Question:
As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability

The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue.

It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating

An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive.

Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The political consequences of the system make the world less safe

Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.

The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:

Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security.

MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. In terms of deterring conventional warfare, that assumes that the state being attacked would chose mutual destruction over potential, transitory subjugation. MAD has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used (Sagan, 1993). National missile defense systems provide a very real defense against not only full-scale attacks by other states, but against nuclear-capable rogue states, such as North Korea, which is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology of its own. Should North Korea ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, the world will need the ability to counter it. National missile defense is simply a strategic necessity of the modern world in which nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable, aggressive states who might actually try to use them.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work

Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely.

While missile defense technology still has problems that need to be worked out, its future is very promising. The most recent technology, Aegis, is far more effective in testing than its predecessors and has been deployed on a number of Navy warships and in Japan and Australia (McMichael, 2009). The technology will with time become extremely effective at stopping enemy missiles. In a world with more and more countries developing nuclear weapons, many who oppose the United States and its allies, it is imperative that the United States has an effective defense against them. A missile defense system is the most promising such defense.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.

Many political parties- even those in operating in the US- claim that regulation of the content of political campaigns is unnecessary. Parties assert that they supervise and monitor the content of their candidates’ statements. Self-regulation is claimed to be in parties’ own interests. However, ensuring that individual candidates maintain good standards of conduct and are disciplined for infractions goes only half way to ensuring that campaigning remains honest and equitable. Articles written and speeches made by candidates can easily be surveiled and monitored for misleading or litigious content. However, the most damning and intractable forms of negative campaigning often occur indirectly, without being explicitly associated with a particular political figure.

Due to the frequency with which candidates’ activists and survey staff make contact with voters, there is the danger that they could be used to propagate negative messages via word of mouth campaigns. Tactics of this type were successfully employed by the radical socialist George Galloway to oust a Labour incumbent in the UK constituency of Bethnal Green and Bough. Allegations later emerged that Galloway’s door-step campaigners had made ad hominem and racist comments against his opponent. It is unacceptable that a candidate should be able to maintain a “clean” image by using his electoral staff to make negative attacks by proxy.

Independent lobbying and campaigning groups that claim no party affiliation make important contributions to debate and policy making throughout the liberal world. However, despite their “independent” status, many of these organisations are guided by issues and ideological and philosophical principles that are closely linked to party politics. Particular think-tanks or single issue groups may be ideologically aligned to certain parties, even if they are not part of that party’s internal structure. The pro-life lobby in the US, for example, is politically aligned with the republican party, due to a shared support base among American Christians. Similarly, although the British think-tank ResPublica describes itself as non-party-political, it propagates social research based on identifiably right wing ideas, and is guided by an advisory board containing four Conservative party MPs.

Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to assume that pronouncements made by these organisations are free from the influence of those directly involved in political campaigns. In America, where independent “527” [i] groups are banned from contacting and coordinating with political parties, it is not unusual for such organisations to fund ad hominem attacks against a candidate perceived as being unsympathetic to a particular cause. Indeed, this is exactly why a broad interpretation of this motion is necessary. Organisations such as Swift Boat Veterans for truth are able to mount attack campaigns that directly benefit a particular participant in an election, while not being bound by the restrictions on conduct, spending or donor relationships that candidates themselves must abide by.

Finally, limiting negative campaigning in the press will address the incentives on politicians to pursue campaign strategies oriented solely around garnering publicity. One of the first examples of negative campaigning, a 1964 television advert produced by Harry Truman, which implied that presidential candidate Barry Goldwater would initiate a nuclear war, proved so controversial that it was replayed in news broadcasts, effectively granting additional, free campaign coverage. The press is already confronted with too many engineered leaks and scandals. As noted above, these obscure more cogent analysis by neutral experts and commentators.

[i] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.

It is difficult to envision how this ban could be effectively implemented without compromising the principles of free speech and unfettered political discussion that lie at the core of western democratic liberalism. If side proposition pursue a broadly construed ban on negative tactics by candidates, campaign groups and the media, free and open debate is likely to be endangered.

Democratic political parties are diverse and plural entities. Even the most authoritarian or charismatic candidate cannot hope to have complete control and oversight over every member of his campaign team. Under the widest interpretation of the resolution, a careless comment by an over-enthusiastic party activist could breach a negative campaigning ban as surely as an ad hominem attack advert. Indeed, such comments are much more likely to be made on the door step than they are in the press.

This being the case, how would the activities of a candidate’s staff be policed? Would they be subject to constant surveillance? If so, by whom? How would the impartiality of regulators be guaranteed? Moreover, if a supervising body were given the wide ranging powers necessary to implement the resolution, how would the proposition prevent the leaking- accidental or otherwise- of confidential government and opposition information? The functions of the state are closely bound up with the activities of party politics, especially in federal nations such as America, which operate partisan civil administrations.

Similarly, who should decide when an independent campaigning group is “too closely aligned” to the ideals and objectives of a particular political party? Within the American republican party there are a wide range of views on issues considered controversial by political conservatives. Former Republican VP Dick Cheney voiced support for same-sex marriage while in office. By contrast, 2012 republican presidential nomination candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have stated their opposition to reforms that would make same-sex marriage more accessible in the US. Does criticism levelled against Cheney by Christian “family” interest groups allow them to be defined as independent of the Republican party? Comparably, is praise for Cheney’s position by LGBTQ interest groups a reliable indicator that they support other republican policies? Clearly it does not.

It should also be noted that a ban would be almost impossible to enforce on the internet. The multi-jurisdictional nature of much web content (videos or articles authored in one country may be hosted by services operating under the law of another) renders any attempt to control on-line political commentary meaningless. Short of adopting wide-scale, Chinese-style internet censorship systems, the growth of online attack campaigning [i] renders the proposition meaningless.

Side proposition assume that the news media operate without directing any critical attention to the subject matter of their stories. They portray the press as vulnerable to subversion by campaign managers able to leak or cleverly position attack stories. Even if side proposition can provide examples of this type of misdirection, it would be damaging to tackle flawed editorial policies by using the law to limit journalists’ right to comment and speak freely on political events.

Where there has been a failure of safeguards that ensure that objective coverage of significant events remains objective, regulatory bodies should review the standards of journalists work – as they currently do under the status quo. This would provide the press with the flexibility to continue reporting on important issues, while refining the way in which they do so.

Even if the legal mandate is enforced by an impartial, neutral observer, appointments to this body are likely to become politically fraught, precisely because it would be the ultimate arbiter of the limits and rules that would be applied to an election.

[i] “Dose of Venom for Candidates Turns Ads Viral”. New York Times, 20 March 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/politics/21ads.html

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Negative campaigning reduces the diversity and representativeness of government.

Many able, idealistic and talented individuals are discouraged or excluded from participating in the political process by aggressive negative campaigning [i] . Bright potential candidates may be concerned about intrusion by political opponents into their private lives or backgrounds [ii] . They may be opposed in principle to participating in a political culture that obliges aspirant office holders to engage in smear- and fear-lead campaigning.

Under the status quo, only those able to stomach the confrontational and bullying tactics that have grown up around contemporary electioneering will dare enter the political arena. Moreover, such trends in political culture favour candidates with close links to the media. Individuals able to command the ear of newspaper owners, or who possess a professional background in journalism or publicity will be better able to manipulate or evade attacks launched via television and mass communications.

A democratic system is best served when it encourages the participation of candidates from a range of backgrounds and professional fields. The ability of a government to arrive at novel solutions to problems confronting a state, to understand that state’s economy and to effectively represent different sectors of the population will be compromised without a diverse skillset within the state’s legislative and executive branches.

By transforming politics into a game based on the production of political “brands” and unassailable, manufactured “personalities,” the jousting and muckraking of negative campaigning gives a disproportionate advantage to former editors and PR men [iii] . This dilutes the pool of professionals from which future leaders are drawn, leading to poor policy making (due to a lack of professional skills) and a conservative, sclerotic, defensive approach to political problem solving. Western liberal politics is increasingly discussed only in terms of communication, image, rhetoric and appearance [iv] , rather than the technical language of law, economics and diplomacy. Negative campaigning artificially limits the types of people and professions who can engage in political discourse, infantilising and disabling politics itself.

[i] “Meg’s mistake”, The Economist, 28 September 2009, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/post_8

[ii] “Tory woman attacks ‘misogyny’ of grassroots members”, The Guardian, 01 November 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/conservative-party-misogyny-liz-truss?INTCMP=SRCH

[iii] “Analysis: PR people fall prey to the lure of parliament.”, PR Week, 04 April 1996. http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/92597/ANALYSIS-PR-people-fall-prey-lure-Parliament/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

[iv] “I’m fake, vote for me”, The Guardian, 22 September 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/sep/22/media.media?INTCMP=SRCH

Politics is a tough game, and those that decide to play it should expect to come away bruised. Politicians, almost by definition, seek publicity and the attention of the media. They should, therefore, be prepared to accept that positive press coverage will inevitably turn negative.

Much as debaters are trained to continue delivering clear and structured speeches in the face of badgering POIs, indifferent judges and poorly behaved opponents, we should expect our politicians to be tough enough to give a robust defence of their policies and actions, no matter how pernicious the attacks launched against them. This is the only way in which we can be certain of their skills as a political operator and their commitment to the ideological cause they claim to support.

Politicians with families are consistently perceived as more trustworthy and competent than those who lack familial ties. A family is a useful general indicator of a politician’s willingness to set aside personal ambition and self-interest, and invest himself wholly in ensuring the well-being of others. Likewise, a politician who welcomes attacks on his character and policies and fights vigorously to defend them is also more likely to have a clean past.

Moreover, due to the organic and emergent nature of interactions that occur between states on the international stage, politicians will not have access to the types of legal protection proposed by the resolution when doing business with the representatives of other nations. Coddled politicians will lack the pragmatism and guile necessary to effectively represent western nations’ interests in the international community.

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]

On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]

Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.

[1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a...

[2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm

[3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.

[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.

[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3

1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.

2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.

3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.

[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.

The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

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.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim