text: It is highly probable that opinion will shift. Current statistics reflect the fact that this generation has lived through The Troubles. The next generation is likely to see a nation divided, which appears to so obviously belong together. There is no evidence that current opinion will not change with time.


title: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new

text: Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


text: The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.


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


text: The New START treaty will make for a safer world.  Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1]  The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies.  The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace.  On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world.  [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010.   [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010.   [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


text: New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace.  [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


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


text: Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


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


text: The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US  Not only does New START leave in place Russia’s extant tactical nuclear advantage but it has further loopholes for Russian weapons. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers." [1]  New START also fails to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which Russia could potentially make use of. The definition of rail-mobile ICBM launchers was established in the expired START as “an erector-launcher mechanism for launching ICBMs and the railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.” [2] This and associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in the New START. This makes it possible for Russia to claim that any new Rail Mobile ICBMs are not subject to New START limitations. [3] Mitt Romney worries that Russia is already working to take advantage of these omissions: “As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. …. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs." [4]  This means that under the treaty limits, the United States is the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has managed to negotiate the treaty limits so that they simply restrict it to reductions it was already planning to do. As a result the United States is making what are effectively unilateral reductions. [5] Therefore, New START is an unequal treaty as it offers more to Russia than to the US. This is bad for the balance of power and thus bad for world peace, and so New START should be opposed.  [1] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [2] ‘Terms and Definitions’, The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms And Associated Documents, 1991,   [3] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [4] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [5] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.


text: Problems with Verification.  Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it.  Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles. [1]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


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


text: The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities  As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2]  New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7]  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010,   [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


text: The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2]  When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today.   [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,   [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3,   [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010,   [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,


text: The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,


title: ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse

text: Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .  [1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13   [2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013   [3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013


text: Environmental Damage  Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .  [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’   [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013


text: Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.  [1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007   [2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012


text: Resource abundance has led to poor governance  Corruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.  [1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013   [2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013   [3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5   [4] Ibid  [5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013,


text: Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.  [1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013   [2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010


text: Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.  [1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010


text: Foreign companies gain most of the profits  The majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .  Kofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013   [3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012   [4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013


text: Resources are a source of conflict  There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.  [1] Pandergast, 2008,   [2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014


text: Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.  The presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .  [1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013   [2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013


text: The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770   [3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012,


text: Bring Africa out of poverty  The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .  [1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13   [2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013   [3] Ibid


text: Natural resources create employment  The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.  [1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013


text: Source of trade  Natural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.  [1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011


text: Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Ibid


title: ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers

text: The issue is not teachers or investment per se, rather the structure of teaching used. The curriculum is focused on passing exams to meet the MDG criteria and get students to the next stage. There remains a need to incorporate the teaching of life skills for potential career options, and encouraging students to engage in innovative thinking and explore interests. UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Education approach is a clear example, whereby the child’s need is the central focus.  Technology is changing teaching, and teacher training needs to be less theoretical; more focused on the subjective needs of the children.  Further, challenges to teacher training are prevalent. For example, not all schools are government owned - with faith bodies, private sector and NGOs establishing schools. The diversity of ownership creates challenges for regulating training provided. By focusing on teaching curriculum the national government can enforce national policy change.


text: Teacher training  Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key.  Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] .  Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training.  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project.  [3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.


text: A positive intervention to tackle geographical disparities in education is by introducing long-distance learning. ICT and technology makes such a reality possible.  Such proposals require institutional change. The capacity of local, and regional, government bodies need to be built to enable decentralisation. Community centres can be used for distance learning, forming schools that are adaptable to the needs of rural children and families. However, for such proposals we need to focus on decentralisation and ensuring good governance amongst local and regional actors.


text: Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers  UNESCO (2013) report the need for 6.8mn teachers by 2015 for the right to primary education to be achieved. The teaching workforce requires includes both replacements and additional teachers. Africa has a reality of low teacher-student ratios. In 2012, 80 students were reported per teacher in the Central African Republic (World Bank, 2013). Positive schemes are needed to incentivise potential teachers to enter the profession and meet demand.  Careers can be encouraged through multiple paths. For example, providing incentives to study teaching as a profession. Tanzania’s Ministry of Education provides grants to students entering University to study teaching.


text: Firstly, encouraging teaching as a employment path does not ensure committed or motivated teachers are gained. Secondly, the problem is advocating ‘universal’ education when the infrastructure does not match. Low teacher ratios per student indicate the need for new buildings, and bigger schools. Facilities need to be improved with space for more classes. Schools need to be designed to enable diverse learning - such as space for IT, games, and public discussions.  The experience of learning is broader, and goes beyond the classroom. Good education is not solely reliant on the teacher, but on what the student is able to engage in and how they can learn to raise new ideas and questions. Investment is therefore required in new schools and universities.


text: A key concern for government’s education policy is ensuring efficiency in the allocation of resources. Investment is required in management structures - to ensure teachers accept the social contract of responsibility, and duty, to the services provided and enable the efficient allocation of public resources.  Weaknesses have been identified with regards to resources being lost or misused in districts or schools. The rising cases of ‘Ghost teachers’ - teachers who are not real but created to exist on paper - indicates the scope of chaotic management structures and persistent corruption. Resources are being lost through cases of manipulation, whether by teachers or government officials embezzling money. Reports from Sierre Leone, Uganda, and Libya, showcase the concerning reality [1] . Before higher wages can be provided, forgeries need to be resolved. A system needs to be built which enables monitoring to ensure real teachers are paid and found.  [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2012; The Informer, 2013; and BBC News, 2008.


text: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed  Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need.  In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations.


text: Social Policy for satisfied teachers  The creation of national social policies which provide secure, and stable, wages for teachers is fundamental. Social policy can make satisfied teachers. A key concern amongst teachers is finance - inadequate wages and insurance. Teacher wages is considerably lower than other formal professions - combining to enforce low morale and occupational motivation as pay is too low to sustain individuals and households (Bennell, 2004). In South Africa an average teaching salary is 19,535 ZAR in contrast to the 28,235 ZAR average granted in all jobs in South Africa (Salary Explorer, 2013).  Further, social policy is required to introduce teacher pension schemes. Pension schemes are provided for workers within the formal employment sector, by various public organisations - including the government and GEPF [1] . However, some national pension schemes are more developed than others and teachers need to be ensured the profession can provide investments for future security. An ageing population only reinforces its importance.  [1] See further readings: GEPF, 2013.


text: Fundamentally, structures cannot be changed without development. Human capital however, provides a means of development. Studies have shown the positive role human capital - a composite measure of education and knowledge - has on a nation’s development.  The AfDB have shown that enhanced human capital amongst Africa’s young population is empowering change - promoting good governance and post-conflict recovery; and intrinsic to economic growth (Diawara, 2011). In other words teachers need investment to educate the youths in order to overcome these barriers to universal education.


text: A key concern in achieving the MDG is quality control - regulation is required to do so, and the standard of teaching needs to be monitored; this cannot be done at home. Investing in teachers will ensure basic needs are met.  Teachers are the vital resources to transfer knowledge, and providing universal access to standardised education. Thus direct investment is required in teachers for students well-being.


text: Colonial legacies: the issue of language  A fundamental restriction to achieving universal education in several African countries is not teachers, as a resource, but rather the lack of a national language. Colonialism enforced national boundaries, of which remain mismatched to ethnicity and language. African nations remain some of the most diverse in the world. With the exception of Tanzania, whereby Julius Nyerere used policy to create a sense of national unity and language, many African nations placed minimal focus on nationalisation. Around 46 languages are spoken in Zambia.  Such language diversities make universal education difficult. Therefore, presidents such as Paul Kagame, have the right approach of enforcing a national language.


text: The MDG is the barrier  Significant progress has been made in meeting the MDG in Africa, therefore criticism needs to be raised on the MDG themselves. The MDG are unrealistic, unfair, and the benchmarks set fail to acknowledge progress made (Easterly, 2009).  The barrier to achieving universal education is not a lack of investment, rather inappropriate targets.


text: The complex controls over enrolment  Suggesting investments are required in teachers limits a recognition of the multiple forces creating barriers to achieve a right to education. Universal education is constrained by political, socio-cultural, and economic, structures.  Firstly, gender inequalities in education raise cultural norms of the role of girls in society, and within the domestic-sphere at home. Religious and cultural beliefs mean girls account for 70% of children not attending school. Across Sub-Saharan Africa the economics of child marriage often mean girls leave school or become reluctant to go to school. A positive correlation is found between low education and countries with high rates of child marriage [1] . Niger has the highest rate of child marriage.  Secondly, poverty and hunger act as key restraints in achieving the target. As Mkandawire (2010) argues, development needs to be brought back onto the ‘pro-poor’ agenda. Human capital cannot be developed without a broader focus on social and economic policies that enable development first.  [1] See further readings: Education for Girls, 2013.


text: Teaching begins at home  For the target of universal primary education to be achieved we need to look beyond a narrow education policy. Programs are required to enable teaching at home. The benefits of education need to be accessed nationwide; which will cumulatively encourage children to go to school and participate to do their best. For example, by introducing adult training/education courses to parents and elderly populations, parents are able to assist children at home, and to recognise the benefits of gaining an education. Simply providing better teachers at school fails to recognise the importance of intra-household decisions and life. For universal education the whole population strata needs to be included; and adult courses provided on basic maths, english and science.


text: Critiquing the foundation of the MDG does not resolve the reality that around 56mn children are still unable to use their right to education (UN, 2013).


text: Proposals for basing education, and teaching, on a universal language raise criticism. Will students be able to ask for assistance at home and amongst their community if the language taught is not understood? Does enforcing a national language return to unequal relations of power - overriding the history and ethnic diversity of said nation? Shouldn’t national governments be more sensitive to local communities and group identities? Finally, what language will be chosen, and how will the decision be made? The implementation of a national language introduces a risk of conflict in unstable countries.  It also needs to be remembered that a national language has to be taught; something which requires investment in teachers.


title: imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should

text: States can get very worked up about very small pieces of land. Size appears to matter little when the issue is one of sovereignty. For that matter neither does the worth of the land or the population living on it. A great many of the world’s hot spots are over very small areas of land often with small or non-existent populations such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Senkaku, and the islands of the South China Sea.


text: Small size makes for ease  The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles


text: Shared sovereignty is likely to create problems in the future. No state wants to have another state controlling some aspects of its sovereignty and any deal the Seychelles entered into would be an unequal one as the Seychelles would both be much smaller and be the state asking for help. If the host state for example maintained control over national defense what would there be to stop that country essentially mounting a takeover of the Seychelles new territory in the future?


text: Moving is an imperative  It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people. [1]  [1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 11 January 2013,


text: Unlike the Maldives or Kiribati the Seychelles will still have a small amount of land. [1] The government could establish a permanent outpost even if it does have difficulties with water supplies. The Seychelles would therefore be able to maintain sovereignty through this outpost much as mounting bases on small islets around the world provide sovereignty without acquiring new territories elsewhere.  [1] Conan, 2010,


text: The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens.


text: Shared sovereignty  If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.” [1] Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory.  There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII. [2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible.  [1] Yu, 2013,   [2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005,  , p.77


text: Other nations have an obligation to help  The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”. [2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state. [3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land.  [1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  , p.4  [2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992,   [3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961,


text: While this is technically the case, and indeed the Seychelles would even maintain some territory, it would not be a viable long term option. While other countries would maintain recognition of a territory-less state for a while would they do so over the long term? The Seychelles government would meanwhile have immense problems exercising any kind of authority. How would a state with no, or very little, territory collect any taxes? Without a functioning government with revenues providing any of the services of a state to its citizens would be impossible. Meanwhile its citizens would likely be scattered and there would be a clash between any services offered by the state they are staying in and a government in exile trying to exercise control.


text: The cost need not be borne by the state from which they Seychelles is given land; rather it could come from the funds that have been set up to help developing nations adapt to climate change such as the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. [1] This would mean the money would be coming from developed countries that can easily afford the costs of helping rebuild the lives of 90,000 people not the country that provides the territory.  [1] ‘Finance’, unfccc.inc, accessed 26/2/2014,


text: New countries forged by those fleeing disaster  There have been very few countries that have been created in circumstances that are at all similar to that which would happen when island nations are forced to abandon their homeland. The closest parallel is Israel when Jews arrived en mass first because they were promised the land after WWI, when it is notable that they purchased the land they occupied, [1] and then after the disaster of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have not been happy about the loss of territory. Indeed there have been few examples in history of peoples’ willingly giving up land to a new arrival whether it is due to colonialism or migration. The result, especially if sovereignty is involved, is usually conflict.  [1] Pipes, Daniel, ‘Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel’, National Review Online, 21 June 2011,


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


text: Other states would not want to waste resources on a refugee state  The Seychelles are not a particularly rich place. Their main industries are tourism and tuna fishing accounting for 32% of employment, [1] both of which are unfortunately entirely dependent upon the territory of the islands themselves and cannot be moved. The result is that the Seychelles have little to offer those states that might consider giving up territory. The country will therefore have difficulty rebuilding its economy and would likely be a drain upon its host making countries unwilling to take on the commitment.  [1] The World Bank, ‘Seychelles Overview’, October 2013,


text: Israel while it may be the only obvious modern example is a terrible analogy. The number of people from small island states is tiny compared to the number of Jews wishing to live in Israel/Palestine. Those from the small island state are unlikely ever to be in a position to dictate terms to those who are already living in the state so there will be cooperation not conflict.


title: ss economy general international africa house believes africa really rising

text: Bucking this trend of increased HDI figures are the states who are currently witnessing, or have recently experienced, armed conflict. Africa has observed many well-known and lesser known conflicts which have damaged infrastructure and made it significantly harder for local populations to access key services such as schools and healthcare. Five of seven countries with the poorest nutritional scores are African and have recently emerged from armed conflict [1] , they are also rated as some of the poorest countries in the world.  [1] Smith, ‘Africa is not rising’, 2013


text: Human development indicators have significantly improved in recent years.  Human development index (HDI) indicators are used to assess levels of life expectancy, education and income indices throughout the world. The majority of African states have seen an improvement in these scores since 2001, and are predicted to continue this trend. Some African states, such Seychelles, Libya and Tunisia, are in the ‘High Human Development’ category and are positioned in the top 100 for HDI indicators, an improvement from 1990 [1] . Life expectancy has increased by 10% on the continent and infant mortality has decreased as well, thanks to the greater availability of mosquito nets and the attention given to HIV/AIDS [2] . Education is seen as a cornerstone to growth as it allows the quicker attainment of the skills required for knowledge-intensive industries (such as agriculture and services), which will in turn lead to greater development [3] . The level of literacy in Africa has seen an increase in reports on human development from 2001 [4] and 2011 [5] . Finally, levels of poverty throughout Africa have generally decreased, including in notable countries such as Ghana and Zimbabwe.  [1] Watkins, ‘Human Development Report’, 2005, p.219  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] Haddad, ‘Education and Development’, 1990  [4] Fukuda-Parr, ‘Human Development Report’, 2011  [5] ‘United Nations Human Development statistical annex’, 2011, pp.159-161


text: FDI increases have not been universal in Africa. Both Southern and Western Africa have witnessed decreased levels of FDI in 2012 [1] . South Africa, whilst being well known for fluctuating levels of investment, saw a decrease of 24% in 2012 and Angola saw a decrease of $6.9 billion of FDI. Furthermore, companies have attempted to avoid tax whilst operating African countries, as the Barclays tax haven scheme has demonstrated [2] . FDI is also dependant on the condition of other economies. During the global recession, which began in 2008, there was a notable dip in investment and FDI has not fully recovered yet [3] . In addition to this, there is no guarantee that FDI will create employment. This suggests that the future of FDI, and the improvements that can be made to African infrastructure and employment levels as a result, are unstable to say the least.  [1] UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment to Africa increases’, 2013  [2] Provost, ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as 'gateway for investment' in Africa’, 2013  [3] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013


text: Africa’s Economies are growing rapidly  Africa has recently experienced some of the most significant economic growth in the world. Amongst the top ten growing economies in the world are five African countries; The Gambia, Libya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan [1] . The latter, South Sudan, witnessed GDP growth of 32% in 2013. Other economies in Africa are also doing exceptionally well, such as Ethiopia and Ghana. As ever, natural resources are a key export for these countries. Recent investments from China in exchange for Africa’s abundant natural resources have enabled many African countries to develop at a significantly faster rate, with trade between the continent and China increasing by $155 billion [2] . All of this has contributed to an average GDP growth of 4.8% in the past ten years. There is a rapidly expanding middle-class and it is predicted that by 2015 there will be over 100 million Africans living on $3,000 a year [3] , showing an increasingly positive future for Africa.  [1] Maps of World, ‘Top Ten Countries with Fastest Growing Economies’, 2013  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011


text: Whilst there has been significant economic growth in many African countries, the majority of people are not seeing the benefits. Despite some success stories, such as Folorunsho Alakija becoming richer than Oprah [1] , most Africans have not benefitted from economic growth. Afrobarometer conducted a survey of 34 African countries between 2011 and 2013 [2] . They found that 53% found their economic situation to be either ‘fairly’ or ‘very bad’. Only one third of respondents believed that their national economy had improved in the past year. Statistics like these demonstrate that most are seeing no improvement in their lives despite current levels of national economic growth. The finite nature of many of the resources being sold by Africa means that the current levels of trade cannot be maintained forever, calling Africa’s future economic growth in to question.  [1] Gesinde, ‘How Alakija’s wealth grew’, 2013  [2] Hoffmeyr, ‘Africa Rising?’, 2013


text: Internet use is still very low in Africa, only 16% regularly access the internet. Some areas lag far more than others as well, highlighting regional disparity and the role that has on the economy. While East Africa benefits from large-scale mobile phone ownership, a money transfer system M-Pesa has transactions of $1 billion per month, other areas such as West Africa have failed to do the same [1] . This has led to a potential loss of business for the region’s population who require communications for their farms and businesses.  [1] Felix, ‘Insight’, 2013


text: Foreign Direct Investment to the continent has increased  Foreign investment into Africa has seen a large increase in recent years, which has enabled Africa to invest significant amounts of funding in to infrastructure, jobs creation and acquisition of technology [1] . In Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, foreign businesses account for a much larger percentage of employment than any domestic firm, hence increasing the standard of living for a greater number of people [2] . FDI has gone from $15 billion in 2002 to $37 billion in 2006 and $46 billion in 2012. The vast majority of this investment is based on extractive industries such as agriculture and raw resources. However, Africa has recently seen an increase in FDI for manufacturing and services as well [3] . Central Africa alone received $10 billion in 2012-3, due to an increased interest in the DRC’s copper-cobalt mines. The sources of this FDI vary, but China has become the major investor in the region, with investment rising from $11 billion to $166 billion in the past decade. China has helped build vast infrastructure projects in return for natural resources and food for its growing population.  [1] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.2  [2] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.19  [3] UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment to Africa increases’, 2013


text: Greater Access to Technology  Proponents of this view claim that the traditional image of ‘Dark Africa’ is becoming outdated in the light of greater access to technology. Due to poor infrastructure, mobile communications have had a transformative impact on African life. In the past decade there has been a notable increase in mobile phone ownership, with the trend set to continue. There are over 600 million mobile phone users in Africa, which is more than in North America and Europe [1] . Mobile phones allow the use of services such as agro-info and mobile banking to further their businesses. It is thought that by 2017, 30% of households will have a television in their house. Household technologies becoming more available have gone hand in hand with the development of more sophisticated farming and industrial techniques. A recent Pan-African project designed at improving legume technology and enrich low-nitrogen soils has made it possible for farmers to increase their yields and has reached 250,000 smallholder farmers so far [2] .  [1] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011  [2] Abuje, ‘Putting biological nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers’, 2011


text: In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start.  [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013


text: Fifteen out of the twenty countries which have made the most progress towards completing the MDGs are African states. According the UNDP the goals of universal education, gender equality and the empowerment of women, combat HIV/AIDS, TB malaria and other diseases and Global partnership are on track to being completed. While the other goals have not been completed, there is hope that they will be completed in time. The fact that the majority of states have made at least some improvement on these goals is a positive in itself. They have attempted to improve the quality of their populations’ lives, which has a positive impact upon their economies.


text: Majority of states are still undemocratic  While there is a lot of contention over government type, democracy is seen as an aspiration in Western eyes, and African dictators have a history of running brutal and corrupt regimes. In Africa the majority of states are still dictatorships. Only 25 of the 55 states are democratic, whilst the rest are authoritarian or hybrid regimes. These dictators are commonly associated with poor governance, which in turn can affect economic growth. Recent pictures of Robert Mugabe and his team of ministers asleep at an African-Arab economic summit demonstrate how little enthusiasm some of these leaders have for the progress of their country [1] .  [1] Moyo, ‘Mugabe and his ministers sleep through economic summit’, 2013


text: War and Civil unrest disrupt development and economic growth  Another major barrier to economic development in Africa is the regional instability caused by the 23 wars and episodes of civil unrest. War is naturally a costly affair; the 2001 conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea cost the former $2.9 billion with extensive damage to its economic and social infrastructure. A BBC report noted that extra funding had to be diverted away from development in order to meet the rising demands of the war [1] . What makes Africa’s situation far worse is the tendency of many armed groups to become bandits rather than armies with political objectives [2] . The inclination for these armed groups to forsake any ideal of governing in favour of banditry and rape makes them harder to negotiate as ‘legitimate grievances in these failed or failing African states deteriorate into rapacious, profit-orientated bloodshed’ [3] . The constant disruption to the lives of civilians in these 23 wars has led to poor levels of human development, which has further destabilised the region.  [1] Bhalla, ‘War ‘devastated’ Ethiopian economy’, 2001  [2] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010  [3] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010


text: The Continent is still vulnerable to natural disasters  A major road block to development and economic growth in Africa is the prevalence of natural disasters. These disasters commonly affect the poorest and most vulnerable in society, as they are often the ones living in the ‘most exposed areas’, thus preventing development [1] . In Somalia, for example, the 2013 cyclone left tens of thousands homeless in an already impoverished area, worsening their economic situation [2] . Dr Tom Mitchell from the Overseas Development Institute has claimed that economic growth cannot occur until disaster risk management becomes central to social and economic policy [3] . Disaster management could cost too much however. In November 2013, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report demonstrated that 2070 a total $350 billion per annum would be required to deal with the threats presented by clime change such as increased Arid areas and higher risks of flooding [4] .  [1] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [2] Migiro, ‘Somalia Reels From Cyclone, Floods and Hunger – ICRC’, 2013  [3] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [4] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013


text: Millennium Development Goals have not yet been reached  While the majority of African governments have made efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the deadlines for achieving them are fast approaching with little sign of complete success. The MDGs were established in 2000, and laid out a set of criteria which each country should aspire to in order to become developed. These development goals are essential for Africa to be able to effectively grow. The United Nations Development Programme readily recognises that the eradication of hunger, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health and ensuring environmental sustainability are all off track in Africa [1] . Observing the causes of this failure, the inequality existing in Africa is blamed as a fundamental roadblock.  [1] UNDP, ‘MDG Progress Reports – Africa’, 2013


text: Despite numerous ongoing conflicts on the continent, there have been efforts to create an end to war. The number of conflicts in Africa has decreased since its peak in the early 1990s [1] , and there is increased optimism with the resolution of the M23 rebellion in DR Congo which will hopefully bring Africa’s most devastating war to an end. There is a desire by many African states to end war in the region, as illustrated by the African Union’s (AU) objective to end war on the continent by 2020 [2] . Amongst other objectives, the AU has stated that it wished to ‘address the root causes of conflicts including economic and social disparities’ [3] . African peacekeeping forces have also become more prominent, with large contingents in Mali and Somalia. As of December 2013, the AU has begun preparations to send a peacekeeping force to the Central African Republic [4] , suggesting the AU will be proactive in preventing conflict on the Continent in the future.  [1] Straus, ‘Africa is becoming more peaceful’, 2013  [2] African Union, ‘50th Anniversary Solemn Declaration’, 2013  [3] African Union, ‘50th Anniversary Solemn Declaration’, 2013  [4] Ndukong, ‘Central Africa’, 2013


text: The rise in the number of democracies, and the Arab Spring movement in Northern Africa, demonstrates an increasing dedication to democracy. At the end of the cold war there were only three democracies; the large number of regime changes show that African governments are becoming more accountable to the people that they are supposed to represent. Arguably, one of the main goals of the Arab Spring was to seek democracy and a greater say in politics. This led to regime changes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia with protests occurring in other states as well. In 2012 Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, announced laws that would make him free from judicial review [1] . The resulting protests saw him removed from power, demonstrating the continued desire for democracy in Northern Africa.  [1] Egypt Independent, ‘Morsy issues new constitutional declaration’, 2012


title: africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland

text: The PRC does not ignore countries that do not have diplomatic relations with it. São Tomé is a case in point; PRC is opening a trade mission in the country despite not change in diplomatic recognition. This is in part because the Chinese are taking part in a $400million deep-water port development. [1] Not engaging in diplomatic relations with the PRC does not damage economic relations.  [1] ‘China to open mission with tiny Sao Tome, despite its Taiwan links’, Reuters, 14 November 2013,


text: Economically beneficial  Switching diplomatic recognition to China can be economically beneficial. A country that changes recognition is both likely to be given a reward for the change and then be much capable of engaging in joint economic projects with the PRC. Malawi for example cut its ties with Taiwan at the end of 2007. PRC offered a $6billion financial package for the defection. [1] Malawi has since benefited from large amounts of Chinese investment; Chinese companies have been involved in building vital infrastructure such as schools and roads, and even a new parliament building. [2] And trade between China and Malawi has been booming with growth of 25% in 2010 alone. [3] Even the Chinese believe that recognition occurs as a result of the economic incentive the Chinese envoy to Malawi having been quoted calling Malawi beggars. [4]  [1] Hsu, Jenny W., ‘Malawi, Taiwan end 42-year relations’, Taipei Times, 15 January 2008,   [2] Ngozo, Claire, ‘China puts its mark on Malawi’, theguardian.com, 7 May 2011,   [3] Jomo, Frank, ‘Malawi, China Trade to Grow 25% on Cotton, Daily Times Reports’, Bloomberg, 15 December 2010,   [4] ‘Chinese Envoy's Remarks on Malawi Breed Resentment’, Voice of America, 1 November 2009,


text: While the PRC may have more people the rights of its people to consider themselves Chinese is clearly recognised the world over. It is Taiwan however whose rights are quashed by its lack of recognition; it can neither be recognised as China or exercise its right to self-determination as Taiwan as China has threatened invasion if it declares independence. [1] This would be unjust. Changing recognition to ensure ‘peace’ would not change the Taiwanese position so rendering the change meaningless.  [1] Hutzler, Charles, ‘China Threatens War Over Taiwan’, Washington Post, 21 February 2000,


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


text: The PRC may be much more powerful, more populous, and bigger, but that does not mean that it is the legitimate government of China. The decision to recognise other countries is a matter for each government and should be based on their perception of the legitimacy of the two contenders and their own national interests not comparisons between the two competing sides.


text: São Tomé is not a large country; it is unlikely to have interests that are threatened by the kind of resolutions the UNSC makes unless it is itself the subject. Moreover Beijing has not let the lack of recognition undermine relations with the remaining members; Beijing would not engage in actions that might create enmity that would then reduce the chances of a change in recognition.


text: Should not ignore the will of 1.3billion  A small African country should not ignore one sixth of the world’s population. To recognise a tiny country of 23million over one of 1.3billion is being unjust to a huge portion of humanity. When there is such an imbalance in population it is clear that the democratic path is to recognise the side with the greater population. When all the states that have recognised Taiwan finally transfer recognition to the PRC Taiwan may finally recognise that it would be best off returning to China. By changing its recognition São Tomé and other small countries can do their bit to ensure peace in East Asia.


text: Cannot avoid dealing with a UNSC member  The PRC is a member of the United Nations Security Council and as such is one of the key members of the UN. It is therefore difficult for countries to avoid dealing with it. The Pacific island of Tonga’s switched recognition because it feared the PRC would veto its membership of the UN. [1] São Tomé is already a member but that does not mean the PRC can’t cause problems in the international body; it clearly has the ability to scupper any initiative São Tomé wishes to pursue. Similarly in other international institutions while the PRC does not wield as much power as it does in the UN it still has considerably more influence than Taiwan; this includes over some organisations that provide aid such as the World Bank and IMF. São Tomé therefore must deal with the PRC, this being the case it should not let recognition get in the way.  [1] Fossen, Anthony Van, ‘The Struggle for Recognition: Diplomatic Competition between China and Taiwan in Oceania’, The Journal of Chinese Political Science, Col.12, No.2, 2007,  , p.4


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


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


text: There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict  There is a truce between Taipei and Beijing on the issue of recognition. Neither is currently aiming to poach countries from the other. China has refused advances from El Salvador and Honduras that have said they wish to change their recognition to the PRC. [1] When Gambia terminated its ties with Taiwan Hong Lei a spokesman for the PRC Foreign Ministry said “We learned the relevant information from the foreign media. Before that, China was not in contact with The Gambia.” [2] The truce has been maintained and Gambia has been left essentially not recognising either China. [3]  [1] Cole, J Michael, ‘Is China and Taiwan’s Diplomatic Truce Over?’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2013,   [2] Enav, Peter, ‘Beijing was in dark about Gambia's broken ties with Taiwan: China official’, The China Post, 16 November 2013,   [3] Atkinson, Joel, ‘Gambia’s Break with Taiwan’, The Diplomat, 2 December 2013,


text: Receive much greater interest from Taiwan  There are benefits to being one of only twenty-two countries that recognise another country; you are lavished with attention. The President of the RoC visited São Tomé in January 2014, [1] he was last intending to visit only two years before but cancelled as President Manuel Pinto da Costa was overseas. [2] Visits also regularly go the other way; in a four month period from October 2010 São Tomé’s President, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister all made separate trips to Taiwan. [3] The PRC being recognised by many more countries could never provide the same level of attention. As one of the poorest countries in the world without the question of recognition the PRC would have practically no interest in such a small African state.  [1] ‘Ma vows to strengthen ROC-Sao Tome relations’, Taiwan Today, 27 January 2014,   [2] Hsiu-chuan, Shih, ‘Ma’s trip canceled due to scheduling conflict: Sao Tome’, Taipei Times, 5 April 2012,   [3] Martins, Vasco, ‘Aid for legitimacy: São Tomé and Principe hand in hand with Taiwan’, IPRIS Viewpoints, February 2011,


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


text: That there is a truce at the moment does not mean that diplomatic relations with Taiwan should not be dropped. Taiwan is not China so Sao Tome should not be recognising Taiwan even if the PRC will not accept recognition at the moment. The PRC is also unlikely to keep the truce for long – any countries changing diplomatic recognition will be able to formally recognise the PRC as soon as the PRC finds it politically expedient to needle Taiwan.


title: ic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government

text: The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference.  Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1]  [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera,


text: Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery  Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh.  [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News,   [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


text: Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted. Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece.