Britain is the country of Euroscepticism, and its official language is English. For English to be the medium, the mouthpiece for the EU communications is wholly wrong.  English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.” [1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined.  For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst.  [1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999.


To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States.


The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”. [1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression.  [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344


Vernet sought the permission of the British consulate before establishing his colony – clearly even he thought there was ambiguity over the status of the islands.  Moreover the British and Spanish settlements ended not because of commercial failure but because of indirect pressure caused by war. If Argentinian sovereignty survives expulsion through war then presumably British sovereignty could survive temporary abandonment due to war.  It is also difficult to describe a settlement as permanent when it was on the point of collapse when the British took it over.


Argentina created a permanent settlement  Argentina formally took posession of the islands in 1820 and established permanent settlements in that decade. Previous settlements by Spain and Britain had been military in nature (garrisons). Britain did not protest to these acts of sovereignty. The Argentinean settlements were only ended by illegal military force, the first strike by an American warship, acting on its own initiative and encouraged by the British charge de affairs in Buenos Aires, and the second and last blow by a British taskforce.


If military costs are excluded, the islands are self-supporting. They are of great value because they bring rights to fishing and oil exploration. If the oil that has been detected in the islands’ territory can be extracted economically, the islands will be an even greater asset to Britain. [1] Strategically, they provide NATO with an airbase in the south Atlantic. Port Stanley was used as a supply base for the Royal Navy in WW1, resulting in the Battle of the Falkland Islands. [2]  Moreover ‘value’ means more than products and services – the value of the inhabitant’s right to self-determination is priceless  [1] Swint, Brian, ‘Oil Grab in Falkland Island Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy’, Bloomberg, 25 January 2012,   [2]


International relations  Returning the islands would vastly improve Britain’s relationship with Argentina and Latin America as a whole. This would help Britain’s diplomatic and economic ties with the region. It would also be consistent with Britain’s post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina.


Argentina inherited Spain’s claim to sovereignty  Both Argentina and the islands were under Spainish sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory – doing so free of British intervention (or complaints) from 1770 until 1811, i.e. 41 years.  Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory, a principle that would latter be known under international law as uti possidetis juris. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1820, when David Jewett claimed the islands for Argentina, or in 1825, when the first treaty between the new country and Britain was signed.


The fact that Spain never formally renounced sovereignty is irrelevant – when Britain asserted its territorial claim Spain acquiesced.  Additionally if Spain’s claim did not lapse when it evacuated its colony then surely neither did Britain’s. Nor is it obvious that Argentina should have inherited the Spanish claim to the Falklands – they lie 250 miles off the coast of mainland South America.  Britain was of course not going to immediately contest the 1816 claim as she did not yet recognise Argentina so far as Britain was concern the Argentines were not sovereign and did not have sovereignty over any of their territory – at the time the UK recognised Spanish sovereignty over the mainland that Argentina claimed.


Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict. [1] The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands.  In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively.  The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, indeed Britain’s Prime Minister has gone so far as to say the Argentines are the ones who are sounding colonial. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Blair’s historic Argentina visit’, 2 August 2001,   [2] BBC News ‘Argentina outraged at Cameron’s ‘colonialism’ remarks’, 19 January 2012,


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


Value  The islands are of minimal value to Britain. In an era of satellites and long-range ships and aircraft, the islands no longer have strategic value. Maintaining a garrison there is an unnecessary expense. Jorge Luis Borges (an Argentinean writer) likened the 1982 conflict to ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’. [1]  [1] ‘Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)’,


Distance  The Falkland Islands are 8000 miles from the UK – in the modern age it is absurd that one country can claim sovereignty over land halfway across the globe from it.  The needs and wishes of the Falkland islanders would be much better served if the government responsible for them was local.


Britain sent its soldiers to fight an unjust war. Their sacrifices do not make British occupation of the islands legal.


The British colony was established only though the expulsion of the Argentinian colony. It does not matter how long ago this happened - as the legal maxim goes ‘title does not pass with theft’.  Colonists do not have a right to self-determination. It would be absurd if a group of people could invade some land, drive off the people living there; and then state that they have acquired the right to decide for themselves to stay there. The natural consequence of that principle would be that anyone could gain property through ethnic cleansing and long enough adverse possession.


Moral Hazard  Returning the islands would imply that violence and threats are legitimate ways to conduct diplomacy. Britain would be giving in to the invasion of 1982 and Kirchner’s more recent rhetoric. This would set a dangerous precedent that Britain will abandon its interests if threatened.R


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


Length of occupation  The primary means of acquiring title to territory is through the effective exercise of the functions of a state within that territory. This means that Britain has a right to the territory under either ‘occupation’ (if Argentina is not considered to have occupied previously) or ‘prescription’ if it has. [1] The ICJ has stated that the claim must be  I, the possession must be exercised in the character of a sovereign  II, the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted  III, the possession must be public  IV, the possession must endure for a certain length of time. [2]  Britain would not have difficulty arguing that it has continuously exercised sovereignty for over 170 years. It has also been peaceful (no attacking native tribes, no unrest etc). It would seem silly to transfer sovereignty to Argentina on the basis of Argentina having only occupied the islands for at most five years compared to the long period of British occupation both after and before the Argentine colony.  [1] Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.155,   [2] International Court of Justice, ‘Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)’, 23 December 1999,  p.62/1103


Blood has been spilt  If Britain returned the islands, it would be a profound insult to the soldiers who fought and died to liberate them in 1982. The campaign was honourably fought in defence of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own future. It was fought against a military dictatorship which used the campaign in a cynical attempt to divert domestic attention away from its oppressive, corrupt and incompetent rule. One of the positive consequences of British victory was that the military junta fell from power and Argentina became democratic. So Britain, Argentina and the Falkland islanders all have cause to celebrate the outcome of the 1982-83 war.


If Britain did not have legitimate sovereignty over the Falklands to begin with then it is illegitimate for Britain to hand that sovereignty over to the islanders.


Popular sovereignty  The people of the Falklands are an established community with a right to self-determination. They are not a transitory population – many of them can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th Century. They are the only successful colonists of the Falklands.  The Argentinian claim of sovereignty through inheritance of the Spanish title (uti possedetis [1] ) is not accepted as a general article of international law, and even if it was it would have to be subordinate to the Islander’s right of self-determination.  It is absurd that Argentina claims that the Islanders do not have a right to self-determination because they replaced an indigenous Argentinian population 200 years ago when Argentina consists largely of Spanish colonists who replaced the indigenous Native American population in roughly the same time period.  [1] That newly independent nations inherit the claims of the old colonial states along the colonial boundaries. Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.163,


It would not be possible for the UK to argue that it has a claim through prescription and the length of occupation because the original taking over the Argentine colony was not legitimate, as the islands were not res nullis.  In the Chamizal Case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States because "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents." [1]  [1] The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 15 June 1911, Vol.XI, pp.309-347


Returning the islands would not be a sign that violence and threats are legitimate. It would be recognition of the justice of Argentina’s claim and the illegality of Britain’s occupation of the islands. In fact, it would show that illegal acts of violence, like that of 1833, will eventually be overturned.


Fundamentally, the topics raised by Nollywood are commercialising accepted views. The industry is building a business founded on distributing images of witchcraft, abuse, and domestic violence.  First, a majority of the films are politically incorrect and provide negative portrayals of women and sexuality. Gender roles are reinforced as women become sexualised objects, male possession, and the source of trouble - required to be put in their ‘place’. In the case of LGBT representations, homosexuality has been represented as Satanic in films such as 2010’s ‘Men in Love’ [1] . Second, in the case of witchcraft, dramas have made society more accepting of, and open to, sorcery. The films show how it remains prevalent in society and can provide a tool to access riches. With the audience interested in watching stories on witchcraft the industry is feeding such demands. Witchcraft sells; and continues to remain a prominent theme justifying why people make their decisions and action.  This is not the kind of perception change Africa needs.  [1] In Nigeria homosexuality is illegal and continues to be criminalised.


A new perspective, raising topical issues  The first film created in Nollywood - ‘Living in Bondage’ - raised fundamental issues concerning marriage, wealth and spirituality. The film indicates the need to be aware of cults and what they can drive individuals to do. Furthermore films such ‘Street Girls’ and ‘Mama’s Girls’ provide insight into the lives of prostitutes and the sex industry. ‘Street Girls’ is enabling awareness of why girls are forced into prostitution and why they may be forced to commit criminal offences. Poverty is identified as a key driving factor.  The range of topics covered - from immigration, women, witchcraft, corruption, terrorism, and infrastructure deficits - counteract historic silences in the public sphere. The films are raising awareness to viewers by presenting the stories in a new light - understandable, humorous, and relatable; and will encourage citizens to demand change.  Nollywood is showing the limits of believing in a single perspective, the Western perspective, to stories on Africa.


Although the industry has encouraged entrepreneurialism we need to recognise it is also promoting risky businesses. Firstly, the individuals working in the industry are required to produce a quick turnover. The fact that no security and support is provided by the government or state means the risk of failed entrepreneurial strategies falls on the individual. The producers and directors may be forced to borrow money from loan sharks and at high interest-rates to get capital quickly; and need to be able to ensure profits are generated rapidly. Such a tenuous industry is clearly not in a position to change opinions of Africa and may instead be creating a negative perception of risk-taking and cutthroat capitalism.


Development from within  Nollywood is showcasing Nigeria’s capability to sustain, build, and finance its own economy. Recent estimates suggest around 50 films are produced weekly, selling between 20,000 to 200,000 units, and creating jobs for around one million individuals (Moudio, 2013). The industry is initiating vital development, enabling Nigeria to have capital to change perceptions.  Nollywood is following previous cultural industry paths. Hollywood developed from low-budget films, and in 2013 the entertainment industry generated around $522bn in revenue, and is continuing to be one of America’s biggest sources of tourism (Statista, 2013). In Nollywood’s case, the industry is already proving to be of vital importance for regional and domestic tourism.


Opportunities for development are limited as the industry continues to function informally. The informal structure means there is no legal institution controlling transactions, there is no governing body ensuring taxation is paid and revenues collected, and finally, there is little security to the workers within the industry. Financial records are limited in the industry, which makes it hard to predict the developmental scope of Nollywood and the real revenues produced.  Informality prevents legitimacy; capability to assist national development; and fundamental capital losses. It also prevents it becoming a force for changing perceptions of those outside Africa. Formalisation is required for the industry to assist developmental potential [1] .  [1] See further readings: McCall, 2012.


First, the narrative of whether Africa is 'rising' has been debated, and requires reflection. Second, if Africa were rising will Nollywood push Nigeria to rise in the wrong direction? Nollywood is a private-sector organisation, with concentrated profits. Inequality in Nigeria has continued to rise since 1985 as shown by the GINI coefficient (Aigbokhan, 2008); and with lavish lifestyles being created for famous actresses and directors who hit ‘big money’ will Nollywood only act to benefit elites and create a new elite class? Economic growth and revenue production cannot solve the issue of poverty without tackling inequality.


Encouraging film entrepreneurs  The Nollywood industry is providing solutions to pressing issues - including high rates of unemployment. The dynamic industry provides an opportunity for youths to explore interests and invest in their talents and creativity. The recognition gained for Nollywood has shown how Nigeria's youths can initiate, and develop, a sustainable industry. Rather than seeing the rising young population as a potential threat [1] , the rise of Nollywood showcases the talent of the young population and helps overthrow perceptions of Africa just being about natural resources.  Additionally, the growth of Nollywood is continuing to encourage individuals to enter the creative industry – whether to work in production, acting or distribution, the rise of Nollywood is creating an entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and motivation to create change. Individuals are no longer relying on the government or international community to provide funds, support and infrastructure, but moulding their own futures.  [1] See further readings: Urdal, 2006.


Epitomising rising Africa  Nollywood epitomises Africa, and life in African spaces. The fast-pace nature of production shows how quickly things changes and everything is on the move. The structure of production shows the dynamic nature of everyday life, action, and flow of ideas. As Rem Koolhaas’ (2002) film documentary - Lagos - showed the congestion, informality, and buzz of the city needs to be viewed positively and a sign of entrepreneurialism. The documentary suggested African cities were setting a new trend to be followed by the West, and developing a rising economy. Africa is not simply in need of assistance, but rather a fast-pace environment that needs greater understanding.  Africa is rising [1] and Nollywood acts to reinforce this reality. With more films being produced, bigger revenues made, and new investors emerging, Nollywood shows Africa's economies are changing, growing, and emerging. Interest and collaborative investments being made by the World Bank shows the industry will continue to rise. Nollywood’s growth provides an alternative to the dominant Afro-pessimism.  [1] See further readings: The Economist, 2013.


New funding sources are emerging. The diasporic community for example are playing a central role in funding the long-term growth of the industry. Recognising potential, and being a major consumer base for the films produced, the African diaspora is investing in Nollywood.


The issue of piracy is being tackled. Recognising the potential benefits Nollywood can bring to Nigeria and the scale of the piracy problem, investments are being made to stop piracy in the growing industry.  Investments have been proposed by the World Bank to tackle piracy, and ensure profits are not lost. Further, Nollywood UP, the Nollywood Upgrade Project, is providing funding to control piracy. Nollywood UP is improving the capacity of the innovative industry - by providing solutions for distribution and vital training in high-quality film making.


Small audience viewings  In reality, Nollywood’s audience is constrained - questioning the extent to which stereotypes can be changed. First, language acts as a barrier. 56% of Nollywood films are produced in local languages - such as Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa (UNESCO, 2009). Although English accounts for 44% of films produced, the linguistic diversity may limit who sees which film and what issues are therefore discussed. Second, a majority of the films are sold in hardcopy - whether on cassette or pirate DVDs.  Finally, the industry is characterised by fast and cheap production. Quantity over quality limits popularity and audience viewings. Further, the limited attention to quality means Nollywood remains at the bottom of the global value chain for film production. It is difficult to change perceptions with poor quality films.


Short term hype  Despite the boom in Nollywood’s industry it remains hard to get investment. With funding issues prevalent the hype surrounding Nollywood is temporary.  The difficulties in getting funding, mean films produced are often safe and politically popular - aware that funds can be gained for backing. For example, the controversial film – Boko Haram – aimed to provide an alternative perspective into the Islamist extremist group. The core subject matter was to explore terrorism; however, following the controversial story and topic, marketers dropped out, fearing a political backlash. Titles had to be changed and the film adapted to be more sensitive. The ideas behind the films, and the stories told, are being altered due to funding constraints [1] . Perspectives, on and in Africa, cannot be changed if the topics raised are altered to meet sensitivity regulations. Hegemony will persist.  [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2013.


The problem of piracy  Pirated copies of Nollywood films are a key issue. Piracy emerges as an issue for two key reasons. First, the lack of the lack of legal structure - the lack of formal regulation. Legal systems and strict copyright controls are needed to ensure piracy is stopped. Second, the production system is slow - therefore alternative means of production are used to meet the growing demand for films released. New methods for distribution are required.  Calls have been made for the government to take action against piracy. However, with corruption prevalent little action has been made. Half of the film profits are lost through piracy (CNN, 2009), and piracy acts to reinforce the image of bad governance, and inadequate structures, within African states. The industry is being undermined and undervalued, through the piracy market, with high costs to the entrepreneurs.


Nollywood films are viewed globally. Channels are dedicated to the films - such as South Africa’s MultiChoice and BSkyB’s Nollywood Movies. BSkyB distributes programmes and films directly to airlines, instantly broadening the audience. Furthermore, YouTube subscribers have sought to enhance the global viewing popularity; and recently developed iROKO Partners is ensuring internet users can access Nollywood films. iROKO Partners shows the biggest markets are based in the US, UK, Canada, Italy and Germany (Kermeliotis, 2012).  New partnerships are being formed with Hollywood and global film festivals [1] , which show the future shift of broadcasting Nollywood films in cinemas. A recent film produced by Pat Nebo - ‘Dead broke’ - is set to be premiered in Lagos, Accra, and London.  [1] Cannes (2013) recently showcased ‘La Pirogue’; and in the summer of 2013 France hosted its first Nollywood Week in Paris, showcasing seven of the best Nollywood films.


This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently.  The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people.  [1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal”


The United Nations needs the United States.  The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1]  [1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011


UN money is spent responsiblyOf course the American taxpayers' money should not be spent promiscuously, but that's not the case. The United Nations spends the money it gets on solving global problems and helping the needy, both of which are useful to the United States as it is a role the US would otherwise have to perform.Furthermore international organizations such as the UN are highly advantageous to the US and its population. Sarah Margon and John Norris argue "Withholding funds from the United Nations would fail to reap significant savings, make it more difficult for our nation to lead, and seriously undermine our highest foreign policy and national security priorities …restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.” [1]  [1] Margon, Sarah; Norris, John. “Withdrawing from the United Nations: A Misguided Assault” 2/05/2011


There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget.  The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]  Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?  [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008


While it is true that the United States pays a substantial portion of the UN’s budget, it does so for historical and pragmatic reasons. Its economy and budget are significantly larger than other member states. It holds a veto over actions taken in the UN Security Council. It benefits from its size and position. As much as the UN is an influential player, this influence is transferred to the US automatically.  ”There is nothing that restrains the United States from using the U.N. to defend and promote American interests abroad… As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council , the U.S. holds veto power over 70% of the U.N. budget. As a country with citizens in senior U.N. leadership positions, we work to shape and influence U.N. activities.” [1]. Therefore the US has only to gain from its rather big contributions to the UN budget.  Furthermore this allows the US to insist on some UN decisions, which it feels are important such as the Palestinian issue – “… The United States has the leverage to prevent this diplomatic disaster if the Obama Administration wants to use it: we are by far the largest donor to the U.N., financing roughly a quarter of its entire budget.” [2].  [1] Danfor, John. Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business” 27/05/2011   [2] Kleefeld, Eric. “Gingrich: Cut Off U.N. Funding If They Recognize Palestinian State”  palestinian-state.php


No-growth budgets actually undermine fiscal accountability and discipline. While the USA has held the line on growth, it and other nations have simultaneously asked for the UN to do more in areas such as peacekeeping and nation-building. As the demands on the UN grow, and the budget does not grow with it, UN administrators are forced to move money around the budget to pay for basic overhead (even electric bills) and cover shortfalls in one program or another. Thus the basic goal-setting and accountability the US strives for is undermined. For example there have been complaints about taking money from the peacekeeping fund. The United Kingdom has objected "Resolution 50/218 on the Working Capital Fund did not give the Secretary-General a "blank cheque to fund the deficits of major contributors through enforced borrowing from peace-keeping accounts". Borrowing from peace-keeping funds to finance the regular budget is unacceptable,and if a memberstate goes so far as to refuse to pay the accumulation of more arrears could only increase the financial risk to the Organization. Cuba also felt that "the spirit that guided the founders" of the UN had not been reflected in the new budget. Instead, it had responded to the "hegemonic" and political interests of the major contributor and could be "the first in a series of measures leading, in essence, not to the reform but to the destruction" of the UN."1  1 "Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997" 1996


The US has a right to expect that its taxpayers' money is spent responsibly.  The United States has made a significant investment in the institution. Not only was it a founder, but it plays host to the body in New York and makes the largest contribution of any nation each year. "The debate over whether the United Nations will continue to overcharge American taxpayers is over — and the U.S. wound up on the losing end. In a dramatic turnaround from steady declines since 2001, the percentage that the U.S. will be charged for U.N. peacekeeping has been sharply increased for the next three years, and U.S. taxpayers will end up paying roughly $100 million more each year than they would have if the 2009 assessment rate had been maintained.” [1] This is not acting responsibly in a time where Americans are feeling the pinch from the economic downturn. American taxpayers recognize that their society faces a great many problems that could be addressed with the dollars that are annually spent on the UN. While Americans are generally supportive of the institution, they have a right to know that their investment is used appropriately and pays dividends in good policy.  [1] Schaefer, Brent. “U.N. Dues: Obama Lets American Taxpayers Down” 6/01/2010  .


No-growth funding policy results in better operation of the finances and will improve financial discipline.  UN reform has been a major objective of the United States, and government leaders assert that six years of no-growth budgets and pressure from the United States have resulted in reforms of the General Assembly, budget preparation procedures, the creation of sunset provisions for UN programs and improvements in staff security. It is argued that these reforms could not have been accomplished without the carrot and stick approach of the no-growth policy. The UN has a budget in the billions of dollars which it can spend more efficiently if it sets goals and priorities, evaluates outcomes and eliminates waste and corruption. This has already been proven in 1996-1997 –"…Although this budget is not as lean as my Government originally proposed, it is perhaps the most austere ever adopted by the General Assembly", the United States representative said. The budget included a number of significant reform measures and marked "another in a series of significant steps towards a more effective, efficient and accountable United Nations", he declared, calling the Organization "unique and indispensable".” [1]  The fact that the US has succeeded in keeping the UN to a no-growth budget for the past six fiscal years is indicative of the workability of the approach.  [1] “Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997” 1996


It is not clear who is a debtor to whom. First of all "The United Nations' Tax Equalization Fund (TEF) owes the United States nearly $180 million" [1] Furthermore Cliff Kincaid, a journalist who writes frequently on UN affairs states: "Claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion are false. No legal debt exists or can exist. The UN Charter does not empower the organization to compel payment from any member state. Even the notion that the United States owes money in the sense of a moral obligation is fallacious. It ignores the military and other assistance that the Clinton administration has provided the UN and for which the United States has not been properly credited or reimbursed. Over the past five years, that assistance has amounted to at least $11 billion, and perhaps as much as $15 billion. The administration has been diverting funds from federal agencies, especially the Department of Defence, to the United Nations. " [2] We cannot claim the US does not pay enough to do the UN and therefore it "threatens" it.  1 Shaeffer, Brett. "The U.S., the U.N., and a $180 Million Debt" 9/02/2011 2 Kincaide, Cliff. "THE UNITED NATIONS DEBT Who Owes Whom?" 23/04/1998


In times of big environmental crises or military conflicts it is true that more funding is necessary. However this funding must come on a voluntary ad hoc basis, rather than from the regular budget of the UN. Because otherwise this would mean even a bigger financial burden on developed countries and especially on the US. The UN determines how much more money it needs in a certain operation in extreme unexpected situations. As the general secretary Ban Ki-moon appealed for more financing to tackle Haiti's cholera epidemic – “Mr. Ban told a conference at the UN headquarters in New York that Haiti was in desperate need of more medical supplies and personnel…He appealed for he international community to dig deep to help stem the cholera epidemic in Haiti" 1.  Inflation is an economic matter and in most of the cases it is taken into consideration when determining the UN budget. However in hard financial times – as they are since the financial crises (2008) and the complicated problems the US has with its public debt (2011) increasing the budget is simply unrealistic.  1. “UN appeals for more money to aid Haiti’s cholera epidemic” 3/12/2010


The current global problems constantly require more funding.  The UN is in a fiscal (budget) crisis that can only be alleviated by regular contributions from the US. Growth in funding has not met the demand for growth in programs—including demands placed on the UN by the US and its allies. During the Cold War, the UN was a largely impotent institution. With the Cold War over, and faith in multilateralism growing, the need to recruit and organize vast organisations to run many new programs has proven to be far more costly than the UN budget is able to handle.  Today major problems occur in a global level, which cannot be solved without extra funding - Somalia famine, reproductive health in Africa, Pakistan floods, Myanmar cyclone and many others. Global issues are constantly expanding and they demand more attention. Expanded commitments also require expanded funding so the UN needs “robust financial support from the United States” to carry on its global-security, development, education, and health work, Mr. Ban told reporters on a day of meetings with congressional leaders.  In order for the UN to continue fulfilling its duty and primary role it needs the relevant support and financial assistance.


US inflexibility diminishes its leadership role in the world body.  The potential exists for the United States to appear as a bully to the other UN member states by demanding the institution bend to its will or lose support. An appropriate analogy can be found in a country's taxation policy. Individuals cannot simply withhold their taxes because they disagree with a government's policies. That usually lands them in jail. The US faces no such threat for non-compliance and thus makes a show of its leverage over the UN. Such an attitude potentially undermines the desire of other nations to be receptive to serious US needs, resolutions and reforms.  The US therefore needs to be very careful when exercising its power in the UN and deciding how much money to set apart; otherwise countries may start to question the role and importance of such a big international organization.


Non-payment of dues is an infringement of international law.  Members of the UN are obligated by treaty to contribute. In fact, ten nations (all in Africa, Central Asia or the Caribbean) are being threatened with the loss of their General Assembly votes for arrears this year. These states are required to make far smaller contributions in total than the gaps often left unfilled by the USA. As of 2009 the US debt to the UN exceeds $ 1.5 billion [1]. Therefore the UN is more or less dependent on US payments. While the US does eventually contribute its dues, and the UN voluntarily complies with its demand to keep a level budget, the threat they hold over the UN is essentially a breach of treaty and should be treated as such.  [1]


A no-growth budget for the UN lacks flexibility  Circumstances can change rapidly. In one year there might be a significant need for peacekeeping or humanitarian needs, while in another, these needs might be less pronounced. This is the case in 2011 with conflicts in Africa “The United Nations refugee agency warned today that a lack of funding could undermine its ongoing efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to tens of thousands of people displaced by the unrest in Libya, saying it has so far received slightly over half of the funding it requested for the operation.” [1] In times of serious political unrest the UN assistance is of essential importance. Therefore it needs sufficient funding, which cannot be unalterable since the situation and conditions alter.  Furthermore pressures like inflation affect the UN as much as they impact the consumer in the streets of New York. Especially when inflation rates are rising. The current US inflation (as of 2011) is nearly 4% [2]. Inflation has meant a real-terms decrease in the UN budget—not a level budget. It is not realistic to assume that the same level of funding as six or more years ago is truly adequate for today or tomorrow.  [1]) “Libya: UN warns funding shortfall could slow aid effort for victims of conflict” 15/04/2011   [2] “Current Inflation Rates: 2001-2011”


US leadership is enhanced when it asserts itself in the UN. America has the potential to shape developments in the world for good through its involvement in the UN. However, the UN is a representative body, and at times in its history smaller non-aligned states (with notably minimal contributions to the UN budgetary pie) have been able to trample on policies the United States feels are in its and the world's best interests. Inflexibility by the US shows these states that they need to toe the line with the US so enhancing the US leadership role. While Smaller states play an important role in the United Nations, as they represent a large majority of the membership. In recent years, they have emerged as important players in the international community. Their influence is not determined merely by the size of their territory, economy or military power, but also by their ability to achieve their goals. If these rising states wish to achieve their goals having the United States and the UN helping towards these goals, or at least not thwarting their attempts, is necessary. A passive approach by the United States to issues of reform would not serve the interests of either party.


Again - in order to meet the financial demands of the UN, a growth budget doesn't need to be set. Even if there are problems, whose solving costs a lot today, this doesn't mean that it will continue to be so in the future. Every year problems of the status quo are different. A UN budget is determined to an extent that it can be met by the state parties. There is not an unlimited amount of money, which can be allocated to international organizations. Of course in times of deep global challenges, the more advanced and developed part of the world will try and do the best they can to help the ones in need. But a continuous increase of the UN budget is not the way to cope with the problems. It just creates a fund-consuming machine, which is becoming more and more expensive. Furthermore the US already donates too much money to the UN - "The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013. The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund."1  1 Williams, Paul. "President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations" 6/10/2010


Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground.  They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility.  The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering. If those conflicts ended then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway.


The difficulty of removing Landmines far outweighs their usefulness  The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians. [1]  A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not.  [1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996,


Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.


Banning Landmines is a step towards reducing the horror of war  Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later. [1] In Afghanistan 17% of victims are children. [2] Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should.  [1] United Nations cyberschoolbus,   [2] Mine Clearance Planning Agency, Landmine Impact Survey Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, August 2005,


Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.  In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon. They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared.


These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since.


Landmines provide a false sense of security  Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.


The US army does not need landmines  It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the opposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment. Indeed the use of landmines by the US has slowly been changing, since 2004 the US has only allowed the use of landmines with deactivation mechanisms however it has not actually used landmines in more than 20 years. [1]  [1] Good, Rachel, ‘Yes We Should: Why the U.S. Should Change Its Policy Toward the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’, Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 9, Issue 2, (Spring 2011),


Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place.  That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will. Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them.


Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective. The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks. [1]  These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature. Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history.  [1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway,


Landmines are easy to use illegally anyway  Landmines are merely a convenient way of providing what can be rigged in many ways – an explosion triggered when movement occurs in a particular area. Without landmines being legally available, troops will improvise landmines – they will wire up pressure plates and hand grenades and trip wires and high explosive charges, with much the same result. These will then be much more difficult to disarm as they will not have a standard design and they may also have much more explosive power. [1] This behaviour was widespread in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only differences are that these weapons are less efficient, and more dangerous to the user that prepares them.  [1] Maresca, Louis, Maslen, Stuart, The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.316,


Landmines are necessary to protect South Korea  The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised. [1] South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.  With regards to the tunnel network: North Korea would never be able to perform an invasion through a dozen half-finished tunnels just big enough for a man to pass though. Troops passing under the DMZ without any heavy equipment or armour would have to assemble in the open with no protection from RoK and US firepower and air support. The main force of any invasion would have to travel over ground.  [1] Marin, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ’, 2002


The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines  The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. [1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.  [1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997,


Landmines are a useful military tool  In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes, [1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. [2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance  [1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15   [2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002,


North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.


That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a few thousand pressure plates at a time. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field.


France and the UK might have declined in relative power since 1945, but even today only Japan and Germany among non-P5 states rank ahead of them economically. In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world’s foremost military powers, with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, [1] and the world’s highest military expenditure after the USA and China with France spending $61 billion and the UK $57 billion in 2010. [2] By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. The EU launched a Rapid Reaction Force meant to be 60,000 troops in 2001, but it is still a paper tiger without even this many men and with many capability shortfalls. [3] Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power.  [1] Federation of American Scientists, 2011,   [2] SIPRI, 2011,   [3] Defence Dateline, 2011,


The world has moved on since 1945.  The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined; Britain’s manufacturing exports dropped from 25% of world manufacturing exports in 1945 to 5% in 2000. [1] And the UK was 6.52% of the world economy in 1950 [2] but down to 3.56 in 2010. [3] Moreover both had large empires which were lost in the decades after 1945. At the same time the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena. The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions.  [1] Schenk, 472,   [2] Maddison,   [3] World Bank,


The European Union might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be.


France and Britain should be willing to give up their seats for the European Union.  The most practical way to reform the United Nations is for France and Britain to give way to a European Union seat. Although there would inevitably be some loss of influence for both nations the pain would be minimised by retaining one seat between them. The European Union often decides what countries get what jobs based upon internal politics, so for example Catherine Ashton became High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy because Tony Blair did not get the presidency. [1] It would therefore be possible through an internal agreement in the European Union to make sure that France and the United Kingdom retain control of the UNSC seat through having control of the foreign minister post and the post of Ambassador to the United Nations.  [1] Meade, 2009,


Only a more representative United Nations Security Council is legitimate.  The United Nations is a global body that must represent the whole world. Just as democratic governments need to remain representative to be legitimate so the same is true of intergovernmental organisations. If the UK and France hang on to their permanent seats forever, the UNSC will lose its legitimacy, as the United Nations will no longer be seen to be representative. The result will be an increased risk of war and conflict because the world’s major powers have no legitimate shared arena for discussing their interests. This is exactly what happened to the League of Nations after World War I. As many of the most powerful nations, USA, USSR and Germany were unwilling to join or barred from joining the League never had much legitimacy. As a result the League was unable to prevent conflicts in Manchuria and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) eventually leading to World War II. [1] Since their interest in a stable world through the legitimacy of the UNSC outweighs their interest in a formal veto-power, France and the UK should be willing to give up their veto power.  [1] Kissinger, Diplomacy


There is a good reason why previous attempts at reforming the United Nations Security Council have not succeeded. Reform has been attempted several times since 1992 when Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali called for a renewal of the United Nations by 1995. [1] The ‘G4’ made up of Germany, Japan, Brazil and India has been lobbying to become permanent members but are opposed by others who want more non-permanent seats. [2] Kofi Annan in 2005 suggested two options either 6 new permanent members with no veto or eight four year renewable terms, [3] but this too has gotten nowhere. No matter who is on the council some countries will feel aggrieved. If Brazil becomes a member Argentina and Mexico will object, China might object to India becoming a permanent member and Pakistan certainly would. [4] In Africa it is not even certain who should represent the continent as there is no single leader, whoever is chosen some countries would not like the result. It is therefore better to leave things how they are. The current UNSC has been recognised as legitimate for more than sixty years this is not about to change.  [1] Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace’, 1992,   [2] Ariyoruk, ‘Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate’, 2005,   [3] United Nations Secretary General, ‘In larger freedom’, 2005, V,   [4] Muns, 2006,


Even if UNSC reform is perfectly logical in theory, in practice they would never work. The UK and France have a veto in the UNSC, which means they can halt any kind of reform of the UNSC which is not in their interest. Losing a permanent seat without getting a clear benefit in return is definitely against their interest. Even if they were to retain control over foreign policy no nation would want to move from having sole control of a seat to having to negotiate with its partners which way it will vote. As such the UK and France would veto any such proposal.


Europe may now have a president but as he has few independent powers the Lisbon Treaty has not answered Kissinger’s apocryphal question ‘who do I call if I want to dial Europe’. [1] The US president or Secretary of state would still need to call round the major capitals of Europe as Van Rompuy would need to get the agreement of the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the continent before he could do anything.  [1] Rachman, 2009,


The European Union is meant to prevent war being on the UNSC would allow it to actively promote peace.  The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. The political resolution of the Congress of Europe in 1948 said “it is the urgent duty of the nations of Europe to create an economic and political union in order to assure security and social progress… the creation of a United Europe is an essential element in the creation of a united world.” [1] The Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context. Europe has been successful in creating peace on a previously warlike continent. It has also had successes in encouraging reform in the countries of Eastern Europe and is continuing to do so in the Balkans through enlargement. [2] Croatia was at war with its neighbors fifteen years ago and part of Yugoslavia twenty years ago but will become the 28thmember of the EU in 2013. [3]  Being a member of the UNSC would deepen Europe’s commitment to international peace-keeping and peace-making missions, something which currently varies very widely between member states, and push them to spend sufficient on equipping their militaries for such missions. The UNSC could turn the EU’s soft power outwards to help the world. As a result it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution.  [1] Congress of Europe at the Hague, 1948,   [2] Bildt, 2005,   [3] BBC News, 2011,


The EU now has the necessary foreign policy organs.  In the past the European Union has not had the necessary foreign policy bureaucracy and decision making capabilities to be able to control a UNSC seat. Since the Lisbon treaty this has changed. The Treaty created a President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy. [1] And a European External Action Service (EEAS) which will eventually have a staff of 5,400. The EEAS is a functionally autonomous EU body with a large number of embassies around the world. [2] This will give the EU representation in most countries, 54 with ambassadors out of a total of 136, [3] and the ability to coordinate a foreign policy. A seat at the United Nations Security Council would be a natural extension of this.  [1] European Council,   [2] BBC News, 2010,   [3] Waterfield, 2010,


Until now, the member states of the European Union have never been able to coordinate their foreign policies effectively. This has led to divided positions amongst member states, for example towards Russia, China and other global players, allowing them to play a ‘divide-and-rule’-strategy against European interests. Giving the EU a single seat would give the Member States a clear incentive to harmonize their policies: a coordinated policy can then be expected to actually take effect, instead of it being a supplement to domestic foreign policy. Interests are guided by who decides what the interests are. With a unified voice from a unified external action service and President Europe will be able to define what the interests of the Union as a whole are.


The European Union has already been gaining power at the United Nations. The European Union gained what could be considered super-observer status in May 2011. Van Rompuy will be able to address the United Nations as the heads of other states can and the EU also has the right to speak, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right of reply, the right to raise points of order and the right to circulate documents. Europe will be represented by the High Representative and the EEAS. [1]  [1] Phillips, 2011,


The only way the United Nations Security Council can be reformed is through expansion.  Current UN Security Council members will never give up their seats. As well as Britain and France Russia could equally be considered to be no longer worthy of being a member of the UNSC. Russia’s economy is significantly smaller than either of the other European members. However no one seriously thinks Russia will give up its seat. Instead the United Nations Security Council will have to be expanded to make it more representative. This will mean bringing in Brazil, India and an African representative. There is precedence for expanding the council as Article 23 of the charter was amended in 1963 to enlarge the security council membership from eleven to fifteen. [1]  [1] United Nations, 1945, Introductory Note,


More is more.  While the in number of EU members in the Security Council is obviously beneficial to the EU and its members the influence of the European Union is also beneficial to the UN system as a whole. European powers that are enthusiastic internationalists and proponents of international organisations act as a counterweight to other powers that still act like great nationalist powers from the 19thCentury such as Russia and China. [1] They are therefore enthusiastic about working through the UN rather than acting unilaterally. The European Union’s international goals also dovetail well with the United Nations on a whole range of issues; development, peacekeeping, human rights, the environment, humanitarian aid and culture are all areas where there is a lot of cooperation; this means that the European Union is often acting in the interest of the United Nations. [2] This interest can obviously be best served by the European Union having more seats rather than only one.  [1] Ojanen, 2006, p5,   [2] Ibid, p.10, 36


There are disputes about enlargement of the Security Council.  Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and India seem obvious candidates for permanent status, but their candidacies are fiercely opposed by a variety of other Asian countries, while Nigeria and Egypt both feel they have a good claim to an “African” seat. Africa with no obvious leader could be the most difficult to resolve, already there are six countries which say they would want to be Africa’s permanent member; Senegal, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and Libya. [1] These disputes may in the end lead to a much enlarged permanent membership, so if the EU did taken over the UK and France’s seats, there would be a much greater likelihood that European interests will be outvoted on the Security Council.  [1] Okumu, 2005,


Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia w  The member states of the European Union haven’t harmonized their foreign policies so far simply because they have vastly divergent interests in the arena of global power politics. The interests of Germany vis-a-vis Russia are a world apart from France and the UK’s interests, let alone Poland’s. For example in the brief war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 France, Germany and Italy tried to avoid confrontation with Russia while Eastern Europe and Britain demanded a much tougher stance with sanctions. [1] And France and the UK famously took very different positions over the Iraq War, while their different experiences of empire and decolonisation give them a wider international perspective than most other EU states. Handing the EU a single seat does nothing to change those interests, and thus would actually harm every member state’s individual foreign policy interest, instead of furthering it.  [1] Waterfield, 2008,


The European States are obviously going to benefit from having large numbers of their members on the UN Security Council, and the United Nations itself is not harmed by it this overrepresentation comes at the expense of other regions. No other regions are so closely integrated – so countries in them don’t have allies who they can rely on in the Council, and some of which don’t have any members who have veto power. When compared to Europe that is not only integrated enough that the European States will most of the time take a common line and protect each other but who also have two states that can wield a veto the situation is grossly unfair.


The United Nations is meant to be a body of nation states.  The United Nations is an international organisation whose members are nation states, not other supranational organisations such as the European Union. “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states” [1] The European Union is however not a state and is unlikely to become one in the near future.  Recognising the European Union as a member would pose other problems as it would clash with article 9 of the UN charter “Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.” And Article 18 “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.” [2] As the European Union member would have 27 votes, and potentially well over 100 representatives in the General Assembly. The European Union is at present an observer [3] and that is how it should remain.  [1] United Nations, 1945, Article 4,   [2] United Nations, 1945, Article 9, 18,   [3] The Telegraph, 2011,


It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. In such a reformed UN it is much harder to justify permanent places for the UK and France alone, two essentially similar western European countries. They should instead agree to be represented through an EU seat as part of an overhaul of the whole international system.


Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia would be.


The prize is too narrowly defined. At what scale should the change be defined? For example civil-society and community leaders can make significant changes to governance at a smaller-scale; promoting democratic governance from a bottom-up initiative can work as well as top down. On another hand, should we only be focusing on the very top? What about the government officials who are not heads of state but make a change to people’s lives? The narrow focus on the head of a party or state neglects the body - such as finance ministers - that maintains that system of governance and work hard to ensure a democratic transition. The focus on heads of state may deter the state body from ensuring effective governance due to the fact their hard work is not rewarded or recognised.  Due to the relatively young nature of democracy and multi-party rule across Africa, the criteria of potential prize candidates needs to be expanded. The number of former heads of states having left in the past three years is small. Therefore the criteria for nomination needs to change.


Focusing on the leaders of good governance  Previous winners - such as Nelson Mandela and Pedro Pires - made significant changes to their nation-states, ending apartheid and promoting social development. The former leaders provided equality and a functioning democracy to their people. Such needs to be the aim of leaders today.  Providing a prize to the highest achievers provides an example. It highlights leaders from even small countries – such as Cape Verde’s Pires – that can serve as role models for Africa’s leaders. Without the prize the most likely role models would simply be those of the biggest states who are highest profile. Mo Ibrahim (2013) has stated the prize is for “excellence, it’s not a pension”. This is why it is not always awarded. The prize is only be awarded when high-standards of good governance are replicated, and maintained, by leaders. Focusing on the top of government encourages a top down implementation of good government. When the leader acts others will follow; a comparatively small amount of money can therefore make a big difference.


Although the prize has gained recognition in the Western world or ‘Global North’ to what extent is the prize, its reward, and meaning, known and understood by African citizens? If the prize is recognising African leadership citizens need to be aware of the prize in the first place - whether their country is up for nomination or not. Awareness is the only way the apparent transparency can hold power and become a reality. Citizens cannot demand change or hold the state to account when they are not aware of the index, the prize, and the so-called changes being made.


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


The prize by focusing on leaders ignores the areas where money is needed; not lining already rich people’s pockets but providing money and advice to actually set up these institutions. This means for example ensuring the police and civil servants are well enough paid they don’t resort to corruption etc. Acemoglu and Robinson (2013) highlight that there is also a ‘vicious cycle’ whereby the presence of bad institutions - authoritarian, unaccountable, with limited economic innovations - reinforce poverty and bad governance. Although offering rewards where significant change has happened is a positive model, in reality, many African states require funds to be able to enforce change in the first place and break this vicious cycle.  For good governance to be promoted rewards should not only go to the best, but also the good in a continent where bad governance dominates. For any progress to be made in governance the prize needs to lower standards of expectation, recognise where improvements are made, and use the reward to change the vicious cycle. Some change is better than none; focusing on picking the best with high standards limits any change.


Transparency  The prize is helping citizens to be aware of good governance, and bad, occurring within their state. By granting the prize citizens are shown what leaders have done right; and the publication of the index - the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) - shows where improvement may be required. The prize is forcing transparency between governments and society. Information on how states are doing means citizens can take action, and demand change where change is needed. The prize is calling for African citizens to get the leadership they deserved, desired, and have a right to.  By maintaining strict standards on when, and to whom, the reward is provided gives a realistic picture of governance in Africa. It showcases the continued need for good governance; and also doesn’t give citizens and the international community a false illusion that governance is good in Africa when it is not.


The committee nominating, and choosing, the final candidates remains un-bias and their expertise within multiple aspects of governance means the high standards can be maintained. Having votes would open the prize up to corruption and attempts to influence the outcome by those who are eligible. A technocratic standard is needed for good governance.


One of the criteria for awarding the prize is ‘demonstrated exceptional leadership’. This clearly allows the IIAG to be fed into the process as it is the IIAG that can show if the leader being considered has demonstrated this leadership. The IIAG provides a useful tool to assist in deciding the prize winner, and nominees.


Bribing good governance  The Mo Ibrahim Prize is bribing African leaders to shift towards good governance. The financial incentive is being distributed to entice leaders to follow good governance approaches and models. The fact that no questions are asked on where the money provided goes; how it is used; and what the former leaders spend it on raise further questions. Most importantly to what extent can we claim elaborate bribery is an effective means to enforce good governance within the continent? For a start having what is essentially a bribe to encourage good governance is hypoctitical. Secondly a bribe for an individual relies on that one individual’s actions. Thus in 2007 the prize was granted to Mozambique’s President Chissano. However, since 2007 declines have emerged in the scores concerning law and rights (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013).  Additionally for those motivated by money the money provided cannot compete with potential returns that can be gained from natural resources, tax evasion schemes, and capital flight. The bribery incentive does not compete with potential profits gained through alternative forms corruption (Bedell, 2009).


A contradictory approach  The prize will fail to promote good governance due to the contradictory approach it undertakes. Good governance cannot emerge and be sustained by rewarding former presidents. Having a good former president does not mean their successor will encourage their legacy to continue. Why celebrate good former leaders when we need to focus on what is happening now?  Moreover why reward someone just when they can no longer do any good? The prize suffers from the contradiction of regarding giving up power as a necessary criteria to obtain the prize. This ignores that Africa does not want those who are being successful at promoting good governance to leave their post – potentially to someone who will move backwards. Having a prize for someone who could have done more good had they stayed is contradictory.  Finally the prize is not good for Africa; the prize has raised negative stereotypes of African states, leaders, and systems. The attention gained by the prize not being granted for 3 out of 6 years is maintaining negative stereotypes of African leaders. This will only act to reinforce the global system of power - whereby the West intervene to implement a ‘good’ model of governance, not suited to Africa.


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


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


It is not contradictory to offer a reward for good governance after the leader has left office. Dictators holding onto power for long periods are one of Africa’s biggest problems. Rewarding those who step aside shows that an important part of good governance is having presidents who stick to constitutional terms. A stable transfer of power is vital in a democracy. This is something that is even more important when the transfer is to a political opponent. One of the most important advances in governance that can be made is to make be considered normal that the opposition is as loyal to the country as the government. When this happens power can easily be transferred without conflict or resulting disorder.


The reward is an incentive, not a bribe; consider it as being similar to performance related pay. The prize shows how if excellent leadership is promoted and good governance encouraged the leaders will be praised, recognised and rewarded. The prize is not a bribe, but a way of incentivising leaders to follow a path towards good governance. By highlighting cases where good governance has excelled the prize draws attention to the benefits of good governance through a cost-benefit appraisal. The social, economic, and political returns are highlighted; and other African governments encouraged to follow the trend.


If terrorism is the concern then the French intervening is one of the worst possible options. Having France fighting in Mali may well result in the internationalization of the conflict bringing in jihadists. [1] Already the islamists are saying the conflict is a holy war as “France has attacked Islam” and they will in response “strike at the heart of France”. [2]  [1] Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Sending soldiers to Mali may be the only solution’, The Globe and Mail, 14 January 2012,   [2] Bamat, Joseph, ‘Mali-based Islamists pledge attacks on French soil’, France 24, 14 January 2013,


Fighting terrorism  While it was Tuareg separatists who first sparked the insurrection wanting to split Mali but now the North has been taken over by Islamists and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb presenting a terrorist threat that cannot be ignored. France’s Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says "France's goal is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups," and that "We have to eradicate this terrorism". [1] The United States was already clearly worried about Mali becoming a center of terrorism having on the 7th December designated the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa a terrorist organisation while other groups involved in Mali such as al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb were already designated as such. The State department highlights several terrorist attacks the group has conducted such as “a March 2012 suicide attack on a police base in Tamanrasset, Algeria, which wounded 23 people”. [2]  [1] CNN Staff, ‘France determined to ‘eradicate’ terrorism in Mali, official says’, CNN, 13 January 2013,   [2] Office of the Spokesperson, ‘Terrorist Designations of the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, Hamad el Khairy, and Ahmed el Tilemsi’, U.S. Department of State, 7 December 2012,


Ban Ki Moon has also stated that “I am profoundly aware that if a military intervention in the north is not well conceived and executed, it could worsen an already fragile humanitarian situation and also result in severe human rights abuses” [1] so French military intervention is not necessarily the right course to take if the intention is to be helping the people of northern Mali. Equally we can ask if this will really end the civil war? Mali has suffered from several Tuareg rebellions in the past. In particular there was a civil war between 1990 and 1996 [2] which has had over a decade of sporadic peace negotiations while a cease fire held. So while outside intervention may end the civil war unless the French propose to remain in place for decades or work instead on a diplomatic solution in the long run Mali will be no better off.  [1] Tisdall, Simon, ‘UN urges caution over military intervention in Mali’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2012,   [2] Humphreys, Macartan, and Mohamed, Habaye ag, ‘Senegal and Mali’, January 2003,  pp.19-28


France was asked to intervene by Mali’s government  “France has answered… a request for assistance issued by the interim president of the Republic of Mali”. France is therefore not coming in uninvited. Mali’s President Traore directly appealed to French President Hollande to provide “French military assistance against these terrorist groups” that have “attacked our front lines of defense”. [1] As the former colonial power in much of West Africa, including Mali, France is the obvious country to turn to for help. As a result of this colonial past Mali is a member of the French led Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. [2] Mali is therefore fully within its sovereign rights to ask for assistance and Hollande is right to agree to provide it.  [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘France’s U.N. envoy: French military intervention in Mali is open ended’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 11 January 2013,   [2] ‘Welcome to the International Organisation of La Francophonie’s official website’


Mali should be asking for diplomatic help to resolve the crisis not asking for a military force. France meanwhile should not be accepting a request from an unelected President to attack his own people. A request to intervene in a country does not make that intervention legitimate it simply provides a fig leaf to protect France from accusations of colonialism.


This might be an excuse to send a few soldiers to help evacuation and possibly a commando raid to free hostages but it is not a reason for all out intervention. If it was such a justification then in almost any conflict some state would have just cause to intervene because some of their citizens were in danger.


It is a humanitarian intervention  Fundamentally at its heart this is a humanitarian intervention by the French. The Islamists who took over Northern Mali have been imposing a severe, austere form of Islam demanding "No cigarettes, no CDs, no radios, no cameras, no jewelry" and beating those who disobey the rules. Men and women have to sit in separate areas in buses. With Sharia being more strictly enforced with increasing number of amputations despite opposition from the local population. [1] Much of the population of the North had already fled to the south with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees saying 200,000 have fled since January 2012. [2] Those who have, like Moussa from Timbuktu, clearly welcome the intervention, he told a French radio station “We have been suffocating and [France] has given us a breath of oxygen. We are ready to fly Malian and French flags alongside each other.” [3]  [1] Mben, Paul Hyacinthe, ‘A Trip Through Hell Daily Life in Islamist Northern Mali’, Spiegel Online, 29 October 2012,   [2] Caux, Helene, ‘IDPs struggle to survive after escaping fighting in northern Mali’, UNHCR, 12 December 2012,   [3] Bamat, Joseph, ‘Mali-based Islamists pledge attacks on French soil’, France 24, 14 January 2013,


French interests  This intervention is not all about terrorism and a humanitarian desire to end a civil war. France does have a stake in the conflict and a reason to deploy military forces. There are 6,000 French citizens living in Mali who are obviously at risk to a rebel advance; even without a full scale intervention France would almost certainly have had to deploy forces to protect an evacuation. Already there are seven French citizens being held hostage in Mali and rescuing them is one of the three main objectives for the French intervention. [1]  [1] Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Sending soldiers to Mali may be the only solution’, The Globe and Mail, 14 January 2012,


The French have rejected any parallel with Afghanistan and other quagmires. Fabius, France’s Foreign Minister, has said that "Later on, we can come as back-up, but we have no intention of staying forever," [1] the handover may be slower than anticipated but there is no evidence the French will be in Mali for an extended period.  [1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013,


Self-determination should first be internal rather than external. [1] In other words self-determination means autonomy within the existing state not a new state unless there is no other way of resolving the conflict. In Mali therefore the rebels need to put down their weapons and accept the authority of the central government, whose will the French and others are trying to enforce. It is clear that the people of northern Mali would prefer a solution within the state of Mali as half the population has fled to the south [2] and Ansar Dine and MNLA have walked back their declaration of independence promising “respect for Mali's national unity and territorial integrity” in December. [3]  [1] “Reference re Secession of Quebec”, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217,   [2] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012,   [3] Agencies, ‘Mali rebels agree to respect ‘national unity’, AlJazeera, 5 December 2012,


African organisations should have lead the way  The United Nations charter is quite clear that it should be African Nations leading the way in this conflict. It says “The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies” [1] and since there are several African Security Organisations there is little reason why these could not have taken the lead. The African Union in particular has undertaken interventions in similar situations before; notably in Somalia. [2] This has been recognised right up until the French intervened and the UN Security Council resolution in December mandated for “the deployment of an African-led mission to support efforts by national authorities to recover the north.” [3]  [1] Article 52,   [2] Jowell, Marco, ‘Kenya: Intervening in Somalia – Risky Business With No End in Sight’, All Africa, 17 January 2012,   [3] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012,


Quagmire  Western states seem to so often be willing to get involved in conflicts without thinking about how to get out of them. Interventions are difficult operations that need a lot of planning and the United Nations has previously said that in the case of Mali "Nothing could be done before September, October," and there should be diplomatic talks and a rebuilding of the Malian army first. [1] Unless there is a clear exit plan then there is the risk that the conflict in Mali will turn into a Quagmire from which French and other Western forces cannot easily extradite themselves.  The conflict has not resulted in many French casualties although they did have a helicopter shot down. [2] However there is still a question of how long France will have to keep a military presence in the country. The French initially said they would be pulling troops out in March; [3] the first troops did not leave until May. They said they would only have 1000 there by the end of the year [4] but in January 2014 still had 2500. [5]  [1] Irish, John, ‘No military intervention in Mali before September: U.N. peacekeeping chief’, Reuters, 5 December 2012,   [2] Chrisafis, Angelique, ‘Mali: high stakes in ‘Hollande’s war’’, The Guardian, 13 January 2013,   [3] Schofield, Hugh, ‘France action in Mali is real war, says Le Drian’, BBC News, 6 February 2013,   [4] BBC News, ‘Mali crisis: French troops begin withdrawal’, 9 April 2013,   [5] Al Jazeera Staff, ‘Interactive: Mali Speaks’, Al Jazeera, 21 January 2013,


Western countries should not be interfering in African internal affairs  Western nations should clearly not be interfering in African affairs. Not only is this conflict outside of NATO’s remit but it is internal to an individual African state rather than a war between states. By intervening France and other nations are taking part in a civil war in which they are aiding a government that was placed in office by a military coup in March 2012 so does not have a democratic mandate. [1]  This intervention is an example of France once more playing the role of gendarme and considering that it has some kind of divine right to intervene in Africa. [2] This war is of course in large part France’s fault in the first place; it is trying to hold together a nation that should be split in two as a result of artificial colonial borders that fan conflict by dividing communities. [3] In this case France is intervening to deny a legitimate people’s, the Tuareg, their right to self-determination. The Tuaregs are divided between Algeria, Kibya, Mali, and Niger but without a majority in any. [4] The Turegs when they took control of Azawad made a declaration of independence. [5] While this has not been recognised this simply shows how existing states are worried about accepting the logic of self-determination when they themselves have groups that may want independence.  [1] Felix, Bate, ‘Mali junta sees civilian government “in days”’, Reuters, 8 April 2012,   [2] Diop, Boubacar Boris, ‘La Vie en %$!’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2010,   [3] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘African Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010,   [4] 10% in Mali ‘Mali’ The World Factbook, CIA,  9.3% in Niger ‘Niger’, The World Factbook, CIA,   [5] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012,