A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war  Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.


A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.


The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.


International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible.


A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems  A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality.


A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism  A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.


Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies, navies, business corporations, the International Red Cross, and numerous others, are classified as bureaucracies no less than national tax collection agencies—the archetypical target of “bureaucracy haters.” It is important to understand that bureaucracies do not arise from nowhere, but are a tangible consequence of perceived needs and shared purposes. With that in mind, it can further be argued that a world government would not necessarily increase the total bureaucratic burden on the human population of the world. Some functions currently handled by separate national government bureaucracies might more cost effectively be handled by an analogous world government bureaucracy.


Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world government subject to significant restraints that would effectively eliminate the danger of global tyranny. Among these are proposals that discontented member nations may withdraw peacefully, at their unilateral discretion, from the federation, and that member nations are allowed to retain independent control over armed forces. In addition to these provisions, a sensible voting scheme in the world legislature would preclude the poor countries enforcing their preferences on the rich countries, and vice versa. In any case, excessive emphasis on the heterogeneity of nations tends to obscure the fact that in reality—despite the obvious differences in language, race, religion and culture—a considerable amount of consensus has already been achieved among the global human population on some critical elements of ethical behavior and social organization. The existence of a federal world government would facilitate further development of the friendly, cooperative and mutually supportive impulses within people.


A world government would be ineffective in practice  From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existing institutions of global governance, comprising the United Nations and several others, are achieving as much as can reasonably be expected given the extreme diversity of the contemporary global human population, its widely differing perceptions, viewpoints, and policy preferences. If this diversity is hampering efforts to improve the global human prospect, this is unfortunate, but there is no reason to expect that a formal world government would not be similarly hampered. Furthermore, significant improvements can be made, such as the proposed Global Parliamentary Assembly (GPA) that would convert or replace the UN General Assembly with a directly elected assembly—without going to the premature extreme of full-fledged world government. Many other ideas short of world government were offered by the Commission on Global Governance of the early 1990s. Many of these are viable and attractive options for making progress without an excessively risky departure from the status quo. Thus there is no need to make a reckless giant step into world government, when there are more cautious baby steps that could be taken toward improving international harmony and cooperation.


There is no feasible transition path to a world government model  Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war might so shock and horrify the global human population that it will turn to world government in desperation. This outcome is possible, of course, but it is equally possible that after a nuclear Armageddon had occurred, the scattered and demoralized survivors would be neither capable of nor interested in world government. Quite likely the surface of the world would become sub-divided into a host of autonomous principalities presided over by dictatorial war lords. It would seem that in a post-nuclear war world, there would be just as much chance of severe political fragmentation taking place as there is of further political consolidation.


The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further  The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too much apprehension among the great majority of people around the world that a world government would promulgate and enforce policies that would disadvantage their specific national interests. Most opinion leaders and national government officials believe that they have a vested interest in the status quo. One evidence that interest in world government has declined to a vestigial level is that the World Federalist Association (WFA), which was quite active throughout the Cold War, was recently absorbed by Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), an organization principally devoted to preserving and supporting the United Nations, and which studiously avoids any mention of world government in its literature.


A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy  A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it would be accurate to describe the situation as “bureaucratic suffocation” or “bureaucratic strangulation.” Of their nature, bureaucracies stifle creative thought and innovation. A world government would be subject to so many conflicting viewpoints and attitudes that its bureaucracy would necessarily have to impose an overwhelming deluge of requirements, restrictions, forms and reports on the citizens. The citizens would be effectively hamstrung, and be (figuratively speaking) more or less trussed up in straitjackets. So even if—by some remote chance—the world state did not immediately degenerate into a brutal police state, its massive bureaucracy would in some ways constitute a virtual police state. The problem of bureaucracy alone argues against a world state.


The fact that some international relations authorities do not have the imagination required to perceive a feasible transition path to world government is not necessarily strong evidence that such a path does not exist. The principal reason why the idea of world government is not being pursued vigorously at the present time is that it is assumed by the large majority that world government could only be realized in the form of the omnipotent world state. But if a sufficient amount (a “critical mass,” so to speak) of awareness of the limited world government option is achieved, the situation could change dramatically within a short period of time. If there was sufficiently widespread and strong support for world government, it could be established by the same sort of international conference that established the United Nations. As for world government coming about through nuclear world war, no sane and sensible world federalist gives this any credence.


There is no popular support for such a body  There is too much economic, political and cultural heterogeneity in the contemporary world to permit the establishment of a democratically organized, authoritative and effective—yet benign—world government. This was especially the case during the Cold War era with its virulent opposition between communist and non-communist economic, political and social ideologies. But it is still the case. For example, if a democratic world government were established, it would likely want to create a global welfare state, but this would be unacceptable to citizens of the rich countries because of the excessive taxation necessary to provide welfare benefits to the citizens of the poor nations. Another possibility is that the world government would be effectively controlled by the rich nations (despite appearances of democracy), and thus it would implement policies of uncontrolled trade and investment. These would be unacceptable to the poor nations because they would be regarded as a return to the exploitative conditions of the colonial era. Thus a serious effort to establish a world government in the real world would almost certainly lead to widespread armed resistance, and this might well escalate into the very nuclear world war that the world government was supposed to prevent. That would be the ultimate irony.


While it cannot be denied that interest in world government is currently at a low ebb, among both the general public and international relations professionals, it is arguable that a principal reason for this is relatively low familiarity with alternatives to the “omnipotent world state” concept developed in the immediate aftermath of World War II. In time, as greater familiarity develops with the more recent proposals for a limited federal world government being developed by the younger generation of world federalists, the situation might change. The more recent proposals envision a world government that would exercise far less power and authority relative to the member nations than would the omnipotent world government of earlier, “old-fashioned” world federalist thought. There would be far less likelihood of these newer blueprints leading to unmanageable conflicts between national interests and global interests.


There is no doubt that the processes of global governance have improved since the decline of the Cold War in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. But it is unduly naïve to suggest, as do some global governance enthusiasts, that the United Nations and other international institutions amount to a virtual global government that is as effective as an actual world government would be. Close examination of actual events at the international level shows that national interests tend to trump global interests again and again. As for “baby step” proposals such as the Global Parliamentary Assembly, these are uninspired and uninspiring. So long as the UN General Assembly (or its equivalent) remains a purely consultative body confined to issuing resolutions with no power of enforcement, then it makes very little difference whether its members are elected by the national populations, or appointed by the national governments. A full-fledged world government, as an institutional reality with legislative, executive and judicial branches, the high officials of which would be directly elected by the global constituency, would constitute a quantum leap forward that would excite the human imagination. So long as it is properly limited according to the more recent, post-Cold War world federalist proposals, it would not constitute a meaningful threat to the legitimate national interests of the member nations.


Officially talks are ongoing so an agreement is still possible. Moreover a failure to reach an agreement does not mean that Germany should act unilaterally. Restraint will in the long term mean Germany is much more likely to negotiate an agreement with the United States as they will be more willing to listen to an ally who has not tried to prosecute US intelligence officials.


No chance of an agreement with the USA  The German government has been working towards a ‘no-spy agreement’ with the United States. It however looks unlikely that such a deal will every become a reality with officials saying “we won't get anything” and “the Americans lied to us” about the chances of an agreement. [1] German officials have also been disparaging of Obama’s new announcements on restrictions of the NSA; Roettgen, a member of Merkel’s party says “The fundamental question is, should security services be able to do everything they’re technically able to do, Obama essentially said ‘yes’”. [2] If Germany can’t get an agreement then it has no choice but to act unilaterally.  [1] Medick, Veit, and Meiritz, Annett, ‘’The Americans Lied’: Trans-Atlantic ‘No-Spy’ Deal on the Rocks’, Spiegel Online, 15 January 2014,   [2] Donahue, Patrick, ‘Germany Says Obama’s Spying Pledges Fail to Address Concerns’, Bloomberg, 20 January 2014’,


Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “not moved a single step forward on any of the key points”. [1] The stonewalling by the United States provides an opportunity for opponents to Damage Merkel’s new government as well as potentially to show gaps between the SDP and CSU. Merkel has been invited to visit Washington at some point in 2014 by President Obama, [2] Merkel can’t afford for her own diplomacy to have as little result as Friedrich’s.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘SPF, Greens slam Interior Minister Friedrich after US surveillance talks in Washington’, dw.de, 13 July 2013,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama invites Merkel to visit during call about trade, NATO’, 8 January 2014,


Illegal under German law  Monitoring communications in Germany’s capital – including the communications of government leaders like Merkel would be illegal under German law. Numerous politicians, such as then interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich have stated that those “responsible must be held accountable”. [1] There are even those, such as Gregor Gysi from the far left Left Party who say “The fact that the German government and the Federal Prosecutor isn't acting shows that their fear of the US government is greater than their respect for our legal system.” [2] When an act is illegal the state has a moral responsibility to prosecute that act. It should not be OK for another state to break the law simply because it is an ally and there is a desire to keep relations cordial.  [1] McGuinness, Damien, ‘US bugged Merkel's phone from 2002 until 2013, report claims’, BBC News, 27 October 2013,   [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,


Of course spying on another country is illegal, but everyone does it. Le Monde in July had a report on The Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) having systematically collected “the electromagnetic signals transmitted by computers and phones in France, as well as the digital streams going back-and-forth between the French and abroad. All communications are being spied on: emails, SMS messages, phone records, Facebook and Twitter updates, which are all then stored for years”. [1]  [1] Follorou, Jaques, and Johannès, Franck, ‘Exclusive: French Intelligence Has Its Own Version Of PRISM’, Worldcrunch, 4 July 2013,


Doing nothing makes Merkel and Germany look weak  Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “not moved a single step forward on any of the key points”. [1] The stonewalling by the United States provides an opportunity for opponents to Damage Merkel’s new government as well as potentially to show gaps between the SDP and CSU. Merkel has been invited to visit Washington at some point in 2014 by President Obama, [2] Merkel can’t afford for her own diplomacy to have as little result as Friedrich’s.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘SPF, Greens slam Interior Minister Friedrich after US surveillance talks in Washington’, dw.de, 13 July 2013,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama invites Merkel to visit during call about trade, NATO’, 8 January 2014,


If countries will not act on narrow issues involving privacy freedoms and internet surveillance even when their head of government is on the receiving end then what hope is there for the broader picture? There is no point in proclaiming everyone should follow the law then we would have no crime if there is no mechanism to punish those who commit crime. Germany should not let the NSA get away with its actions or it will surely do the same again in the future.


A failure by the United States to agree to a no spy agreement already damages relations. One of the leaders of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann, has said “failure of the agreement would be unacceptable” and would “change the political character of relations.” [1] If the US is willing to damage relations by stonewalling then should the Germans really be considering US diplomatic feelings in the matter? The United States gains from its relations with Germany as well as the other way around. Stopping intelligence sharing as a result of a prosecution would be acting against US interests in fighting terrorism.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘Impasse at US-Germany ‘no-spying’ talks?’, dw.de, 14 January 2014,


Will the investigation get anywhere; who should be prosecuted?  The biggest problem facing an investigation by a prosecutor is whether there is any point in the investigation. Who could be relevant witnesses? Would any of them cooperate? [1] Ultimately who do you prosecute? Germany might be able to bring some of the US staff in Germany who conducted the surveillance to trial but it seems most unlikely that they would be able to get anyone higher up the chain. Is the person who authorised the surveillance really likely to be extradited? It seems unlikely, so why bother?  [1] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,


Investigating a sideshow  The issue of the United States bugging Merkel and whether Germany can reach an agreement to prevent spying in the future is really a sideshow. The bugging of one person no matter how important does not matter. Much more important is the protection of the internet and internet freedom. This German Interior Minister de Maiziere [1] says is what is most important and Germany can work with the USA on it “There are organized criminals, who are interested in our transactions. There are business models that aim to sell individuals' profile images, and so on… The protection of the Internet, against whomever, that is our common purpose, and not just this fixation on the NSA.” [2] Germany should not be fixing on what the NSA has done but be looking at the broader picture.  [1] NB the German government changed on 17th December with a resulting reshuffle  [2] Deutche Welle, ‘German Interior Minister de Maiziere warns over NSA 'fixation'’, dw.de, 10 January 2014,


Damages US-German relations  An investigation would have serious repercussions for German-American relations which would be seriously against German interests. Germany needs the United States as an ally in NATO and both are currently disengaging from deployments in Afghanistan. Much more important might be the impact on intelligence sharing between Germany and the United States. Intelligence officials are concerned “They could simply shut off the faucet,” with the Americans simply no longer providing intelligence to Germany. This would immediately impact German security by making it more likely terrorists could attack German interests. [1] Germany should accept the Obama’s assurances “As long as I am the President of the United States, the German Chancellor need not worry about that [surveillance of Merkel]”. [2]  [1] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama Tells Merkel, Germans He Will Not Wiretap’, Huffington Post, 18 January 2014,


There is a big difference between justice not being done because the United States refuses to cooperate and justice not being done because German prosecutors could not get the evidence to bring charges. If the former there is at least a chance of a trial, possibly in abstention, where all the evidence can come out.


The reality is that antibiotics and similar medicines are mostly sold to Monopsonistic governments and don’t represent the profit base of big Pharma. Instead they have focussed on products such as Prozac that are high-profit by their nature, while thirty-year old antibiotics are left to become ever less effective against evolving viruses. [i] .  [i] Gouge, Deborah, ‘Big Pharma Abandons Antibiotics: An Opening For Small Biotech’, Seeking Alpha, 13 May 2012.


ACTA promotes medical research  Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer.  It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework  for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers.  Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely.  [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.


Were proposition’s case true then it would raise the question of why no consumers groups have been involved in the negotiations or representative of cloth and other manufacturers in the developing world – or for that matter the originators of design techniques more generally. The only people consulted were the stakeholders of extremely wealthy brands; mostly price-gougers with appalling records in terms of how they spend that money as it relates to the payment of workers or suppliers. This agreement serves purely for the protection of a wealthy few and against the interests of the overwhelming majority in the industries they represent.


Piracy in an Internet age.  In an age of such easy global communications, the threat of piracy is far greater for creative industries than it has ever been before. There is a huge difference between a few cheap video copies and global downloads available free of charge. With sites making movies that cost millions available for free, it poses a real threat to major studios. For example The Institute for Policy Innovation believes the global music industry loses $12.5 billion a year due to piracy resulting in 71,060 lost jobs. [i]  The fact that these sites are so popular demonstrates that music and movies are popular but that people are unwilling to pay real cost of producing that quality of product.  The reality is that creative material is produced not just by a handful of millionaire actors and producers but by thousands of screen-writers, technicians and backroom staff; all of whom have to be paid. To do that studios, music producers and publishers need some guarantee of a return on their initial investment.  [i] Siwek, Stephen E., ‘The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy’, The Institute for Policy Innovation, 21 August 2007.


We should be wary of any figures set on losses to the economy as a result of piracy, mostly because the coinsumer who is downloading pirated materials will simply use his dollars elsewhere. [i] There have also been studies that show that these same people who illegally download also spend more on legal downloads. [ii] Moreover this should really be seen just as a spur to innovate. Those who benefitted from film were happy enough with the impact that cinema had on theatre, music producers happy enough with the impact that musical electrification, global distribution methods and broadcasting had on the music industry. Objecting that new technologies require some new thinking is ridiculous and smacks of protectionism from industries that, increasingly, seem to have lost the battle of ideas. ACTA is anti-competitive and aims to protect the interests of outdated approaches against new and imaginative thinking.  [i] Raustiala, Kal, and Sprigman, Chris, ‘How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy’, Freakonomics, 12 January 2012.  [ii] Michaels, Sean, ‘Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music’, guardian.co.uk, 21 April 2009.


ACTA is needed to protect brands  There is a genuine value to a brand – in part because, for clothing companies for example, it is a mark of quality as much as it is of origin. However even if that were not the case, the brand identity of a company is part of its legal property and should be protected in the same way and stock or cash against theft.  The very fact that people are so keen to buy branded clothing and other products – even when pirated – demonstrates that there is a value to those brands.  ACTA doesn’t seek to control people’s rights to wear any pair of jeans or trainers or other type of product. It simply says that if someone wants to own Levi jeans or Nike trainers they should pay the price set by Levis or Nike. If they don’t want to pay the premium then they are at liberty to buy different unbranded products.


The EU [i] has described this agreement as a balance of the interests of all stakeholders – including customers or other users. Nobody is banned from freely sharing their own ideas, inventions or research; merely from ripping off that of other people. The oppositions need not worry about the articles it mentions as they are targeted not at individuals but at other commercial outfits.  What is described as privatizing data is in fact increasing functionality and ensuring interoperability. Ask anyone who uses an Apple device or have become accustomed to using Microsoft Outlook and they will testify that their products work best when used together with other similar products. By allowing other organisations to copy these services you are only harming consumers.  [i] European Commission, ‘ACTA – Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 4 July 2012.


Government is about taking tough decisions rather than pandering to majoritarian whims. Legislation such as this protect industries in the creative, IT, manufacturing and medical sectors. The support it has garnered among trades union demonstrates that they, at least, recognise that it is about protecting jobs. It is no surprise that many people prefer to buy products that are cheap – or better, free – but government has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its citizens with rather more enthusiasm that the right to download free movies. It would be interesting to see where the democratic deficit goes when entire industries start collapsing because of counterfeiting.


Creativity will suffer if ACTA is brought in  Many within the creative industries have developed business models that work with the Internet. A few giants – frequently not producing the most artistically acclaimed work – are simply trying to defend their monopolistic profits. The idea that any of the companies involved in these negotiations are serious about protecting creativity is undermined both by the products and their response to anything new or threatening to their corporate interests. Instead this is holding up the process of creative destruction, whereby new better ideas sweep away the old that will be outcompeted, [i] by standing in the way of this in the digital world ACTA is stifling both creativity and the economy. The opposition to this legislation has come from actual creatives – programmers, artists, performers and others as well as researchers academics and more. It is being promoted by the very commercial interests that also seek to suck the life-blood out of genuine art, research and ingenuity [ii] .  This is all about protecting the commercial interest of those corporations that have ceased to have much to do with any of these processes and simply want to make the most out of what they already control through copyright. It is and remains profoundly anti-competitive and a retrograde step in terms of developing any artistic, scientific or intellectual field. By securing, through copyright, established technologies, paradigms, and industries, the agreement undermines the very competition that so many of its proponents claim to endorse. Indeed the only thing it can be demonstrated to do is to allow organisations to steal widely held information by slapping a copyright or brand on it.  [i] Cox, W. Michael and Alm, Richard, ‘Creative Destruction’, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008.  [ii] Creative Freedom Federation, New Zealand.


ACTA attacks free software and privatises data  ACTA represents a fundamental attack on the right to produce or host free software. It is written in such a way as would protect the rights of corporations such as Microsoft to build systems that require updating while, at the same time undermining freeware software such as Linux. Its provisions that can both punish (art 12:1) and pass enforcement over to ISPs (art 8:1) who therefore have an incentive to restrict free software. Article 27:6 specifically attacks computer programs that are providing a free alternative and those that may affect digital rights management programs. [i] [ii] In doing this it creates a culture of surveillance and represents a fundamental attack on freedom of expression and basic principles of democracy as it would commercialise the right to access and distribute information.  The rights to free expression are recognised in virtually every codification of basic human rights – on which this agreement is mostly silent. It will make impossible the free distribution of programmes and other computer tools and re-asserts, as did GATS, the primacy of corporations through a right to protect things that they didn’t think of but wished they had.  Already they have the advantages of massive budgets and huge legal departments, this agreement simply distorts the playing field still further in their interest.  [i] ‘Speak out against ACTA’, Free Software Foundation, 19 June 2008.  [ii] ‘ACTA: threats to Free Software’, hugo’s blog, 21 April 2010.


ACTA is anti-democratic  This has been a secret stich-up between a handful of, mostly Western, governments and massive corporations or their representative trade organisations. It has notably failed to receive democratic support and poses a genuine threat to freedom and equality offered by the Internet. So far it has been signed by fewer than 40 nations and has failed to receive democratic approval [i] in any of them; it is the child of national and business elites but has failed at every hurdle where the public was watching hence it has not been ratified by any legislatures and in some cases such as in Mexico been thrown out almost unanimously. [ii] [iii] Where it has been signed, it has mostly been met with protests from politicians and public alike. If the proponents of this measure are so sure of its virtues, the obvious solution would seem apparent; put it to a vote.  It proposes the creation of an international body with no democratic accountability [iv] at all as it just has representatives from each party to the treaty but no accountability to any other body and seeks to undermine public involvement in both formal and informal ways with the management of information in the modern world. Opposition to this agreement has been at least as ferocious as previous attempts to remove the democratic input of the inhabitants of the planet into decisions that affect their lives – such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Agreement has run into issues of constitutionality in the EU, US and elsewhere with legislatures questioning whether national executives have the right – let alone the capacity – to implement the measures of the Agreement. Any government that attempted to ratify the agreement would be likely to face stiff opposition from both parliamentarians and the public – to date that has been insurmountable [v] .  [i] Various articles from around the world  [ii] ‘Dictámenes a Discusión y Votación‘, Senado de la Republica LXI Legislatura, 22 June 2011.  [iii] Hernandez, Daniel, ‘Mexico signs anti-piracy treaty, setting up battle with activists’, Latimes blog, 13 July 2012.  [iv] Chapters four and five, Council of the European Union, ‘Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 23 August 2011.  [v] Mason, Daniel, ‘European Opposition to ACTA grows’, Public Service Europe, 13 February 2012.


The major corporations, which seem to exercise the opposition so greatly, are also major employers and major investors. In addition to which counterfeiting is a much greater threat to small corporations that are dependent on one good idea and lack the financial muscle to protect that idea, for example Ifttt, an internet startup was cloned by a Chinese company, Linggan, while it was still in beta. [i] The people that have something to fear from this agreement are those with no ideas seeking to skim a profit off the energy and effort of others [ii] .  Importantly protecting intellectual property rights can also encourage innovation, by ensuring that start-ups keep creating new ideas and are sure they can profit from them. We need to ensure that there are sufficient incentives for entrepreneurs, of which intellectual property is one important component.  [i] Sam, ‘Speedy Chinese Clone Copies Startup Still in Beta’, TechinAsia, 23 August 2011.  [ii] A list of supporters


There is little evidence that the Ba’ath Party would have tolerated a handover of power to Saddam’s sons. Even in North Korea, the issue of Kim Il Sung’s succession became fraught, and hotly contested amongst the North Korean political elite.. However, the issue of who should run Iraq was and should remain a matter for the Iraqi people. The current puppet regime has little power outside Baghdad and, frankly, not that much inside, this lack of central control is as damaging as too much would be as is shown by the failure of Somalia and resulting civil war and piratical attacks. [i]  In many ways the war has encouraged the world’s rogue states to pursue nuclear weapons as, in an era of ‘pre-emptive defense, they are the only surety against invasion and overthrow [ii] . Iran is continuing to persue nuclear weapons even without the threat of Iraq on its borders, instead it is worried about Israel and the United States. One more threatening state would therefore have made little difference. [iii]  If the aim of the war was to insure against future threats then leaving a nation bitter and resentful, where barely a family has not lost someone to the conflict, a radicalized younger generation, emboldened militant clerics and a weak central government seems a very strange way to go about doing it. The West will almost certainly have to return to Iraq within a generation, if not a decade.  [i] Blair, David, ‘Somalia: Analysis of a failed state’, The Telegraph, 18 November 2008  [ii] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.  [iii] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Iran nuclear issue’, 23 January 2012


Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons  Without intervention there is little doubt that Saddam or one of his still more murderous sons would be running Iraq. Even though there were no WMDs, it seems reasonable to assume that neither Saddam nor his sons would have ignored Iran’s attempts to secure fissile material and develop a bomb. Iraq had attempted to build a nuclear reactor in the 1970’s but it was destroyed by Israel in 1981 [i] and Iraq and Iran had fought a far for most of the 1980s for political dominance in the Gulf and the Shi’ite, Sunni religious divide. [ii] So we would now be watching an arms race in the Middle East between the two with Israel on a hair trigger.  This wasn’t just about removing one tyrant; the regime had dynastic ambitions, and a failure to act would have created the equivalent of North Korea. However, this particular hermit kingdom would have been sitting on top of the second largest reserves of oil in the world. It would, therefore, have the capacity to create the sort of fear and chaos Kim Jong Il can only dream of.  [i] BBC On This Day, ‘1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor’.  [ii] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983


By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan. [i] ”  The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, however bloodthirsty. Iraq looks set to join the other lawless regions of Asia such as the Pashtun Valley as an obvious place for terrorists and Criminals to base themselves.  [i] Vali Nasr. “Regional Implications of Shi’a Revival in Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 7–24. The Centre for International and Strategic Studies and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Summer 2004.


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


In the unlikely event that something resembling a democratic government survives in Iraq after the international troops leave then that would, of course, be welcome.  However, some context is required to establish whether the price was worth paying. Over a trillion dollars, 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis, US reputation destroyed in the region to establish a puppet government whose only real chance of survival is a continued American presence in the country.  The alternatives are all unpleasant – a theocratic regime allied to a nuclear Iran, a simple meltdown of the state or the emergence of a new strongman along the lines of Saddam's regime.  Assuming the US can't sign up in perpetuity then one of these outcomes seems likely and those lives and resources will have been squandered for no reason whatsoever [i] .  [i] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.


His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region  The Middle East is a tinder box at the best of times. Having an unpredictable megalomaniac sitting in the middle of it was dangerous, not only for Iraqis but for other peoples in the region. Hussain was a danger to the Middle East as he had proved many times, through his invasion of Iran [i] which was followed only a couple of years later in 1990 by an invasion of Kuwait which sparked the Gulf War [ii] and his use of scud missiles on Israel which was otherwise uninvolved in the conflict. [iii]  It was better to remove this threat than risk being drawn into a multi-player conflict when he next attacked a neighbor.  [i] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983  [ii] BBC on this day, ‘1990: Iraq invades Kuwait’.  [iii] CBC Digital Archives, ‘Scud vs. Patriot missiles’, 19 January 1991


The sands of Iraq are as soaked in blood as they are in oil. For once the Iraqis have actually got something out of their mineral wealth, which has otherwise served as a curse for over a century.  There has been a functioning civilization around the Tigis-Euphrates Valleys for at least ten thousand years it was only with the discovery of oil and the importation of the Industrial Age that this began to function as a curse.  For once their oil wealth has worked to their advantage, leading to the removal of a dictator rather than the imposition of one. As the troops step back it seems likely that Iraq has the opportunity to become that rarest of things; a Middle Eastern, oil producing state that is democratic and stable. As a result they can negotiate with oil consuming nations on an even footing.


An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence  The aftermath of the war has been to create an entire people with no reason to love the West and more than100,000 reasons to hate it as a result of an estimated 105-115000 dead. [i] The country is teetering on the brink of civil war, with the leader of the sunni block having said Iraq is heading towards a “sectarian autocracy that carries with it the threat of devastating civil war” [ii] unemployment is rife and the reputation of the ‘liberators’ lies in tatters [iii] .  It is not hard to see how this combination is likely to lead to chaos in Iraq and insecurity for the West. Millions of young people with a perfectly justifiable grudge, little education, no job and a desire to do something to make things right. [iv]  It is difficult to imagine a situation more likely to produce violence, terrorism and instability.  [i] Iraq Body Count  [ii] Loney, Jim, ‘Iraq on the brink of ‘devastating civil war’: Former PM Allawi’, National Post, 28 December 2011  [iii] Malou Innocent. “The Iraq War: Still a Massive Mistake.” Christian Science Monitor. 5 April 2010.  [iv] Benmelech, Efraim et al., ‘Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2012, pp. 113-128


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


The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs  Events from the Arab Spring have demonstrated, more graphically than anything else could have done, that Arab peoples are more than capable of dealing with their own dictators and do not need to be patronized by fading imperial powers.  Imagine what the situation in Iraq would be now following a genuinely democratic uprising rather than the imposition of yet another puppet regime by the West. Since the creation of the state of Iraq as a modern state by the British in 1932, a succession of rulers, of various stripes of dictatorial ruthlessness, have been brought in to ensure that the oil wealth continues to flow to Washington, London and other foreign capitals.  The allies were never interested in Iraqi freedom, this was yet another grab for oil and the results look set to be the same round of misery and tyranny for the people of Iraq.


Iraq now has a professionally trained army and police force accountable to a democratically elected government and, through them, to the people.  Unusually among Arab nations the security forces should now act as upholders of the law rather than the personal armies of local and national strong men used to settle grudges and silence dissent.  The torture chambers are closed and the courts are functioning. There is, of course, work still to be done in terms of creating jobs but at least those jobs will go to people on the basis of ability rather than political loyalty.  Iraq still faces problems but is better equipped to deal with them than it has been in a century and more.


A U.S. dovetailing of interests in Central Asia is unlikely to last. September 11th moved Central Asia from being an area of peripheral importance to being a central US interest. [1] There is nothing to say that it will not sink back to being peripheral in the future. The Taliban were both sheltering extremists such as al Qaeda and exporting disorder to surrounding states. [2] As George Bush put it “make no mistake about it, the new war is not only against the evildoers, themselves; the new war is against those who harbor them and finance them and feed them.” [3] But with al Qaeda diversifying, terrorism no longer so high up the agenda and the United States drawing down in Afghanistan US and Russian interests are set to diverge.  [1] Boris Rumer, The Powers in Central Asia, Survival, vol. 44, no.3, (Autumn, 2002), pp.57-68, pp.63-64.  [2] Rajan Menon, ‘The New Great Game in Central Asia’, Survival, vol.45, no.2, (Summer, 2003), pp.187-204, p.188.  [3] At O'Hare, President Says "Get On Board", Office of the Press Secretary, September 27, 2001,


Desire to stabilize Central Asia  September 11th brought a change in how the United States dealt with the autocratic rulers of Central Asia, bringing policy more into line with Moscow’s interests. The US changed from promoting democracy in the region to trying to keep the region stable by supporting the incumbent regimes. For example Uzbekistan was given US political, military and economic support despite human rights violations. [1] There were also secondary US interests that were not related to terrorism such as attempting to limit the production of drugs and the corruption this causes. President Putin recognised that “Terrorism and drugs are absolutely kindred phenomena.” With Russia’s immense drug problems “We have a conspicuous growth of the share of highly concentrated drugs, and in the first place Afghan heroin” [2] The promotion of “peace and stability to Afghanistan” and the promised aid to “rebuild Afghanistan and the region economically,” were also recognised by George Bush as US interests in the region. [3] There has therefore in the aftermath of 9/11 been a dovetailing of interests in central Asia and in particular Afghanistan and on the war on drugs.  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), p.64.  [2] Speech by President Vladimir Putin at a Meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Moscow, September 28, 2001  [3] Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on Afghanistan, Office of the Press Secretary, November 13, 2001,


Even if both agree that fighting terrorism is in both their interests this is not a reason for cooperation when views about how to tackle the problem divide. While both have used military force in their attempts to defeat terrorism both have criticised the other’s force as being excessive. The United States continued to be critical of the situation in Chechnya where 45000 civilians were killed and 200000 made refugees. [1] September 11th was a gift to Putin as it transformed perceptions of the situation in Chechnya. [2] Chechnya was effectively legitimised by September 11th as it was similar to what the United States would fight in Afghanistan. [3] However the western media continued to be sceptical about terrorism in Russia for example that Chechen militants were the bombers of the apartment blocks, rather than it being rogue elements of the Russian security services, or even originated from the Kremlin. [4] Moreover the two diverged over the need to invade Iraq to fight terrorism; Russia opposed the invasion in the Security Council. In short Russia and the United States cooperate in Afghanistan but this does not translate into wider cooperation against terrorism. Terrorism is also no longer the number one foreign policy priority of the United States which is ‘pivoting’ to Asia and away from the Middle East. [5]  [1] Kramer, Guerrilla, pp.210, 214.  [2] Claire Bigg, Five Years After 9/11: The Kremlin's War On Terror, Radio Free Europe, 2006,   [3] Oksana Antonenko, ‘Putin’s Gamble’, Survival, Vol.43, no.4, (Winter, 2001-02), pp.49-60, p.51  [4] World: Europe, Russia's bombs: Who is to blame? BBC News, September 30, 1999,   [5] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011,


Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.  In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.” [1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether there should be cooperation. Military transparency, particularly on nuclear weapons is necessary. “Russia and the United States matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our interactions matters to the rest of the world. The two of us control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and our leadership can do more than anyone else’s to help secure nuclear material globally and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” [2] This continued cooperation on nuclear issues in particular has been demonstrated with the signing of the ‘New START’ treaty on 8th April 2010.  There are many other areas where cooperation between the America and Russia is vital as well. As is demonstrated by the geopolitical situation “Russia sits astride Europe, Asia and the broader Middle East – three regions whose future will shape American interests for many years to come. And in an era in which common challenges” so cooperation is necessary for the United States, but also for Russia as it would not want the US acting without its cooperation. According to Undersecretary of State Burns there are also many issues “non-proliferation, climate change, energy security, the struggle against terrorism, and many more – demand common action more than at any other period in human history, the United States and Russia have a lot more to gain by working together than by working apart.” [3]  [1] Barak Obama, Obama’s Speech in Moscow, President addresses New Economic School graduation, 7/7/09,  accessed 20/4/11  [2] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11  [3] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11


Even assuming that US-Russian there are many areas where the US and Russia could cooperate this does not mean that it will happen. Cooperation between the United States and Russia would have been even more vital to the world at the end of World War two when both were superpowers and both had common interests in keeping Germany and Japan down yet this did not lay the ground for cooperation between the two. Instead there was a forty year cold war. Now whole Burns may consider the challenges in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to be common interests Russia may instead choose to cooperate with others such as China and consider US interests to be counter to its own


Although the United States would like to get its hands on Russia’s vast economic resources it is not a good place to do business. Russia was accused of being a ‘virtual mafia state’ by US diplomats in a wikileaked cable. [1] According to then US Ambassador to Russia Russia needs to “support the “sanctity” of commercial contracts and agreements; create a “transparent, stable and enforceable” tax and license regime; improve and enforce intellectual property rights protection; act decisively on “pervasive bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation”; bring corruption under control; reverse the “worrying trend” in Russia towards control over the mass media” [2] before it becomes a place that the US can really do lots of business with. The economy may therefore be more of a source of conflict than cooperation as The United States tries to push Russia into being more open and less corrupt against the wishes of the Russian elites.  [1] Luke Harding, WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’, guardian.co.uk 1/12/10,  accessed 28/4/11  [2] Alexander Vershbow, “Opportunities in U.S.-Russian Economic Relations,” United States Embassy Moscow, 22 May 2003.


Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11


Economically compatible  There is a huge potential for economic cooperation between two of the biggest states in the world. Russia desperately needs investment and technology to modernize its economy. The USA can offer this and more. It has helped Russia to get into the World Trade Organization, [1] to integrate it into the global economy, put pressure on Russian companies to drop their corrupt ways and adopt modern modes of operation. Russia also has plenty of chips to bring to the table. Pumping seven million barrels a day, Russia is second only to the Saudis in oil production. The Bush team saw Russia as a source for crude oil should U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorate, this is why at the Moscow summit in May, 2002, Bush and Putin launched “an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security, international strategic stability, and regional cooperation.” [2] The United States has invested whenever it could in Russian oil and gas despite the difficulties private companies like Yukos have faced with government tax demands. For example in October 2001, Exxon Mobil announced that the Sakhalin 1 project was profitable and outlined the company’s plans to invest $30 billion by 2030. [3]  [1] Kirk, ‘Full Statement by Ambassador Kirk Regarding the Invitation to Russia to Join the WTO’, Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 2011,   [2] William Ratliff, ‘Russia’s Oil in America’s Future: Policy, Pipelines, and Prospects, Hoover Institution, 1/9/03,  accessed 04/5/11  [3] Tamara Troyakova and Elizabeth Wishnick, ‘Integration or Disintegration: Challenges for the Russian Far East in the Asia-Pacific Region, p.18.  accessed 6/5/11


"Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’". (Charles A. Kupchan, CFR Senior Fellow for Europe Studies). US Council on Foreign Relations. December 18, 2007 - "But on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board. The problem with Russia’s position is that it has the potential to lead to bloodshed.  The Russian support for Serbia’s unwillingness to sign off on Kosovo’s independence makes it more likely that Serbs still in Kosovo will not accept a declaration of independence. It makes it likely that the northern part of Kosovo might secede from an independent Kosovo. It makes it more likely that paramilitaries in Serbia might resort to violence if this process moves forward. In that sense, the Russian position is quite problematic. And it remains to be seen whether the Russians follow through on their hints that they might recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia in retaliation for Kosovo’s independence. Some even suggest that they might send troops into the southern military districts of the Russian Federation, possibly precipitating violence in Georgia."


This is a problem with perception, not with the fundamentals on the ground. The United States can reassure Russia that missile defence and the expansion of NATO is not directed at Russia. NATO has accommodated Russia by not expanding into the Former Soviet Union (excluding the Baltic states) so there is little reason for Russia to feel encircled. On Missile defence President Obama has also listened to Russian concerns and has scaled it back. Interceptors will be on warships rather than in former Warsaw bloc countries Poland and Czech Republic this helps to show Russia that the focus of missile defence really is on defending against Iran and North Korea rather than Russia. [1]  [1] Sanger, David E., and Broad, William J., ‘New Missile Shield Strategy Scales Back Reagan’s Vision’, The New York Times, 17 September 2009,


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


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


Russia’s near abroad  Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent American intervention in Central Asia therefore it was sensible to make sure it was co-opted to serve Russia’s own interests, namely to be against international terrorism, rather than being directed against Russia herself. By doing so Russia could preserve her influence in the region. As America was willing to take on the costs of maintaining the security of the region Russia could retrench and cut costs. [1] Yet Russia began to force the US out as soon as was possible, for example forcing the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan. [2]  Russia has sometimes seemed to purposefully take the opposite side to the US in Eastern Europe. An example of this occurring was over the possibility of independence for Kosovo almost a decade after the conflict that forced Serbian forces out of the country. According to Charles Kupchan “on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board.” [3]  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), pp.172-174  [2] Schwirtz, Michael, ‘Kyrgyzstan Insists U.S. Base to Close’, The New York Times, 11 June 2009,   [3] Bernard Gwertzmann, ‘Interview Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’, Foreign Affairs, Dec 2007,  accessed 27/4/11


No countries economic interests exactly match yet that does not lead to conflict. The European Union and United States have had several trade wars, for example over the EU giving preferential treatment for Caribbean producers of Bananas, [1] but are still close partners in NATO. The reset is having an effect in bringing Russia and the US closer together economically, Vice President Biden argues that trade between the two countries has a long way to grow and economic interests will get closer. “One way to realize the potential of that relationship is to bring Russia more fully into the international trading system. That is why we strongly support Russia’s effort to join the World Trade Organization.” [2] This would reduce and help manage any economic conflicts between both powers meaning that they will not get in the way of good relations.  [1] Business:The Economy WTO approves banana sanctions, BBC News, 19/4/99,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Joseph R. Biden Jr., ‘The Next Steps in the U.S.-Russia Reset’, The New York Times, 13/3/11,  accessed 6/5/11


Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives.  Russia has been suspicious of most US actions fearing they are directed against Russia. This suspicion is in part born out of the cold war, Russia is much weaker than the USSR was and is worried about any US expansionism. The expansion of NATO to include former Soviet states such as Lithuania has resulted in one Russian news organisation declaring "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion." [1] The United States’ missile defence proposals have been a continuing sore in relations. In 2007 then President Putin compared the proposed siting of anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe with the Cuban Missile Crisis, “The situation is quite similar technologically for us. We have withdrawn the remains of bases from Vietnam and Cuba, but such threats are being created near our borders.” [2] It is clear from this that Russia will not be able to cooperate with many things that the United States considered to necessary. Things like NATO expansion and missile defense which the United States considers to be defensive Russia believes are aimed at Russia, either to encircle it or to negate Russia’s main strategic asset; its nuclear arsenal.  [1] Russia Today "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion"   [2] President Putting quoted in Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson, ‘Missile Defence Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defences in Europe Will Not Work, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol.22, No.1, (Spring 2008),  accessed 6/5/11


The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instantly moved terrorism to the top of the US security agenda involving recognition of it as a global and military problem. [1] Russia and the United States now must jointly face a host of wider problems, from environmental degradation to the growth of ethnic violence, and the challenges to nation-states posed by globalization. Global problems are not decreasing, but, quite the opposite, there are new ones looming on the horizon; this will forge a long-term close economic, scientific and political relationship between Russia and the United States. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 recognised that closer relations are built on common national interests; They [Russian policy makers] understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. [2]  [1] Iver B. Neumann, ‘Russia as a Great Power’, in Jakob Hedenskog et al (eds.) Russia as a Great Power Dimensions of Security under Putin, (Routledge, London, 2005), pp.13-28, p.18  [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,  pp.26-27. Accessed 20/4/11


International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood.  Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with national and international representatives without requiring representation at the UN. If Palestine were to be given voting rights at the General Assembly then one might as well give them to the International Olympic Committee, which already enjoys permanent observer status [i] .  Put simply, having global recognition does not make an entity a state.  [i] “UN General Assembly Approves Olympic truce for London Games 2012”. 17 October 2011.


Palestine is a legal entity and deserves to have its voice heard on an equal footing with Israel  Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestinian people as any other world leader does for theirs and that reality is reflected in the fact that he and other members of his administration negotiate with other nation states and international bodies. Palestine is for example a member of numerous International Organisations the most recent of which is joining UNESCO in November 2011. [i] If Palestine can be treated as a state for the purposes of signing international treaties and negotiating with the Israeli [ii] and other governments then it is only sensible that it should be awarded the benefits and status that come with statehood, of which recognition by the UN is one.  [i] UNESCO, ‘Palestine’, unesco.org, 2011,   [ii] Jewish Virtual Library, ‘Israel-PLO Recognition’, 9 September 1993,


In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of the UN. The very fact that the Palestinians have successfully mounted their case to the international community in a way that, for example, Kurds or Australian Aboriginals have not, would suggest that they have no need of a seat at the UN to be heard.


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


Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute.  Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK [i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same.  [i] Wikipedia. Frestonia.


The issue of Israel/Palestine has been a major one for the UN for sixty years, it is simply unfair that one of the parties represented and the other one is not  The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible when one of the parties is represented but the other is not. It is simply against the principles of natural justice – let alone the precepts of international law – for only one party in any dispute to be fully represented where the other is not.  Essentially, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated for over sixty years, in the interests of politics, justice has been ignored; Israel has been given recognition when Palestine has not, which body has the right to speak for the populace of that disputed territory should not be a matter imposed from outside but for the inhabitants of the land itself.


Palestine is a unique case; the UN removed its statehood during the creation of Israel. They are, perhaps ironically, Ishmael and Isaac to the UN’s Abraham. One recognised and the other shunned.  The issue of statehood for Palestine was a misstep created at the inception of the UN as fallout of the decline of the British Empire and the emergence of American hegemony. If this were an entirely new issue of the world scene then many of the caveats raised by opposition would by justifiable but the reality is that this is simply a case of clearing up an old injustice.


Exactly the same point could be made of any number of member states. It is highly questionable as to whether the authority of the central governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan extends into much of their territory, it certainly doesn’t in Iraq or many of the nations in central Africa.  Much of Latin America is under the control of warlords and drug barons but nobody would suggest that they should be represented at the United Nations. Effective political control is ceded to devolved authorities in many nations but they are not recognised as states. Political confusion is no reason no ignore the existence of a state.


The Palestinian cause has no shortage of advocates in the UN this would add nothing to the discussion  The entire Arab League is already perfectly capable of speaking for the Palestinian cause in the United Nations. There are established nations whose leaders have not addressed a full meeting of the General Assembly as frequently as leaders of the Palestinian cause, even the leader of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas has addressed the General Assembly as he did in September 2011. [i] It is the only geo-political issue that routinely impacts upon the conduct of the elections of other nations, the plight of the Palestinian issue is the stuff of newspaper headlines around the world while other, arguably more serious, concerns go unvoiced. It is difficult to see how admitting Palestine as a member state would bring any more focus to the issue in practical terms.  [i] ‘Full transcript of Abbas speech at UN General Assembly’, Haaretz.com, 23 September 2011,


The UN has historically recognised statehood when nations achieve it, not when they ask for it or wish it  Establishing statehood is a matter for international law and, as things stand, Palestine is not a state. Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created – mostly as a result of the collapse of the former USSR [i] . Palestine is not among them and does not look set to be any time soon. There have been many separatist movements in countries all over the world from the Basque region to Aceh. These often have similarly legitimate grievances as the Palestinians but the UN does not recognise them. Any one of those nations, or at least movements within them may have wished for recognition by the UN but they did not receive it because the UN is bound to recognise what is, not what might be.  [i] Matt Rosenburg. “New Countries of the world”. 10 July 2011. About.com


The Gaza Strip and West Bank cannot agree on a government so who should the UN recognise, Hamas or Fatah?  If the Palestinian people cannot agree on who speaks for them then what is the rest of the world to make of the situation? One of the defining attributes of statehood is a single, stable government that can, in some meaningful way, be said to have control over the lands within that designated territory. This was set out in article 1 of the Montevideo convention that a state should possess “a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” [i] Only the permanent population criteria is unequivocally met by Palestine.  The Palestinian Authority can barely be said to speak for itself let alone the people it claims to represent. By recognizing one faction over another, the UN would be taking sides in an internal, domestic affair. Abbas is not asking the UN to recognize Palestine, he’s asking it to recognize him rather than Hamas.  [i] International Conference of American States, ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’, 26 December 1933,


The United Nations fulfills a number of roles but perhaps its foremost function is to act as an arbiter in international disputes. To do that effectively it needs to reflect the opinions of the international community and deal in realpolitik. As things stand that would make it impossible for the organisation to take what would be seen as a partisan stance.  Recognising the existence of a state which could at best be described as aspirational, and at worst as a fantasy, would put an intolerable burden on the UN’s ability to act as an impartial agent in negotiations.


The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]  [6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.  [7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004.


The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.  An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]  [4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156  Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.  [5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011.  , Accessed 12th May 2011.


Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the country to disasters such as the Iraq war and undemocratically vetoing internationally-backed initiatives in the UN Security Council, such as those critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rather than showing leadership, the US has also obstructed international efforts to tackle climate change, as seen by George W. Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and President Obama’s signing of the deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord.[8]. Many instances have also shown America’s willingness to pursue its own commercial interests at the expense of vital international issues. One example of this was George W. Bush’s protectionism in protecting the “intellectual property rights” and the high price of drugs (including Anti-AIDS drugs) of US pharmaceuticals, which damaged the international fight against AIDS.  Furthermore with regards to international terrorism, the UNSC worked through the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) which had a minor US presence and was set up to tackle terrorism from the root causes rather than using military might.  [8] On the Copenhagen Accord, see The Independent, ‘Obama’s climate accord fails the test’, 19 December, 2009.  , Accessed 13th May, 2011.  [9] Mann, Michael (2003), Incoherent Empire, (London), pp. 58-59.  Mokhiber, Russell and Robert Weissman (2003), ‘The Two Faces of Bush in Africa’, Common Dreams, July 2003.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.  United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.


The US has used its power to promote democracy, human rights and international law  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of liberal democracy over communism have provided the US with more impetus to actively promote democracy, human rights and international norms and law. Under President Clinton, the Leahy Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1998 and the Religious Persecution Act of the same year demonstrated this change in priorities. Democracy promotion also became a core element of George W. Bush’s National Security Strategy of 2002, and has been a key motivating factor in President Obama’s response to the Arab Spring, where the US has supported democratic forces against dictators such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. The US under Obama has also provided leadership in the UN Human Rights Council[12], and holds governments to account through The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour (DRL), which also forges and maintains global partnerships to promote human rights and democracy.[13]  [12] Brookings, ‘U.S. Leadership at the U.N. Human Rights Council: A Foreign Policy at Brookings Event’, February 2010.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.  [13] U.S. Department of State, ‘Human Rights’.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.


The US used its power to establish a set of open global institutions which have been broadly beneficial.  As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal international economic order, and has been able to shape other states’ preferences in a manner that has awarded sufficient benefits to these states while ensuring the dominance of the US.[1] This has been what John Ikenberry terms America’s “liberal grand strategy,”* which has enabled the US to construct a relatively benign and highly institutionalized multilateral system based on open markets, free trade, and the provision of ‘public goods’, such as collective security and an open international trading regime.[2] This has allowed other countries to prosper economically and also in terms of their security; the rebuilding and success of Japan and Germany provides important examples of this.  [1] Cox, Robert. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175.,  Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in R.O. Keohane (ed.) NeoRealism and its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)  Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.[2] Ikenberry, John G. (2002), ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002.  *liberal grand strategy is a terminology that describes the USA’s long term policy goal- to promote its system to other countries.


While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural adjustment programmes” imposed on them by the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rather than helping poorer nations, the West (led by America) has often practiced selective freed trade, whereby the markets of the developing world were opened up to foreign companies as the United States and its Western allies subsidized and provided unfair advantages to sectors of their own economies that were not as globally competitive, such as farming. This crippled the agricultural industries of many developing countries and made them dependent on importing food, directly contributing to many recent food crises. What is more, the US and its allies have manipulatively achieved this through nominally “multilateral” and “fair” institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[3] Many countries have not received the benefits of this so-called “benign” open, liberal order.  [3] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London),  Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton).


On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America’s support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other ‘humanitarian interventions’ have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations.


The US has provided global leadership in tackling important issues such as terrorism.  America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example climate change, terrorism, epidemics, oil crises, economic recessions, the illegal drugs trade, and nuclear proliferation) it is in its interests to promote policies that are broadly globally beneficial. The US is able to utilize its considerable economic and diplomatic clout to convince its allies to back important multilateral international initiatives. One example of this was George W. Bush’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The United States has also used its power to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide collective security and considerable aid to various nations, as well as leading the international effort to prevent failed or weak states (such as Somalia and Yemen) falling into the hands of terrorists.


Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.  Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11]  [10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003)  [11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46.