, EurActiv, 18 April, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .


Similarly to the first counter-point, it is arguable to what extent it is true marginalization of smaller states when these states comply with terms of agreements. Why do they not seek further steps to avoid being included in such “disadvantageous” changes, e.g. opt-outs? Also, if the marginalization was truly that apparent it is to be believed that these states would try to, for instance, change the QMV weighting. This has however not happened. Once again, does it not only prove that what is attempted to be satisfied is only selfishness and not common goals aimed towards improving life of the whole EU?


Federalization is a continual and on-going process. It does not happen overnight, and most importantly, it has been happening ever since the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) was founded. Therefore it is incorrect to think that there is anything like ‘hidden federalization,’ when its driving force are revisions of the common treaties which are agreed upon by all the member states. It is essential to point out that the EU is a democratic union, and member states joined the EU of their own accord. Becoming more federal would not affect this, there are many federal states that are democratic and not artificial such as Germany and the United States. Disposing of the unanimity requirement is not in any way harming the democratic principle of the EU as the changes will still have to be passed by Qualified Majority Vote. Strikingly, for many this is not enough, and other members have to understand that maybe without those who are not willing to move forward, the EU would be better off, what also means making tough decision of partially excluding those ‘backward’ states from further progress of the European Union. Concluding it in a single sentence, keeping the unanimity requirement intact servers only the egoistical needs of some specific nations.


The EU was based on the grounds of solidarity and the unanimity requirements ensures that no state will be repressed for the “greater good”  While understanding the need to compromise, members of the EU are very different meaning that hardly any important decision made will fit all universally. The unanimity requirement is needed only in few exceptional cases, such as for common foreign and security policy, which is completely understandable, since it is hardly imaginable that a successful union can act internationally as a whole without the consent of all members. Members clearly need to decide between them, as they do now, which areas need unanimity. It will then only be applied to issues where there should be no shortcuts when discussing and making decisions. The unanimity requirement provides states with a guarantee that they will not be left out of the debate and that their voice matters equally, whatever the size and international position of the state. Without this guarantee, it is beyond doubt that trust among the members would be eroded, damaging the union’s unity of purpose.


Qualified majority voting (QMV – an alternative to the unanimity requirement) favors big states and marginalizes the others  QMV in the Council before the accession of Croatia required 74.8% of the votes (258 out of 345). These votes are determined by an equation that takes into account size of population, e.g. Germany has 29 votes while Malta has only 3 votes. Also, a Member State may ask that the qualified majority represents at least 62% of the total population of EU. This system, as Novak puts it, may be potentially oblivious to the needs of smaller states as “the presidency and the Commission seek the support of big countries as a priority because they thereby achieve a qualified majority more quickly.” Furthermore, Novak continues that sometimes, small countries lack resources and large civil services “which seems to lead them pretty mechanically to rely on the Commission’s expertise, or, less often, on that of representatives of big countries.” [1] There we see that substituting unanimity requirement with QMV poses a real danger of marginalizing smaller states through a seemingly ‘democratic voting procedure’. While it is bad enough to foster such behavior regarding the common EU policies, it is unthinkable that this could happen during negotiations on important treaties (like common EU treaties).  [1] Novak, S 2011, Qualified majority voting from the Single European Act to present day: an unexpected permanence, Notre Europe, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .


Disposing of the unanimity requirements is essentially only hidden federalization of the European Union  With the recent developments in the EU, the potential that some states may leave is a growing concern. People’s opinion towards the EU is becoming increasingly negative (trust towards EU has in 2012, compared to 2007, declined in all the nations except for Belgium). [1] This stems mainly from the fact that the EU is forcefully trying to invade the decision-making process of the sovereign members. Directives and regulations influencing lives within the nations agreed on at the supranational level, often it is felt without a democratic mandate, are not kindly welcomed. Therefore it is to no amazement that taking away the unanimity requirement, which is now used in the most important and controversial changes, would create huge pressure on the national parliaments to oppose such dictatorship. Fisher argues the idea of federal states “shows itself to be an artificial construct which ignores the established realities in Europe.” [2] Leaving would then be considered a feasible option, thus making the federalization completely counter-productive.  [1] Torreblanca, JI, Leonard, M 2013, The Continent-wide Rise of Euroscepticism, European Council on Foreign Relations, viewed 6 October 2013, <  .  [2] 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. 929, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .


Unlike the former Soviet Union, the European Union is no ‘jail’ and members can, even though such move would be unprecedented, leave the union at any time. It is therefore hard to define ‘oppressing for greater good’ when we realize that the state tacitly agrees to it by staying in the union, possibly because the membership is still beneficial, even if we consider the ‘oppression’ in question. In this case then are these ‘oppressed’ state not just lusting for something more rather than a reasonable concern regarding the national interests? Continuing in this line of thought, is this not the exact opposite of what the members should attempt to do? In cases where a state loses they should recognise that in some cases they will gain and others loose.


While African governments may be good at professing to want cooperation and integration the reality on the ground lags behind this considerably. No regional trade block has yet been really successful in creating a free trade area let alone a customs union and protectionism, restrictive trade practices and import bans often remain. [1] The effectiveness and chances of integration through free trade are also greatly reduced by almost all the potential member states having very similar economies that rely on the export of primary goods. This makes specialisation and a concentration on trade within the block difficult without a complete restructuring of countries economies. Moreover free trade requires effective infrastructure, something Africa is lacking. [2] Integration is therefore unlikely to go anywhere and even if it does it may have little effect.  [1] Gumede, William, ‘Saving Africa’s free trade area from failure’, Pambazika News, Issue 553, 20 October 2011.  [2] Goodridge, R.B., ‘Chapter 3: Factors Against Regional Economic Integration’, 2006, p.30.


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.


Many of Africa’s wars are ethnic conflicts (i.e. Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, the Congo). These conflicts will not be dissipated by simply redrawing – or attempting to dissolve - national borders. Instead of integration if borders are the problem then Africa needs to be redrawn into smaller states based on ethnicity as in Europe. Secessionist would then movements would disappear, each state could have its own language so facilitating democracy, there would be no more identity politics and each state, though smaller would be stronger. [1] Only when this is done can these states begin continental integration.  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.


The AU can bring peace to the continent  Integration can bring peace; just like the European Union has in Europe. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the UN has slowly changed its relationship with regional organizations. It is more willing and through its agenda for peace has been demanding that regional organizations be responsible for peacekeeping, state-building and humanitarian assistance. [1] Part of the reasoning is that these states are more sensitive to local customs, concerns and diplomacy. Already, the African Union has taken on several peacekeeping initiatives; first in Burundi in 2003m and more recently on-going missions in in Darfur, Sudan, since 2004 and in Somalia since 2007. [2] The AU also allows regional economic communities to take a lead in responding threats to peace so allowing action to be taken at the appropriate level. [3]  [1] Department of Peacekeeping Operations, ‘Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Organisations/arrangements in a peacekeeping environment’, United Nations ,March 1999, p.6.  [2] Murithi, Tim, ‘The African Union’s Foray into Peacekeeping: Lessons from the Hybrid Mission in Darfur’, Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, Issue 14, July 2009.  [3] Adebajo, Adekeye, ‘Strengthening Africa’s security architecture’, Utenriksdepartementet.


There is too much distrust amongst the AU’s membership already: Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone all accuse each other of backing rebel movements in their respective civil wars. The UN is asking regional organizations to shoulder some of its "peace and security" responsibilities out of desperation, as prompted by its failure in Rwanda, not as part of some strategy. In Kosovo, NATO had to intervene because Russia blocked any UN action at the Security Council. There are as yet no other successful examples of regional organizations (i.e. ASEAN, APEC, OAS) getting involved in a military conflict and successfully bringing peace.


Integration will fix the problem of borders  For some commentators, Africa’s biggest problem is that its countries are remnants of colonial empires. In the post-colonial period, borders were drawn between states randomly, creating ethnic tension and geographic dissonance. Qaddafi argued that peace will break out when Africa’s borders disappear. As Saadi Touval argued “The borders are blamed for the disappearance of a unity which supposed existed in Africa in precolonial times… The borders are considered to be one of the humiliating legacies of colonialism, which, according to this view, independent Africa ought to abolish”. [1] Though unification is the end goal, the short-term objective is to create an African free trade area with some semblance of regional organization. Most importantly, the AU has abandoned the notion of absolute "state sovereignty": it can "peer review" the human rights and political situation in any of its members. [2] The EU was established after WWII to assist in the rebuilding of Europe; why can’t the AU do the same in Africa?  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.  [2] ‘About APRM’ African Peer Review Mechanism, 2011.


Africa also has advantages that Europe did not have; there is no cold war dividing the continent into opposing armed camps, there are now many successful examples of developing world countries industrialising to draw on, and organisations like the EU that have forged on ahead have shown up some of the potential problems for Africa to avoid. Kofi Annan has also noted that Europe too started integration with a devastated continent "That, Excellencies, should be our aim - to rebuild, as Europe did, after a series of devastating wars, uniting across old divisions to build a continent characterized by peace, cooperation, economic progress and the rule of law." [1]  Moreover some of Africa’s disadvantages could potentially be turned into advantages if integration is managed correctly. Africa’s lack of industrialisation for example means that member states can choose to specialise in complementary areas as they industrialise.  [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.


While it used to be correct that Africa prized sovereignty above everything else, including stability, [1] this is no longer the case. Just by signing up to the African Union states were showing that they were now willing to cede some sovereignty to the organisation as it involved ceding some power to the Pan African Parliament and the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. [2] Some sovereign power is also ceded to the Assembly of the AU, composed of heads of state and government, as while decisions are preferably by consensus it can also be by a two thirds majority, and the decision is still binding on the minority that disagrees. [3] Moreover the protocols establishing all of these bodies anticipate more powers slowly being transferred to them. In particular the Pan African parliament will slowly gain the power to legislate much as the European Parliament does.  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.  [2] Wachura, George Mukundi, ‘Sovereignty and the ‘United States of Africa’ Insights from the EU’, ISS Paper 144, June 2007, p.3.  [3] Ibid p.4


African international organisations do not have a history of effectiveness  In its thirty-nine year history, the predecessor of the AU, the OAU is almost universally judged as an abysmal failure. [1] It failed to challenge any major dictator on the continent and stood idle while civil war, ethnic conflict, poverty and disease ravaged ordinary Africans. Idi Amin, the former Ugandan despot, even served as the OAU chairman for a brief spell. Its only success was in preserving the notion of sovereign borders in Africa. The AU suffers many of the old problems of the OAU; particularly its capabilities falling well short of the ambitious rhetoric. The institution still does not have mechanisms to enforce or even encourage compliance so cannot resolve conflicts. When conflicts arise there has been difficulty getting action from the AU due to a preference for consensus and even if there is agreement the Union does not have the capability to intervene. [2]  [1] Amoo, Samuel G., ‘The OAU and African Conflicts: Past Successes, Present Paralysis and Future Perspectives’, Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution George Mason University, May 1992, p.2.  [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, p.8, pp.20-22.


The role of leaders will prevent success  A pan-African organization must be willing to stand up to African dictators and military rulers, the real cause of bloodshed and poverty on the continent. So far the AU has failed in this mission: Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is a charter member of the AU and the AU has done little to encourage him to relinquish control of his country. It continued this trend by being unwilling to recognise the Libyan rebels until after the capital, Tripoli, had fallen. [1] The conflict in Libya showed that are still happy to support autocrats and unwilling to champion democracy. [2] So long as this is the case the AU will be unable to pool sovereignty in the way the European Union has as these individuals are unwilling to give up power, whether that is in elections or to international organisations.  [1] Adedoja, Tokunbo, and Oyedele, Damilola, ‘At Last, AU Recognisis Libyan Rebels’, This Day Live, 21 September 2011.  [2] Tostevin, Matthew, ‘Has the African Union got Libya wrong?’, Reuters, 31 August 2011.


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.


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.


First of all Africa is becoming more democratic; in 1983 there were only three democracies in Africa but by 2010 this had increased to 23 and with this comes an increase in accountability and desire both for cooperation with neighbours and for economic liberalisation. [1]  While individuals certainly dominate African politics and often power is more concentrated in their hands than in more mature democracies this can be an advantage. If these leaders do want to move towards a closer union they can potentially do so much faster than countries where many more interest groups need to be taken into account.  [1] ‘Emerging Africa: How 17 Countries are Leading the Way’, Devprac.org.


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.


These terrorist camps are the responsibility of a few within the Eritrean government, such as Colonel Tewolde Habte Negash, not the many. In other areas, Eritrea has been cooperative with the global war on terror. In 2012 Eritrea provided over flight clearance to the US air force in regional security operations2.  1) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  2) Office of the coordinator for counterterrorism ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2012 Chapter 2: Africa’ 2012


The government has supported terrorist organisations  Accusations have been made against Eritrea claiming that they have supported terrorist groups, particularly those operating in neighbouring countries. Eritrea has been accused of supporting al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group in Somalia who also operate in Kenya, as well as several other secessionist groups. Training camps have reportedly been established within Eritrea, several of which were attacked by Ethiopia in 20121. The attempts to destabilise East Africa have naturally led to international condemnation, especially from the USA whose “War on Terror” was contradicted by Eritrea’s action2. This would suggest that Eritrea’s own actions are responsible for their isolation.  1) Smith,D. ‘Ethiopian raid on Eritrean bases raises fears of renewed conflict’, 16 March 2012  2) BBC, ‘US sanctions on Eritrea spy chief Negash over al-Shabab’, 6 July 2012


Many states commit human rights abuse but still enjoy inclusivity in the international system. China has been associated with mass human rights abuse1, yet they are still a major actor in international relations. They also have one of the largest economies, a seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and positive relations with most of the world. Eritrea’s regional rival, Ethiopia, also enjoys fruitful international relations with many powerful states despite similar human rights abuses. The resettlement of the Lower Omo Valley by Ethiopia is one such example of continued international support despite killings, beatings and forced resettlement2. This demonstrates a double standard which is not necessarily Eritrea’s fault.  1) Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2013: China’, 2013  2) Hurd,W. ‘Ignoring abuse in Ethiopia: DFID and USAID in the Lower Omo Valley’ July 2013


Eritrea started the 1998 war  Eritrea was responsible for instigating the war against Ethiopia, making it liable for its increased isolation. Eritrea was officially recognised by an international Claims Commission as the initiator of the war1. The state invaded the region of Badme after a long diplomatic dispute over the border issue as they believed the territory was rightfully theirs2. They removed the Ethiopian presence from the state, compromising territorial integrity and incurred a reaction from Ethiopia. This marked Eritrea as the aggressor. An aggressor in a war cannot be seen as a ‘just’ actor and has therefore contributed to its own seclusion by acting in such a manner.  1) BBC, ‘Eritrea broke law in border war’, 21 December 2005  2) Briggs,P. ‘Ethiopia’ pg.30


Ethiopia provoked Eritrea into invading their shared border. The lands were technically Eritrean, as the boundaries commission would later state1. Through these circumstances, Eritrea was not infringing the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. Moreover, some have hypothesised that Ethiopia actually encouraged the war to happen by murdering several Eritrean officials near Badme2. This would create an excuse to make territorial gains, namely to regain access to the Red Sea and the potential trade that accompanied it3.  1) Lauterpacht,E. ‘Sixteenth report on the work of the commission’ 24 February 2005  2) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  3) Shah,A. ‘Conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea’, 20 December 2000


Eritrea has never been fully self-sustainable and still accepts foreign assistance. The beginning of the 21st century has seen Eritrea open up to increasing numbers of foreign Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing aid. The country has now become a highly favoured aid recipient1. Even during the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, when most aid agencies were forced out of the country, some were permitted to remain.  1) Smith-Simonsen,C. ‘The pros and cons of self-reliance: Eritrea’s relations with aid agencies and NGOs’ pg.347


Human Rights Abuse  Eritrean isolation has been exacerbated by their poor human rights record. Claims were presented to the UN of ‘extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, extended incommunicado detention, torture, indefinite national service, and lack of freedom of expression, assembly, religious belief and movement’1. Eritrea’s President, Isaias Afewerki, has been accused of using the threat of invasion as a justification for the highly militarised and brutal nature of his country2. This has attracted international criticism, with a joint statement from 44 countries condemning Eritrea’s infringement of human rights3.  1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013  2) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’ 3 October 2013  3) Joint statement of 44 countries, ‘Human rights Situation in Eritrea’, Human Rights Council, 13 March 2012


President Isaias Afewerki has sought self-reliance  Whilst President Afewerki was fighting for Eritrean independence he became a proponent of the self-reliant state, which could sustain its own population with no external assistance. Since independence the President has rejected foreign aid to the country through claims that aid is a method of enslavement to international donors1. Numerous offers of assistance, including the free food distributions of the World Food Programme, have been rejected in favour of the domestic market2. Afewerki claims that as aid decreases, farmers will work harder to ensure that food demand is met. The lack of donors and trading partners has served to weaken Eritrea’s ties of the outside world, making the state responsible for its own isolation.  1) BBC, ‘Self Reliance could cost Eritrea dear’, 5 July 2006  2) Saunders,E. ‘Eritrea aspires to be self-reliant, rejecting foreign aid’, Los Angeles Times, 2 October 2007


Eritrea has acted in violation of international law numerous times through methods such as human rights abuse and deserves the UN’s condemnation. Despite these abuses, the UN still offers aid to the country1, demonstrating its commitment to re-engage with the country. Eritrea, however, has been increasing hostile to the UN over the issue of aid. Having refused assistance from the United Nations World Food Programme and other policies, Eritrea has weakened its links with the institution, isolating itself from the international community.  1) BBC, ‘Eritrea refuses food aid’, 3 January 2010


The US has attempted to maintain an equal level of support for both Ethiopia and Eritrea since the EEBC incident. Both states became military allies of the USA and joined the coalition of the willing which invaded Iraq in 20031. The US has also attempted to reach a permanent peace between the two state and has encouraged Eritrea to contribute to regional stability2.  1) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  2) Bureau of African Affairs, ‘U.S. Relations with Eritrea’11 February 2013


Eritrea is surrounded by hostile nations  Eritrea has been forced in to isolation due to unfriendly neighbours. In its short history, Eritrea has been in conflicts with Ethiopia and Djibouti over border issues. Diplomatic ties with Sudan, while having improved recently, have historically been very poor as well. The hostility received from these countries has fostered a “bunker mentality” amongst Eritreans1. The previous and present security threats from their neighbours has ensured an ‘us against them’ attitude, which is evident in their wider international dealings.  1) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998


The UN has done little to facilitate improvement  Rather than encouraging Eritrea to become more integrated in the international community, the United Nations has made the state’s situation worse. The UN has enforced sanctions upon the country for links that it claimed to find between Eritrea and al-Shabaab1 which served to weaken ties between Eritrea and the outside world. The intergovernmental organisation (IGO) has also regularly condemned Eritrea for its policies, which Eritrea believes is the result of hostile states ensuring the state is condemned by the international community2.  1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013  2) Ibid


The US has unfairly supported Ethiopia  The US is responsible for Eritrea’s isolation through its foreign policy. The United States has actively supported Ethiopia, Eritrea’s rival, in regional disputes. In 2002, the USA urged Ethiopia to disregard the Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Commission’s (EEBC) decision which stated that lands occupied by Ethiopia did belong to Eritrea. This was also a violation of their role as a guarantor for the agreement1. Continued support for Ethiopia’s counterterrorism role worsened US-Eritrea relations. Relationships deteriorated to the extent of which that the USA attempted to revoke Eritrea’s membership to the UN in December 2011. The US has therefore been unnecessarily provocative and exclusionary in its foreign policy.  1) Weldemichael,A. ‘Eritrea: Bringing Eritrea in From the Cold- We Need to UN-Break the U.S.-Ethiopia-Eritrea Triangle’ 17 January 2014


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


Annan’s peace proposals do not provide cover for Assad; they call for Assad to stop fighting and single out the Syrian government as having to stop troop movements and pull back. Assad would have much more political cover without the proposal providing a benchmark by which to rate Assad’s cooperation.


The plan is just political cover for Assad.  The plan is simply being used as political cover by Assad, as long as he is signed up to such an agreement and other countries believe there is a chance that he will implement it the Russians and Chinese will not allow further Security Council action. Both the Russians and Chinese are showing that they are willing to support Assad by vetoing anything hinting at sanctions. [1] Therefore the only thing the Annan plan does is provide more time for Assad to go on killing his own people so that he can remain in power as is shown by his unwillingness to implement any of the plans provisions. [2]  [1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.  [2] Editorial Board, ‘Syria’s cover for murder’, Washington Post, 31 March 2012.


Ultimately unless one side wins decisively then there will have to be a deal. Both sides will have to shift their positions. There have to be on-going negotiations to be able to facilitate this.


The plan has failed.  The plan has clearly failed; its primary goal was to end the violence but a total of at least 13,000 Syrians have been killed since the beginning of the uprising. [1] Around 100 people are killed each day and even Annan himself has conceded the ceasefire is ‘failing’. [2] Assad clearly believes the Annan plan has failed having told his cabinet "When one is in a state of war, all our policies and capabilities must be used to secure victory" [3] this is not the kind of language of someone looking to take part in a peaceful solution. Everything in the plan relies on some kind of ceasefire; that has not happened and without it the rest of the points cannot be implemented. The plan must therefore be abandoned as Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated when creating the monitoring mission "If there is not a sustained cessation of violence, full freedom of movement for U.N. personnel and rapid meaningful progress on all other aspects of the six-point plan, then we must all conclude that this mission has run its course." [4]  [1] Barari, Hassan, ‘A road map for political solution to Syrian crisis’, Al Arabiya News, 1 July 2012.  [2] Blomfield, Adrian, ‘Syria: Kofi Annan claims peace plan can be revived’, The Telegraph, 9 July 2012.  [3] ‘Assad says Syria ‘in a state of war’, Aljazeera, 27 June 2012.  [4] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.


While the plan has not yet brought about a ceasefire this does not provide a good reason not to continue to use the six point plan as the basis to create that ceasefire. Deadlines may pass but that cannot mean we simply abandon the intention to create that ceasefire.


The Syrian opposition will never be willing to deal with Assad.  As a follow up to the six point plan on the 1st July in Geneva it was agreed that a transitional government would be set up which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent”. [1] Mutual consent however means both sides have a veto; Assad would have to agree and he is not going to agree to a government which he is not involved in. The opposition meanwhile argues “The country has been destroyed and they want us then to sit with the killer?” [2] With neither side willing to consider sitting down with the other it is difficult to see how Annan’s plan can ever get anywhere no matter how long it is kept on life support.  [1] Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué, 20 June 2012.  [2] Lee, Matthew, ‘Analysis: Plan to end Syrian crisis falls flat’, Associated Press, 2 July 2012.


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.


There is little point in talks for the sake of talks if they are never going to get anywhere. There are other things that could be done that could help reduce the violence such as creating safe zones in neighbouring countries territories, establishing buffer zones in Syria, and creating an arms quarantine to prevent Russian and Iranian weapons flowing into Syria to help the regime. [1]  [1] Tabler, Andrew J., ‘Cut Off Assad’s Lifelines’, The Washington Institute, 30 May 2012.


Without the peace plan there will be further conflict.  Kofi Annan believes that peace can only be found together arguing all members of the Security Council "Either unite to secure your common interests, or divide and surely fail in your own individual way. Without your unity… nobody can win and everyone will lose in some way." Moreover a failure of the peace plan would “turn a humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe." [1] Without any prospect of a peaceful solution it is likely that Assad would escalate to using chemical weapons. Nawaf Fares, the Syrian Ambassador to Iraq who has defected, has warned that they would be used if the regime feels cornered. [2] If this were to happen Israel might be compelled to attack to prevent Syrian Chemical weapons being used against it or falling into the hands of terrorists. [3] This in turn would spark off a wider regional war.  [1] Beaumont, Peter, ‘Failure of Syria peace plan ‘risks wider regional conflict’, guardian.co.uk, 30 June 2012.  [2] Gardner, Frank, ‘Syria: Assad regime ‘ready to use chemical weapons’, BBC News, 17 July 2012.  [3] Fisher, Gabe, ‘Pentagon reportedly seeking to avert Israel strike on Syrian chemical weapons sites’, The Times of Israel, 19 July 2012.


Annan’s plan should be enforced.  Western countries such as Britain and France want attention to shift from monitoring to enforcement. William Hague argues the bomb that killed the Syrian defence minister “confirms the urgent need for a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria… All the members of the UN Security Council have a responsibility to put their weight behind the enforcement of Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end the violence.” [1] This enforcement would mean non-military sanctions if the regime does not withdraw troops and heavy weapons from populated areas within 10 days [2] – as called for in the second point of Annan’s plan.  [1] Hague, William, ‘Hague: ‘The situation in Syria is clearly deteriorating’, itvnews, 18 July 2012.  [2] AP, ‘U.K.’s Hague Urges Support for Peace Plan’, Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2012.


Annan’s plan is the only proposal on the table.  Both the options currently on the table are continuations of the six point plan. The western states such as the US, France and UK want to give the plan teeth by adding an enforcement mechanism while the Russians own plan simply involved extending the current monitoring mission. [1] There would be no point in starting from scratch on a new plan that would have to rebuild support from world governments and would likely end up at a similar position. Not only is there no plan B but any plan B would have to simply mean more of the same. [2] The Annan plan at least has a starting framework up and running and is talking to all parties.  [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.  [2] ‘U.N. chief: ‘No Plan B’ in Syria’, CNN, 24 May 2012.


This maintains the fiction that the current plan is somehow reducing the level of conflict in Syria; it is not, and that is the whole problem. Already the Red Cross has declared the conflict to be a Civil war. [1] The conflict is expanding regardless of the peace plan.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘Exclusive: Read Cross ruling raises questions of Syrian war crimes’, Reuters, 14 July 2012.


Sanctions are a proven policy tool and can pressure a regime that is extremely repressive into reforms. Aggressive U.S. engagement and pressure contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and it can work again. As in the Cold war there are radio stations that are effective at providing news and information about the outside world to Cuba. [1] Sanctions are also, according to Colin Powell, a ‘moral statement’ of America’s disapproval for the Castro regime. Blaming America for all economic woes didn’t trick ordinary Russians and it won’t trick the Cubans. Now is exactly the time that the United States should be tightening down the screws so that Castro’s successor is forced to make real changes.  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.


Sanctions are not working  Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 years, why would they now? They mean that the US can be blamed for all the failures of the Cuban economy and to justify repressive measures for security, [1] and therefore encourage the retrenchment of both. In times when the Cuban economy is booming, as in 2005 when the economy grew by 8%, the impotence of the sanctions becomes clear. [2] President Bush claimed to want to empower civil society in Cuba but he also argued that the best way to achieve this in China was to trade and spread ‘American values.’ [3] Cuba’s geographical and cultural proximity makes it very likely to change quickly when they are able to freely interact with the United States through travel and trade. [4] [5]  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’, p.392.   [3] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [4] Meet the Press, ‘John Kerry’,31 August 2004.   [5] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.


The United Nations Resolutions condemning the sanctions have never passed through the Security Council and therefore lack any authority. The Cubans themselves are also violating international agreements in particular the 1928 Inter-American Convention on Asylum and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by surrounding “embassies in its capital by armed forces to thwart the right of its citizens to seek asylum and systematically denies that right to the Cuban people.” [1]  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.


Foreign policy should follow the will of the people  Sanctions are not the will of the American people but of a small minority of embittered Cuban Americans in Florida who are being pandered to due to their importance in elections in a swing state. [1] Congressman Charles Rangel argues that the only success of the sanctions policy has been to “appease the Republican constituency in Florida”. [2] National opinion generally expresses no preference or opposes the ban, in a 2009 CBS poll asking "Do you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" 67% said should. [3] Sanctions remaining in place is electioneering government at its worst, domestic interest groups controlling government foreign policy. As Karl Rove has admitted "When people mention Cuba to me, it makes me think of three things: Florida, Florida, and Florida." [4]  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007.   [3] Pollingreport.com, ‘Cuba’.   [4] Rosenthal, Joel H., ‘The Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States and the Next Revolution’, 2009.


Sanctions harm the Cuban people.  The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. Sanctions deprive Cuba of low cost food that the United States could provide so hitting the poorest yet they do not affect the ruling elite. [1] In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 billion in trade [2] and $1.2 billion in international loans because of U.S. sanctions. Cuba is too poor a country not to suffer from these losses. The dominance of America in the pharmaceuticals industry, moreover, means that it is actually impossible for Cubans to gain access to many drugs and other medical equipment, including the only curative treatment for some pediatric leukemias. [3] America would be the natural market for most Cuban products, and its refusal to accept goods with even the tiniest Cuban inputs from third nations damages Cuba’s ability to trade with others. Other South American countries have shown their reliance on the types of loans that Cuba is denied in the last few years to keep their economies on track.  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] United Nations Secretary General, ‘Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba’, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, 26 July 2002,  P.11  [3] Garfield, Richard, ‘The Impact of the Economic Crisis and the US Embargo on Health in Cuba’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol.87, No. 1, January 1997,  P.18


Sanctions didn’t cause the economic failure in Cuba. The communist political and economic system has been shown to lead to economic collapse all over the world, whether sanctions are in place or not. Centralization, collectivism, state control, bureaucracy, and restrictions on private initiative totalitarian style economic policies are what are to blame for the Cuban people’s economic suffering. [1] Even if sanctions were lifted, lack of private ownership, foreign exchange and tradable commodities would hold Cuba back. The International Trade Commission found a ‘minimal effect on the Cuban economy’ from sanctions. [2] In fact, it is by using sanctions to pressure Cuba into economic and political reform that the US can best contribute to an economic recovery there.  [1] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’.   [2] U.S. International Trade Commission, ‘ITC Releases Report on the Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with respect to Cuba’, 2001.


The people who care most about the Cuban question thoroughly oppose dropping sanctions. The Mid-Western Republicans who voted to drop the travel ban are no less blinkered than the Cuban Americans who vote to keep it. Opinion on sanctions wavers; the separation of powers is specifically in place to allow the White House to maintain a stable policy on issues of national security rather than responding to every change in public opinion. It would not be right for the United States to change its foreign policy when the population is apathetic and has very little opinion on an issue.


Cuba will never make up more than a tiny percentage of America’s trade and it is able to source and sell all the products it needs elsewhere. Even if Cuba was a vital market for American goods it would be worth giving up some economic growth in order to maintain a commitment to the freedom of the Cuban people. As it is, the total Cuban GDP is a drop in the ocean and at this point is almost entirely irrelevant to the United States.


Sanctions are illegal  Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Charter, laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated United Nations resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and Israel in opposition). [1] Furthermore, some parts of the Helms-Burton Act are extra-territorial in their effects on businessmen from third nations and therefore cause significant protest around the world. This makes a mockery of the US claim to be a guardian of International Law, not only in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations over the future of Iraq. America could achieve its goals internationally more easily if it was not marked with evidence of its lack of respect for International Law.  [1] CNN, ‘U.N. again condemns U.S. embargo against Cuba’, 2009.


Economic benefits of ending sanctions  The United States will also benefit from the opening of trade with Cuba economically. Mid-Western Republicans have all voted to drop the embargo because of the potential for profits in their farming states. Even the modest opening of the embargo in 2000 has increased sales of farm products immensely having gone from nothing [1] to $344 million in 2010. [2] This is a market for American products as well as a local producer. Further, if sanctions end Americans will be able to stop pretending that they prefer Bolivian cigars!  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] Reuters, ‘U.S. food sales to Cuba fall further in 2010’, 2011.


There is no reason to believe that yet more years of sanctions will make a difference. Cuba has been defiant in the face of much worse and continued on the same course. The sanctions cannot provide leverage while other states do not have sanctions; Cuba can get anything it requires from elsewhere without recourse to the United States so why would Cuba be willing to ever make concessions before sanctions are dropped. [1]  [1] Reeson, Greg, ‘Time to Drop Sanctions Against Cuba’, 2006.


There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is no evidence that Cuba is a sponsor of terror, and even if it is the U.S. does not place all the restrictions it places on other designated sponsors of terror that it does on Cuba. [1] Cuba has no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and any allegations about Cuba developing such weapons have never been substantiated. Cuba holds fewer prisoners of conscience than China, Vietnam or Iran and has recently been releasing many of them. [2] To maintain sanctions in order to change the form of government, as the United States claims it does, is totally illegitimate under International Law and, moreover, Cuba is in no sense the only undemocratic country in the world. Cuba has gone so far as to offer to compensate the U.S. citizens whose property was nationalised in 1959. America has never explained the threat posed by Cuba that requires these sanctions.  [1] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007.   [2] Amnesty International, ‘Cuba frees prisoners of conscience’, 2011.


Protecting human rights  America is attempting to protect the rights of its own citizens and of the Cubans enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] Something the Castro who considers democratic pluralism to be ‘pluralistic garbage’ [2] will never live up to without coercion. Indeed Cuba undermines the guarantees made in its own constitution and invokes sovereignty as a justification for not complying with international rights agreements and further restricting human rights. [3] The USA’s status as a guardian of human rights and an enemy of terror is enhanced by its moral refusal to compromise with a repressive government just off its own shores.  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.   [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Impediments to Human Rights in Cuban Law’, 1999.


Sanctions are necessary for national security  Sanctions are a better alternative to military action. The most recent set of sanctions were imposed in 1996 in response to two US civilian planes belonging to the group of exiles ‘brothers of peace’ being shot down by the Cuban Air Force near Cuba. [1] The United States would have been justified in reacting proportionally with some military action but instead reinforced sanctions through the Helms-Burton Act. [2] This shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of support for Cuba in 1991 did not mean an end to the threat posed by Cuba. Cuba has remained communist and the Castro regime has shown it is still willing to antagonize the United States. As Cuba is situated in a strategic location close to the United States the US government cannot be precipitate in removing sanctions at least until Cuba proves it is a good neighbour.  [1] University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, ‘Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena y Pablo Morales v. Republica de Cuba’, 1999.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.