IPF portfolio

IPF Blogging portfolio archive.
Torture And The CIA: An Examination Of The Senate Intelligence
Committee Report
The recent publishing of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has
caused a storm in Washington, and a flurry of worldwide political and public
reactions. In the wake of the revelations that the CIA, under the auspices of
the Bush administration, perpetrated acts of torture, has drawn sharp, albeit
hypocritical criticism from China, Iran, and North Korea. In direct contrast to
this, several American politicians have criticised the report as missing out key
information, wrongly painting the CIA as having been complicit in serious
wrongdoing; former Vice-President Dick Cheney is a key case in point.
Moreover, CIA officials themselves have stated that the report is flawed. This
is an important point and it needs to be given its due. To simply ignore it
because of these revelations is short-sighted at best. Nonetheless, the details
of the report cannot be ignored either.
The report raises a number of questions about the CIA’s enhanced
interrogation techniques – namely, did it work? In other words, did the use of
torture provide worthwhile information? Secondly, who was targeted under
this programme, and what were their nationalities? Thirdly, did the use of
these techniques have consequences, such as increases in militant
recruitment, and political fallout? Finally, to what extent did the president and
congress know about what was going on? In order the answer these
questions, we begin with perhaps the most important one; did it work?
If it is effective, then the use of these techniques in extreme circumstances is
perhaps justified. If on the other hand, it does not provide accurate
information, then it is simply pointless to use them. If its much touted efficacy
is non existent, then the rationale of the programme is undermined; the
central justification is in fact illusory. In direct contrast to this, the intelligence
agencies have claimed that the methods used in interrogation provided
essential information in preventing terrorist attacks, and more notably,
assistance in tracking down Osama Bin-Laden.
The report however throws these arguments into doubt, cataloging over a
dozen instances of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques being called
into question. A case in point is the claim by the CIA that using these
methods led to the thwarting of a dirty bomb plot, and the capture of Jose
Padilla. The report seemingly throws doubt on this.
“… a review of CIA operational cables and other CIA records found that the
use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques played no role in the
identification of “Jose Padilla” or the thwarting of the Dirty Bomb or Tall
Buildings plotting CIA records indicate that: (1) there was significant
intelligence in CIA databases acquired prior to—and independently of—the

CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program to fully identify Jose Padilla as a
terrorist threat and to disrupt any terrorist plotting associated with him.”
So it appears that in this case alone, not only did the techniques not provide
any worthwhile intelligence, but that the information that was instrumental in
the arrest of Jose Padilla was found before these procedures had even been
implemented. This is a far cry from what is touted as: “one of the eight most
frequently cited examples provided by the CIA as evidence for the
effectiveness.” However, as previously stated, this is just one example. What
about the other cases cited in the report?
One that is perhaps closer to home, especially for those who are in the UK, is
that the use of these methods acquired information that thwarted attacks on
Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport in London. Successful attacks on these
two locations would be disastrous for the United Kingdom; Heathrow Airport is
the second busiest in the world for international passenger traffic, and Canary
Wharf is a major financial centre. Destruction and/or disruption of these
transport and capital centres could well have severe economic implications,
as investors would be cautious about investing in ventures or travelling to
places where safety cannot be guaranteed. Naturally, the most severe cost
would be human life, as hundreds of thousands of people flood through these
locations on a daily basis. It is horrifying to contemplate how many people
would die if such a plot was successful, and it is indeed for similar reasons
that the CIA justifies the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to counter
this, notably saving lives. This justification though, like the capture of Jose
Padilla, is, according to the report, a facade;
“A review of records indicates that the Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf
plotting had not progressed beyond the initial planning stages when the
operation was fully disrupted with the detentions of Ramzi bin al- Shibh, KSM,
Ammar-al-Baluchi, and Khallad bin Attash. None of these individuals were
captured as a result of reporting obtained during or after the use of the CIA’s
enhanced interrogation techniques against CIA detainees.”
A second instance like this might also be passed off as another outlier. After
all, two ineffective cases compared to over a dozen successes would by any
measure deem the use of torture as an unfortunate but useful method to
obtain information. However, this is not what the summary of the report found.
On the contrary “The Committee found the CIA’s representations to be
inaccurate and unsupported by CIA records.” So all in all, and based upon
this report, the methods don’t appear to have worked.
Image Source: http://bit.ly/1ylWL8l
Irrespective of the efficacy or lack thereof of torture, a second query that this
report addresses is who was subjected to these techniques in the course of
the CIA’s counter-terrorism operations, and their nationality. The report notes

that the interrogation of two specific individuals was allegedly instrumental in
the the capture of individuals and thwarting of plots, and another two likewise
provided crucial information. These men were Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim
al_Nashiri, Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Abu Zubaydah, captured in Pakistan and then subsequently rendered to a
CIA Black Site elsewhere (the report does not state where as significant
amounts of information has been censored), is an alleged former al-Qaeda
operative, who remains indefinitely detained in Guantanamo Bay. He was
born in Saudi Arabia, however, he regards him self as a ‘stateless
Palestinian’. The report however, does not explicitly state his nationality,
though infers it by noting his apparent denied application to join an al-Qaeda
training camp that comprised of many Saudis.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was detained in the United Arab Emirates in Early
Autumn 2002, and believed by the CIA to have been instrumental in the
bombing of the US Naval vessel, the USS Cole. He too was rendered to a
CIA detention site. Like Abu Zubaydah, al-Nashiri’s nationality is Saudi
Arabian. The report does not mention this either, although it does provide
hints, a reference for those who need more information is provided in the
footnotes.
That al-Nashiri is Saudi is particularly interesting and shows signs of a
developing pattern about those interrogated.
Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh was captured around the same time as al-Nashiri, and
like Zubaydah was found in Pakistan. He too received the same hospitality
from the CIA as the others, rendition to a undisclosed CIA detention centre.
He has been charged with the with the deaths of almost 3000 people in the
September 11 attacks, and is currently interred in Guantanamo Bay. Like the
others, his nationality does not appear to be explicitly mentioned, but a simple
Google search reveals that he is a Yemeni citizen.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured in his native Pakistan (again his
nationality is not mentioned) by Pakistani officials. He was briefly held in the
country and interrogated by both the CIA and Pakistani authorities. He was
then, like the others, renditioned outside of Pakistan and then interrogated
with the use of the enhanced techniques that were used extensively on the
other detainees.
There seems to be, as previously mentioned, a commonality between these
four cases. Indeed, there are two. The first is perhaps more obvious; all of
these suspects came from the Middle East; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and
Yemen are all situated in that region. The second commonality is perhaps
less so. While the aforementioned countries are located in the Middle East,
none of them were invaded by coalition troops in 2002 and 2003. Instead,
they were from countries that were, for all intends and purposes, allied to the

US, and, in the case of Yemen and Pakistan, were where clandestine
operations were conducted and continue to be to this day; as those who are
aware of the targeted killing programme will know. This is of course
coincidental, but it is interesting nonetheless that the main suspects come
from states that are US allies rather than its enemies. (For a complete list of
detainees, see page 458 of the report.)
With the nationalities of the prisoners established, a third and highly important
question that relates to the purported effectiveness is whether the use of such
methods was in fact detrimental to the US and its allies. The report concluded
that the methods:
“created tensions with U.S. partners and allies, leading to formal demarches
to the United States, and damaging and complicating bilateral intelligence
relationships […] “caused immeasurable damage to the United States’ public
standing, as well as to the United States’ longstanding global leadership on
human rights in general and the prevention of torture in particular.”
So in a political sense, the US, according to the above, came off rather badly.
A bastion of democracy and freedom, the ‘Empire of Liberty’ as Thomas
Jefferson termed democracy promotion, was seen to be a sham. And indeed,
this poisoned international relations between the US and the rest of the world
– relations that did not noticeably heal until Barack Obama was elected
president.
Image Source: http://bit.ly/1INYmoD
However, there is no mention of repercussions of a more deadly nature. That
is, did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques result in attacks against
America and her allies? There seems to be no direct evidence of this,
nonetheless, the presence of Guantanamo Bay prison is said to act as a
‘recruitment tool’ for al-Qaeda. In addition, US officials have argued that the
prison is a threat the national security, risking the lives of Americans. While
this is not attributed directly to torture, the procedures used in the questioning
of Khalid Sheik Mohammed et al were employed in Guantanamo, as such, it
is not a step too far to assume that radicalisation is in part a result of their
use. After all, it was not only the four men mentioned previously who were
interrogated in such a way.
The final question that is asked here, is to what extend did Congress and the
White House have knowledge of what was going on? For if these groups
knew a lot, then it is arguable that they are culpable in either standing by and
letting it happen, or actively supporting it. Fortunately however, the situation
was much more complicated than that. What is certainly true is that the
Executive and legislative branches knew about it, but lacked significant
knowledge of what was going on. However, it was at the same time, limited in

its scope. Concurrently, the CIA went out of its way to circumvent
congressional investigation, or tried to avoid the eyes of congress but was
found to have deceived the investigators as the report makes clear:
The CIA did not brief the leadership of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence on the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques until September
2002, after the techniques had been approved and used….The CIA restricted
access to information about the program from members of the Committee
beyond the chairman and vice chairman until September 6, 2006, the day the
president publicly acknowledged the program…. Prior to September 6, 2006,
the CIA provided inaccurate information to the leadership of the Committee.
Briefings to the full Committee beginning on September 6, 2006, also
contained numerous inaccuracies….The CIA misrepresented the views of
members of Congress on a number of occasions. After multiple senators had
been critical of the program and written letters expressing concerns to CIA
Director Michael Hayden, Director Hayden nonetheless told a meeting of
foreign ambassadors to the United States that every Committee member was
“fully briefed,” and that “[t]his is not CIA’s program. This is not the President’s
program. This is America’s program.” The CIA also provided inaccurate
information describing the views of U.S. senators about the program to the
Department of Justice.
In essence, it seems that the CIA was effectively acting of its own accord,
trying its utmost to avoid accountability for actions committed by its agents,
and the concerns of elected members of congress who were disconcerted by
its arguably carte-blanche attitude. Unfortunately, this attitude did not stop at
legislatures. It appears to have gone all the way up to the White House. The
report notes that like the attitude they took with congress, the CIA deceived
senior White House officials and National Security Council officials. Ever
more damning, the President himself, George Bush, was not informed of the
use of the procedures before April 2006, by which time all but one of the
people who would face the interrogation techniques had already endured it.
Additionally, neither he nor Vice President Dick Cheney were told of the
locations of various CIA detention centres, bar one country. The country in
question has been censored in the report.
Taking these factors into account, it seems unwise to harshly criticise the
Bush Administration and congress for what happened. Though it is true that
they knew what was going on to some degree, the extent of this knowledge
appears to have been very limited. Rather, the CIA effectively acted rouge,
ignoring calls for investigation, deceiving the legislature and the presidency,
and refusing the elucidate what was truly going on until the procedures had
already been enacted on the suspects.
Overall, the report seems to make a lot of things clear. Firstly, enhanced
interrogation techniques do not actually work as purported. Secondly, the

main targets were almost exclusively Middle Eastern men. Thirdly, the
procedures damaged US relations with its allies, in a time when America
needed friends. Finally, the CIA deceived both congress and the presidency,
acting in near complete autonomy and unaccountability, trying to avoid being
taken to task for their actions. In closing, it seems a sorry state of affairs for
the Agency, and serves as a reminder that greater checks and balances are
needed when dealing with them, if such actions want to be avoided in future.
Addendum; a More Sceptical Eye
This article has attempted to examine the Senate Intelligence Committees
report on torture, and answer a number of questions that its release poses.
However, as always, there a limitations to providing a definitive answers and
this is due to a number of factors, the first of which becomes clear when one
reads the report. Despite being declassified, it remains heavily censored.
Innocuous information does not see the censor’s pen, and it is likely that the
blacked out text would provide a yet deeper insight into the activities of the
CIA during the War on Terror, and perhaps answer questions to greater effect.
A second factor is the authorship of the report. The Senate Intelligence
committee who authored the report were comprised of democrat senators. It
is quite possible that information was omitted by them, given that they were
the opposition party in the legislature when these procedures where ongoing,
and have again become the opposition party, with the recent federal
elections. The Republicans and CIA officials who state that there are errors
with the report need to be taken seriously, and refusing to hear their opinions
and arguments against this report may well blind us to seeing only one point
of view. The report is a damning indictment of the CIA, but is not, and should
not be the final voice in this long and arduous saga.
N.B. Most of the information from this article has come from the report, which
can be found as a free download on CNN’s website: http://edition.cnn.com/
interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/
Brave New World: The Significance of Cuba at the Summit of the
Americas
In 2013, US President Barack Obama and the Cuban leader, Raul Castro,
shook hands at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in Johannesburg, and it
took the world by surprise. After five decades of separation, it appeared
something new was emerging. Almost a year and a half later Cuba was to
attend the Summit of the Americas. This was the first time it had done so, and
was also the first full meeting of the Cuban and US’ heads of state since the
change of direction by Obama’s administration.
Image Source: http://bit.ly/1PSzce0

The Summit’s overriding theme for this year was “Prosperity with Equity; the
Challenge of Cooperation in the Americas,” which encompassed topics such
as education, health, security, democracy, citizen participation, and others. In
essence, the central objective was that working together was vitally important
for the betterment of the near billion people who live in the region.
The significance of this meeting is profound, as for the first time in decades,
the leaders of two nations who had been enemies for over half a century sat
down at a table together face to face. It is doubly significant when one
considers the history of these two nations. When John F Kennedy signed an
embargo on Cuba, he oversaw the indefinite severing and poisoning of
relations between the newly formed communist nation and the United States.
For instance, American business were banned from trading in Cuba, and
citizens were prohibited from visiting. In addition, numerous Cuban goods
were likewise forbidden from being imported.
Since these restrictions were enacted, relations between the two have been
almost non-existent. Irreconcilable ideological differences between the two
nations kept them at loggerheads for the rest of the Cold War. Cuba for its
part, saw its ally in the Soviet Union, receiving generous funding from
Moscow. This changed when the USSR and the Warsaw pact collapsed in the
1980’s and 1990’s. Cuba was now a fish out of water, its main ally was
effectively non-existent, from being one of over a dozen communist countries,
to one of six, and its economy suffered. It does of course survive today, but
with a monthly wage of about $20, and food ration cards, it is by no means a
wealthy country. These events did little to change American attitudes, and the
administrations of Bush, Clinton, and Bush again reflected this, and until
2013, the same could be said for Obama.
It is therefore understandable why this meeting is regarded as historic, and
why the two countries coming together perhaps attracted more attention than
the other issues at the Summit. Nonetheless, it certainly does not discount
them. On the contrary, the meeting complements them. A case in point is the
objective of security. Having been listed as a sponsor of terrorism by the
United States Government since 1982, Obama made it known that he plans
to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors. As a result of this, Cuba may
well feel more inclined to cooperate when it comes to safeguarding against
threats that affect the region. With the removal of an institutionalised
suspicion, the discomfort that Cuba has likely been feeling for decades will
hopefully begin to ebb away. No longer regarded with open hostility by the
United States, Cuba could possibly feel more comfortable to committing itself
to addressing security concerns in the region, instead of having to contend
with being portrayed as an enemy by its superpower neighbour.
Image Source: http://bit.ly/1doCs2M
In addition to cooperation on the basis of security, another aim of the summit
was to foster economic growth. And likewise, it is again understandable why
Cuba’s presence was so prominent. As noted, the Cuban economy is not in

the best of shape, with low wages and rationing of food, the situation is not
ideal. If their relations with the US continue to improve, however, these days
of impoverishment might be numbered. If the US does eventually lift the
embargo, Cuba will be open for US firms to do business. In turn, this could
well set precedence for the other countries who attended the summit to
likewise seek to do business with Cuba. Whilst their businesses and
populaces are not under the same restrictions that US citizens are, Cuba has
remained defiant in keeping out foreign investment. An influx of American
capital would arguably generate an interest from other states in the region.
In conjunction with the aim of economic growth, a third, and equally important
aim of the summit was the encouragement of democracy and citizen
participation. In contrast with these apparent values, Cuba continues to
pursue one-party communist rule. The same family has led the country since
the fall of the Batista regime, and the government policy towards dissenters
regularly involves incarceration. Moreover, there are numerous committees
where one can inform on their neighbours, a sinister Caribbean style
doppelgänger of East Germany’s Stasi informers. It should also be noted that
the influx of Cuban emigres to Florida escaping Castro’s government is a
good indication that disagreement from the populace does not sit well with
Havana. In light of this, it seems doubtful that Cuba will adopt a democratic
system of elections any time soon. As Karl Vick in a recent Time Article points
out; “Economic reform does not automatically mean political freedom” a
statement that most certainly rings true.
To reiterate, this attitude clashes sharply with the purported ethos of the
summit, which in turn demonstrates why Cuba’s presence is something of
note, and indeed why this is important for the region. Cuba is going against
the grain of all of what has gone before. Having been seen as anathema by
the United States, it is now facing its old foe on more cordial terms. It is
considering adopting economic reforms that only a few decades ago would
have not even crossed their minds. It is also coming to the table to discuss
security, without the stigma of being regarded a terror sponsor, that has
followed it for decades. It is opening itself up, willing to fully join in as a
notable player in the region. Yet it is doing this without the political reform that
normally accompanies a state being welcomed fully into the international
community, such as East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the rest of the
Eastern Bloc. In essence, Cuba’s presence represents an interesting
paradox. Willing to change, but cautious at the same time. This is not
particularly surprising given events of the last 50 plus years, but it does
illustrate that the winds of change are perhaps picking up, and that by
appearing at the summit, it has shown the world that it is willing to
compromise and make itself known, and that even the most bitter of relations
can soften
The Future of the War on Drugs

The war on drugs in the Americas conjures up a broad array of images.
Assassinations, gangs, executions, cartels and battles with the police and
armed forces. The war on drugs also brings home the images of those who
are affected by the drugs themselves; addiction, or those innocents caught in
the crossfire. It is a conflict that is drenched in blood. Then there is the cost to
the governments participating in this war.; In 2010, the US Federal
Government spent $15 billion on it. With a feud that reaches back the Nixon
administration, the total cost from to 1971 to 2012 is estimated to be over $1
trillion. To give some perspective of just how much money this amounts to,
this exorbitant sum, devoted purely to preventing the sale and transport of
drugs would cover New Zealand’s GDP for nearly five and a half years. A
sober statistic by any measure.
Recently, however, A number of governments in both North and South
America, in which this decades long face off plays out, have begun to
perhaps recognise this expensive impasse, and ease back the restrictions on
certain narcotics. Notably cannabis. Perhaps the most widely known
examples are in the U.S. states of Washington and Colorado. In the 2012
elections, the option to legalise purchase of small amounts of the drug for
personal use was on the ballot, and it won. As a result of this victory for anti-
prohibitionists, those over 21 can legally buy it from licensed stores. Two
years on and an almost identical measure was voted for in Alaska. Several
thousand kilometres south of the U.S., and Uruguay has recently passed a
nationwide bill that legalises the sale, growing, and consumption of the
substance.
could this be the start of new era? The nascent emergence of a continent
wide approach to tackling a problem that has so far vexed many successive
governments, taken so many lives, and sapped 100s of billions of dollars on
government spending? Perhaps so. Regarding attitude towards users, the
legalisation of cannabis appears to be part of a growing trend in changing
attitudes towards the drug itself. The aforementioned referendums in the U.S.
and legislative measures in Uruguay do seem to indicate a marked
adjustment in how this issue is approached. The governments of these states
and the country may realise that adults should be allowed freedom of choice
in their lives, the legalisation of cannabis is an extension of this.
On the scale of the drug war, the approach may well have beneficial effects
also, such as undercutting the smugglers, which was in fact the intention of
Uruguay’s government. Remove the ability to make profit by legalising
something that is illegal, and the business no longer becomes worthwhile; as
the cartel’s raison d'être is for all intents and purposes is brushed aside.
Indeed, a study that was published shortly before the measures passed in
Colorado and Washington estimated that the cartels could lose out around
30% of their earnings. (Oregon was also factored into this, but the measure

did not pass). Another study, from RAND corporation in 2010, hypothesised
that legalisation of cannabis in California would effectively obliterate the
cartels profits from its sales. Moreover, the legal sale of the drug would be
subject to much more stringent quality controls, thereby safeguarding from
potential adverse effects of its consumption.
On the surface, it may seem like a new era is approaching when it comes to
drugs, and in some respects this is true. Increasingly, addiction is being seen
as more of an illness rather than a crime, and the addicts as patients rather
than felons. But for all the talk of liberalisation, and changing attitudes, little
actually seems to be changing or indeed will change. The hard drugs like
Cocaine, LSD, Heroin, Methamphetamine remain criminalised, and this is a
situation unlikely to change any time in the near future. Governments may be
tentatively approving measures to ease the penalties and restrictions on a
drug like cannabis, but little to nothing has been said about the
aforementioned hard drugs. Moreover, the current tough measures do not
look like they will be halted. In late winter 2012, Janet Napolitano, former US
Secretary of Homeland security stated that war on drugs was not being lost.
Moreover, others have argued that the drug liberalisation in recent years,
especially in the U.S, will in fact do little to curb the cartels profits. Keegan
Hamilton writing in the Atlantic, argues this very point will hold true unless
more of the border states liberalise their drug laws. However, this seems
unlikely as many of these are controlled by the Republicans, who aren’t
exactly the vanguards of drug liberalisation. Nonetheless, Keegan’s
assessment seems to have been short sighted. US legalisation in Colorado
and Washington appears to be having the effects projected, cartel profits are
being adversely curtailed some instances.
In any case, this does not change the stark reality that the attitude to the war
itself largely remains the same, and probably will do so for many years to
come. For all the softening of restrictions on cannabis, the US continues to
pump multi billion dollar budgets into halting the supply of drugs, most US
states continue to prohibit the drug, most Latin American countries have not
taken the liberal steps of Uruguay, and the other, harder narcotics are unlikely
to pass legislative efforts at decriminalisation in any regional or national
chamber.
Whilst there are minuscule signs of change, the status quo looks likely to
remain just as it is for quite a while. For any real progress to be made, the
attitudes to drugs will have to be much more radical. Cartel profits might
suffer from legalising one of their products, but drugs like cocaine and heroin
will still net them millions of dollars in revenue. Moreover, it cannot be a loose
assembly of American states and South American countries. All nations who
are affected by this war would arguably have to pass similar liberalisation

laws. Naturally, this does present the risk of addicts having easier access to
their fix. However, if this undercuts the cartels, the dollars saved from not
having policing the border could be better spent on treatment, and the drugs
themselves like the RAND report stated, would be subject to more stringent
safety controls.
In closing though, this sort of attitude seems unlikely. Government attitude to
drugs remains stubbornly puritanical. With the attitudes and money pointing in
much the same direction as they have done for the past forty years.
The Iran Deal, A triumph for multilateralism
On July 14th, The United States, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, France,
China, and Iran, came to an agreement on the latter’s nuclear programme,
summarised neatly as follows;
“The full implementation of this JCPOA will ensure the exclusively peaceful
nature of Iran's nuclear programme.” and “Iran reaffirms that under no
circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”
After six and half years in office, the Obama administration has scored what
is frankly an excellent achievement in a foreign policy that has arguably made
little ground in regards to Middle East affairs. With hard power being the
administration’s modus operandi when executing its regional agenda; be it air
strikes in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, or the use of UAVs in Pakistan to
target, an agreement forged by dialogue and negotiation makes a refreshing
change. Furthermore, the fact that such an accord has been reached at all is
impressive in itself. A mere three years ago, the possibility of war with Iran
was not in the realm of fantasy.
Indeed, when one considers what the consequences of this would be, this
achievement is extraordinary. A third Middle East conflict with a large scale
deployment of US forces would be disastrous, in both manpower and
financially. Recent estimates put the cost of both engagements in Iraq and
Afghanistan at around $6 Trillion. The number of American lives lost in the
two wars numbers in the thousands. Therefore, by avoiding the use of force
to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, thousands more lives, and billions
more dollars will be spared. In addition, a peaceful solution lowers the risk of
yet more destabilization in a region already fractured at least in part by
previous intervention. A fresh batch of violent and fanatical enemies who
might emerge in the aftermath is something the US would be keen to avoid.
The same could be said for the other negotiators, for this was not a deal
struck by the US alone.

The other four permanent members on the UN Security Council, plus
Germany, have likewise put significant effort into ensuring that Iran could not
get a nuclear weapon. This in itself is no mean feat either. China, Russia, and
the United States especially are not usually known for seeing eye to eye
when it comes to international affairs and when the stakes are so high,
regularly using their power of veto to neuter resolutions that are not amenable
to their interests. Just last year, China and Russia vetoed a resolution that
would have referred Syria to the ICC. By the same token, the US in 2011
used its power of veto regarding a resolution over the ‘Palestinian Question’.
These are just two examples, and there a countless other instances.
Nonetheless, it highlights just how divided the powers can be, and as a result
makes this agreement is deeply significant. Not only does it show that even
with US and Russia enduring notoriously poor relations, the two can work
together, but that the US can in general achieve its foreign policy goals
without having to always follow the domineering approach that it has
employed in the past. Another added bonus is that this accord might herald a
thaw in the mutual enmity between the two powers. Thirdly, and just as
important, it shows that Iran can be reasoned with. A country crippled by
punitive UN sanctions, and an avowed enemy of the US since the fall of the
Shah in 1979. If peaceful means can bring mortal foes to the bargaining table,
then it could well be applied to other scenarios in future.
Unfortunately, however, there are a few drawbacks. Perhaps the most notable
is that its approval in congress appears an insurmountable task for President
Obama to achieve. After all, his party’s legislative agenda has been severely
impaired following its loss of The Senate last year. With no majority in either
chamber in congress, the republicans need only to persuade a handful of
democrats to oppose the deal, and months of negotiations could be rendered
meaningless.
A second problem comes in the form of Iran itself. Whilst a deal has been
struck, the fact remains that in all other areas, Iran still takes the traditional
hardline approach that the US is an enemy. In a speech on the 18th of July,
the supreme Ayatollah stated Iran would never cease to oppose the US.
However the nuclear deal was not itself attacked. A general attitude that
makes it abundantly clear that any other significant rapprochement between
the two is a long way off.
Despite these limitations, the deal should be seen as a case study in how
international cooperation can indeed bear fruit, and how enemies, and rivals,
despite their immense differences, can agree on matters of international
importance.

Apartheid Israel? A comparison with the South African experience.
A notable criticism of Israel today is that is perpetrating a system of apartheid
analogous to what was imposed against non-white South Africans in the mid
to late twentieth century. But is this view correct? Make no mistake, the recent
actions of Israel against the Palestinians have been shocking and appalling in
equal measure, and the excessive use of force is to be condemned. However
accusations of Apartheid, like the quote below, do not hold
“it would seem that the Israeli government and its military are still perusing
the statement of David Ben Gourian, stealing land, colonization, murdering
innocent civilians, terrorizing a population and denying them their liberty and
land rights. It is truly an apartheid state”
The statement rightly identifies Israel’s aggressive forum policy, and that it is
guilty of horrendous human rights violations. The perpetual media coverage
of the most recent spat between Hamas and Israel is good evidence as any
of this. However, this in itself does not necessarily constitute what one would
call apartheid. Indeed, it is profoundly ignorant in its usage of the word. For it
shows that the author likely knows little of what happened in South Africa, and
seems instead intent on using the term to provoke, rather than paint an
accurate picture of the situation at hand. To balance this out, and give a more
appropriate context, a brief overview of the South African experience must be
laid out.
In 1948, the National Party came to power in South Africa. Over the next few
years, it gradually cemented its position of power and sought to remove any
notion of black participation in society. Its rule would come to an end in 1994,
when Nelson Mandela was elected president in the first free elections. During
the vast majority of this period, non white people were effectively regarded as
sub human, similar to the treatment of the jews in Nazi Germany. This isn’t
entirely unsurprising, as many of the main architects of apartheid were Nazi
sympathisers.
Under this system, non-whites were disenfranchised, could not run for office,
could not eat in white restaurants, use toilets, train carriages, buses,
platforms that were reserved for whites, and they could not use the same
hospitals either. Moreover, interracial marriage was expressly forbidden, and
blacks were essentially treated as slaves when it came to labour. A prime
example of this is black miners. Those men who worked in the treacherous
conditions were housed in overcrowded accommodation, and were barred
from seeing their families until their contracts expired. All this was happening
inside their own country, orchestrated by those who were governing them.

Now in 2014, we are presented with the Israeli-Palestine situation. However,
it is not apartheid. As noted previously, one of the fundamental facets of the
National Party’s policy was to keep whites and blacks separate from one
another in all possible aspects. The word ‘apartheid’ itself is Afrikaans; it quite
literally means ‘apart-hood’. In spite of a wall separating the Palestinian
Territories from Israel does not prevent both groups from interacting. Israelis
and Palestinians are not forbidden from marring each other for instance.
Whilst the linked article above demonstrates opposition by racist Israeli
citizens, and disturbingly, the court allowing the protests, Israeli police
protected the couple from demonstrators, and the couple’s marriage was not
stopped despite the bigots attempts to do so. There clearly exists prejudice,
but in this case, it is not like South Africa.
Moreover, the myth of separation along such racial lines is further refuted by
the fact that Palestinians and Israelis can be treated in the same hospitals
without repercussions or laws preventing such eventualities. As discussed,
non-whites, forbidden from being treated in the white healthcare system,
received inferior treatment in the era of white dominance, and it was only in
the 1980s that these restrictions were lifted. Seeing as the same cannot be
said with regards to Israel, the short sighted comparison of Palestinian
maltreatment to South Africa’s situation is simply in this case, wrong again.
Of course, these examples alone would not be enough to show the erroneous
use of the apartheid analogy. As mentioned previously, a second fundamental
tenet of the National Party’s framework was the prevention of non-whites from
participating in politics, or having any kind of right to vote in free elections
whatsoever. Contrary to this as pointed out in the NY Times:
“Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political
parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim,
including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in
Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.”
However, these are the circumstances within Israel’s border. What about the
situation for the Palestinians? Are they prevented from having a say in the
politics of their homeland? The answer is a resounding no. Palestinian
citizens are granted suffrage, able to vote in elections for people to represent
them in government. The same applies to citizens residing in the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. They too can cast their ballot in elections. This was not
the case in South Africa. At all.
It seems prudent therefore to reiterate that charging Israel with the crime of
apartheid is a fallacy. The most elementary aspects of the framework;
prevention of race mixing, and disenfranchisement are not applicable.

However, the article outlined in the beginning argues that Israel’s less than
magnanimous human rights record is the rationale for laying down such
judgement on the Jewish State. So we need to unpack this too.
During apartheid, South Africa’s armed organs of power were explicit in many
crimes against the black population. The massacre at Sharpeville in 1960, the
Soweto Uprising in 1976 are testament to the ruthlessness of dealing with
dissent. Moreover. in the 1980s, the South African Defence Force conducted
violent raids in the townships, arresting numbers of those residing there. The
Israeli military has be known to conduct similar raids into Gaza and the West
Bank. Detaining people with little or no legal justification. Furthermore, the
operations conducted over the summer of this year have killed hundreds if not
thousands of civilians. It is perhaps understandable from this perspective why
parallels are drawn.
But it is not enough to conclude that it is apartheid, as the poor treatment of
civilians is not isolated to these two cases. A cursory glance at human history
will indicate this. Whether it is Stalin’s purges or Pol Pot’s Killing Fields,
Saddam’s gassing of the Saudis and Kurds or dropping Agent Orange in
Vietnam. Innocents always suffer. The civilians who live in Palestine are
obviously suffering greatly. Caught up in the crossfire between the terrorist
organisation of Hamas, and the IDF, they bear the brunt of Israel’s ferocious
retaliation to rocket fire. They too endure arbitrary detention by the Israeli
armed forces. But it must be stated again that this does not constitute
apartheid. It certainly demonstrates that Israel must own up to its violent and
sometimes inhumane actions towards innocents. But the crucial aspects that
National Party in South Africa inflicted on an entire people for almost half a
century; banning of race mixing, use of facilities and disenfranchisement, are
simply absent here.
Other reading
Thompson, L. (2014) A History of South Africa, New Haven, CN: Yale
University Press
North Korea; business as usual.
North Korea is perhaps one of the most fascinating countries in the world.
Whilst almost every sovereign state has to some degree embraced the
progress of 21st century, the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea), by its own volition, has isolated itself from the rest. It remains trapped
in a bizarre time warp, with military marches and parades from an era that
has now passed into the annals of history. Its government propaganda, mass
surveillance operations, and imagined perpetual conflict conjures up images

of Orwell’s 1984. Whilst this sounds rather amusing from a superficial glance,
North Korea’s continued flouting of international rules and norms is a
perennial irritation to the regional powers, and the United States.
The most recent example of this is the imprisoning of three American citizens
for alleged crimes. This is of course by no means the only infraction the
regime has committed. In 2010, it sank a South Korean Corvette, killing
dozens on board. Later that year, it fired barrages of artillery at a South
Korean island, taking the lives of two civilians and two soldiers of the South’s
Armed forces. In 2009, it kidnapped two American journalists. Former
President Bill Clinton was sent to help negotiate their release, which was
successful, during an August trip, the two reporters were set free.
These instances garnered the attention of the international community, and
this, it seems, is no different. An article by CNN last month hypothesised that
the three men would be used as ‘bargaining chips’ to have the U.N. Sanctions
that were imposed, lifted. This type of bartering is not a unique instance. In
the past, it has used the threat of its nuclear weapons programme to illicit
food aid; In exchange for supplies, it would freeze its atomic ambitions. After
all, its isolation has left millions of its people starving and they cannot go
forever without food.
Fast-forward back to the present, and the United States must once again
confront the North Korean’s provocative behaviour. However, U.S. attention, if
one judges by news reports has been rather tempered. A google search of
‘Barack Obama’ and ‘detained Americans’ in the news tab, demonstrates this.
The current news at the time of writing appears to be focused almost solely
on the current Middle East crisis, and the fluctuating situation in Hong Kong.
Does this mean though that the US has abandoned its citizens to their fate?
No. On a recent trip to Asia, Glyn Davis, special representative for North
Korea policy, was spurned by North Korea on the topic of the American
prisoners. Perhaps then, this is an indicator that the regime will not use the
detained men to barter for resources or negotiations? However this seems
unlikely given past crises and other related situations.
North Korean behaviour has always been rather volatile, often hyperbolic,
and bizarre. They are also a very proud people, and demonstrated by their
obstinance, want to do things their own way. They desire to come to the
negotiations on their own terms. It is in essence a form of political
oneupmanship. It also likely facilitates their propaganda efforts, that they are
able to bend their mortal enemy, the Americans, to their whims. Therefore, it
is likely that they will end up using the prisoners to their benefit, it is just a
question of when rather than if.

Another question that might arise from this the ethics of using prisoners to get
what they want. Whilst this might appear to be a matter of a simple yes or no
answer, it is in fact far more complicated than a cursory black and white
response. From the perspective of yes, the following arguments can be
made. Firstly, North Korea’s isolation leaves it with few options; its economy
is stagnated, the UN enacted stringent sanctions that are further crippling it.
Secondly, as a sovereign state, it is acting in accordance with its national
laws. The US citizens have purportedly broken them, and are being dealt with
accordingly by the North Korean legal parameters. Another argument could
well come in the form of the criticism of the United States. The Americans
during the War on Terror, and in the past have used detainees to bargain, so
therefore, the North Korean’s are allowed to do it. I must stress that this is a
very weak argument, two wrongs do not make a right as the old saying goes.
Opposing this, the arguments that it is not ethical for the North to use the
detainees are also relevant; North Korea has detained these people on scant
evidence, for actions that for the most part, are at worst, misdemeanours
elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, it is possible that using prisoners as
bargaining chips violates international law. Finally, there is the reasoning from
another perspective. Human Beings are living creatures, they are, according
the the UN Declaration of Human Rights, born with inalienable rights. Life,
freedom of speech, belief etc. They are not commodities to be bartered with
and traded. They have hopes, dreams, loves, and fears. Treating them like
pawns for a political gain, pieces of meat justified for the end result, is a
violation of these universal principles we are all supposedly born into.
Unfortunately, the North clearly doesn’t see this, and they don’t care either.
Nonetheless, from a purely practical standpoint, it seems doubtful that this will
gain them the affections of its opponents. However, it will again force the
United States to face the North Korean leadership. In essence, it is par for the
course again on the Korean peninsula. All in all, it is quite likely that in the
next few months we will witness the North Koreans negotiate with US officials
or distinguished statesmen for the release of the men. They will of course
want something in return as is the norm in these kinds of negotiations. The
ethics behind this are a matter of debate, but regardless of valid ethical points
raised, the DPRK will not be assuaged from using people for personal gain.
North Korea, the regime in the balance.
A few weeks ago, reports emerged that North Korea had publicly executed
around 80 people. Their crime; watching South Korean film and television
shows. In a nation where such executions are not unknown, and punishments
for minor infractions are severe, this appears at first glance to come as little
surprise. However, the ferocity of the punishment for what the vast majority of
us would not even deem a crime is particularly indicative of the mentality of

the North Korean regime. It evidently is terrified of what the consequences
are if its populace is exposed to external influence.
To put this into context, it must be stated what it is like to be born and live in
North Korea. From the moment a person arrives into the world, they are
insidiously indoctrinated into believing in the immutable supremacy of the
state, that the ‘dear leader’ is a godlike figure, countries on outside are a
negative force. and that unswerving allegiance is required. Up until recently,
finding out what was going on in the outside world was next to impossible,
and the people readily accepted what the government propaganda spewed
out, unaware of the what was going on beyond their borders. It is a situation
that the late Christopher Hitchens, amongst others, compared to Orwell’s
1984. Coupled with this, those that did and do raise a dissenting voice are
punished, along with their families who are often completely innocent, in a
most severe manner. Often this will mean being sent to a concentration,
labour, or re-education camp. It is a system that is at its very heart, one of
oppression and absolute control.
These bits of information that are slowly finding their way into the countries,
undermine the stranglehold on the populace. As the report just linked
indicates, the distribution of South Korean television programs sparks a
change in the minds of the North Korean citizens, who have since birth, been
subjected to brainwashing endeavours of the Kim family’s regime. It is
therefore understandable why the government has cracked down, and will
likely continue to do so in this way. Having built up this system of control for
decades where the population is extremely docile and conforms to the party
line. The influx of information that does not fit into their strictly determined
ideology will be of deep concern to the regime.
Indeed, this precise fear was explicitly discussed in a recent broadcast of
Dispatches; moreover, the fact that around 1 in 2 people in North Korea have
seen a foreign film or television show (if this statement is to be believed) will
not make it any easier for the regime to tighten or continue to hold its iron
clad grip on its denizens. Again, as the programme notes, this appears to be
happening, people are beginning to defy or confront the authorities. Whilst
these are just a few instances that have been recorded, it nonetheless
illustrates that there is a very tangible spark of resistance emerging in the
population. Couple this with the ever increasing number of people gaining
access to foreign media, it is not a stretch of the imagination to state that
many peoples’ minds are slowly being opened, and that their feelings toward
the North Korean government will be less than favourable. And in fact, a
Rand Corporation study, published in early September of this year, confirms
much of this, expressing that “There is mounting evidence that Kim Jong-Il is
losing the propaganda war with...grass roots cynicism undercutting state
myths and discontent rising, even among elites” Now, it must be noted that

Kim Jong-Il is of course not the current leader, his son took the reins of power
two years ago. But it clearly shows that dissatisfaction has been brewing for
quite a number of years. Moreover, a survey published in the aforementioned
Rand study showed an increasing disillusionment with the regime, and that
the government propaganda was being undermined.
It does therefore appear that the North Korea regime is perhaps a slowly
sinking ship. With the population becoming aware of the outside world,
antagonism mounting, and questioning the ideology of the government, there
appears little that the regime can actually do. As so many of its people have
heard information contrary to what they have been served for decades, and
the supply of foreign media being constant, it is almost as if an incurable
pandemic has swept the population. But can the state weather this? One of
the central thesis of the Rand study that I have referred to was that the
collapse was possible within the near future, with the influx of external
influence being one factor amongst others in this possible eventuality.
Conversely, it has been argued that the regime is not on the verge of ceasing
to exist; an article for the UCLA International institute, postulated that it fact
could endure for a while longer, having survived the collapse of the Soviet
Empire and its Warsaw Pact allies, it continues to exist as a political entity on
the contemporary world. The reason for this being was said to be down to the
North Korean ideology that was and is different from the other communist
states. In similar fashion, The Atlantic, is also skeptical of the proposed near
future collapse, recalling that the same sentiments were espoused throughout
the 1990s in the wake of famine and the previously discussed collapse of
communism. So in spite of the current situation, history shows that there is a
distinct possibility that the regime may well maintain its domination of the
people.
However, this is arguably not entirely convincing. The situation, I believe, is
different. Firstly, the access to cheap technology was not feasible in the early
1990s. The laptops, USB flash drives, and DVD players were in their infancy,
often being bulky, heavy and designed for office work. Now with this
technology being incredibly cheap, distribution is arguably of considerable
ease in relation to that of almost two decades ago as is sharing it. Secondly, a
huge portion of the population has seen this information, it is highly unlikely
that the populace had discovered this much about the outside world when the
same predictions were made back then. And finally, the spread of dissent
towards the government is perhaps another indicator that the situation is
markedly different this time. Nonetheless, the extinction of the regime is not
something that I would see happening instantly. It will take a bit of time for
information to disseminate around the populace. But that the regime will last
for another 20 years is hard to believe, the current state of affairs appear to

be much different from that of previous decades. But of course, anything is
possible
Iraq, Isis, and the war on terror: why we must face threats head on.
In 2004, the BBC released filmmaker Adam Curtis’s documentary, The Power
of Nightmares. In its three episodes, he carefully and convincingly made the
case for the threat of international terrorism being greatly exaggerated;
“much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted
by politicians. It’s a dark illusion, that has spread unquestionably, through
governments around the world, the security services, and the international
media”
In the light of recent events in Iraq, however, this conclusion is quite simply
dated. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has made advances, taking
key locations in the country. They also threaten the very existence of the Iraqi
government; in July, they were pushing towards the capital Baghdad. More
alarmingly, they have threatened the christian minority group, the Yazidi, who
have fled northwards, with death, if they do not convert to ISIS’ virulent
branch of Islam.
These are not empty threats. The recent murder of James Foley, alongside
the varied and numerous atrocities they have perpetrated brutally
encapsulates the violent and depraved nature of ISIS, and what the lengths
that they are prepared to go to to promote their poisonous message of hatred.
In addition, they have threatened to attack US citizens at any opportunity, the
danger they pose is quite obvious. Some observers have argued that
intervention should not go ahead, or that it will not prevent harm from coming
to the Iraqi people. However, for the reasons I am about to discuss, I will
show that this view is simply wrong, and that an airborne involvement is a
necessity.
The first justification is humanitarian grounds. We pride ourselves as western
democracies on our advocation of individual freedom of political and religious
beliefs, and how we are free to live our lives as we wish. ISIS’ repugnant
philosophy offers no such promise at all. Instead, they threaten to kill those
who do not wish to follow their ideology, they willing murder innocent civilians,
and are on the verge of committing acts of genocide. That we are standing by
as these atrocities continue, yet at home we champion our love of freedom
ranks of hypocrisy.
Double standards aside, on a purely human level, the band of savage
criminals that comprise ISIS violate the very fabric of our humanity. The vast

majority of the Earth’s population understand that such despicable actions are
unacceptable, and are alien to how we live our lives. Practically all sovereign
states of the world have laws that outlaw murder, torture, assault, and rape,
and we rightfully met out punishments as response to these crimes. So why
do we not extend it to here. All of the destructive actions ISIS are responsible
for, would merit incarceration in most criminal justice systems. The west has
the power to step in and stop their murderous advances. If we value justice,
humanity, and the lives of innocents, then we have no choice but to become
involved in this conflict.
In conjunction with protecting innocent people, the confrontation of ISIS is not
just to put a halt to their slaughter, but for our state security as well. The
Middle East is a region of conflict and instability, admittedly caused in part by
our actions over a decade ago. We see this in not just Iraq, but in the Arab
states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen, to name a few. In each and every
case, these states respective governments vye against insurgencies that
threaten to overthrow them, many of whom are affiliated with al-Qaeda or
some other fundamentalist group. In equal measure, the western allies, most
notably the United States, and the United Kingdom have invested billions of
pounds and dollars into stopping these insurgent groups. Be it through large
scale deployment, the use of UAVs, or simply providing monetary aid to the
governments afflicted by terrorists.
So, we understand the potential dangers that would befall us if our regional
allies were abandoned. al-Qaeda has already attempted attacks on western
targets, who originated from these troubled areas; the perpetrators of the 7/7
bombings in London were trained in Pakistan, and the man behind the
attempted Detroit bombing originated from a Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda. The
same can be extended to the ongoing situation in Iraq. As noted previously,
one of ISIS’ leaders has voiced a desire to attack the United States.
Therefore, there is no reason that they will not conspire to launch attacks
against western targets if their expansion is left unchecked. If we want to
contribute to greater regional stability, and our own security, then an
intervention that utterly destroys or permanently cripples ISIS, is needed.
The final justification for some form of involvement is more of an opportunity
than a necessity. Simply put, it is not a requirement for our security, but not
taking advantage of this chance would be misguided to say the least. The
opportunity in question is the mending of relations between Iran and Russia,
as both have interests in preventing ISIS from gaining control of Iraq. Iran is
currently providing aid to the Iraqi government, as is Russia. That they are
doing so demonstrates a commonality between the west and themselves, and
Russia-NATO and Iran-NATO relations are not what one could describe as
warm.

UN sanctions, championed by the US, and supported by the UK, in reaction
to Iran’s nuclear programme has crippled their economy. The ongoing crisis in
Ukraine has put the Russian Federation at odds with NATO, and the recent
downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane only poisoned relations further,
despite the Russian military not being responsible. However, islamic terrorism
is a threat the Russians are acutely aware of, hence why they too are
involving themselves in the current crisis.
This conflict provides the chance to mend these relations. The West, along
with Russia and Iran share a common enemy. ISIS. We all want to see the
current Iraqi government remain in place, and we all see the threat posed by
militant groups. The coming together of these three parties could spark a
change in relations, not just for the short term, but for the long haul. The
current concerns the US has with Iran are by no means finished, and Russia,
as part of the BRIC nations will not sink into obsolescence any time soon. If
relations are repaired between the west and these two states, then it could
pay dividends in the future. Both for the previously mentioned concerns of
security and stability, and perhaps for economic reasons too.
Overall, whether Britain will commit its air power to the conflict is not yet
decided. But the fact remains that ISIS is a severe danger to our security,
regional stability, and to the lives of countless thousands of innocents who it
has plans to target. Not confronting them would be foolhardy, and would
render our proud proclamations of love for freedom and democracy as simply
lies we tell ourselves to help us sleep at night, rather than tenets we believe
should apply to all people, of all creeds and colours.
US Mid-Term Elections 2014: A Republican Takeover?
This autumn, millions of Americans will descend upon polling stations to elect
their federal representers in the Houses of Congress. The senate will see one
third of its members vie to keep their seat, facing a challenger with an equally
hungry fervor. In the House of Representatives, all 435 members must
contend with the voting public. At the same time, they face what appears to
be a perpetually partisan and intractable legislature, with an approval rating
hanging dangerously close to single digits. So what could the results of the
midterms be, with a distrust and distain clearly focused on both the major
parties?
For the Republicans, they are still smarting from their loss in 2012, what could
have been theirs to win, with a shaky economy and rising debt. Unfortunately,
a number of key factors compromised their elections chances, factors that
continue to be of detriment to them. A recent article in The Washington Post
provided an excellent reminder of this; the claims of voter fraud, and
accusations of certain population groups as moochers makes all contribute to

a poison their image. Their characterisation as being a group of old white
men isn’t a great selling point either, nor is the homophobic elements within
their ranks. That the US population is becoming increasingly socially liberal
will not serve to help their cause either.
Besides their old fashioned image. The mainstream Republicans also have
the Tea Party to contend with. This grassroots movement, born in 2009
shortly after Obama’s inauguration as president, formed as a response to
what it perceived as excessive taxation, government intervention, and lax
attitudes to boarder security. The Tea Party represents a danger to the unity
of the Republican Party, something that an MSNBC report discussed very
recently; where it discussed how the establishment GOP and members of the
Tea Party are at perpetual loggerheads with each other. It doesn’t help either
that this particular element often shares an unfortunate symbiosis with the
aforementioned image problem Comments by two of their sponsored
contenders, Todd Akin and Richard Murdock , are a key case in point.
However, the Republican’s problems are not quite as beneficial to the
Democrats as one would suppose. Whilst they are not burdened by disunity
like their counterparts on the other side of the isle, they too have problems,
although theirs are perhaps more external than internal. The most notable is
their poll numbers. In the immediate aftermath of the government shutdown
last October, the Democrats were polling well above the Republicans, and the
latter was forced to bear the brunt of the blame for what happened. Since the
disastrous rollout of the PPACA, more widely known as Obamacare, they
have had to witness their fortunes reverse. However, a recent aggregation of
polls has put Democrats ahead by two points in a “generic congressional
vote”, which a first glance appears promising.
However, that does not mean they will win the House or retain The Senate.
Overall popular vote doesn’t necessarily dictate who the victor of an election
is. The 2000 General Election between George Bush and Al Gore is a prime
example of this, as is the 2012 Congressional Elections, where the
Democrats actually received more votes, yet were unable to win the House of
Representatives. The put it bluntly, their mere two point advantage will be of
little help to them. To get an idea of what the prospect are for both parties, we
need to examine some of the individual races and what the projections are for
both chambers.
The house of representatives looks to be a foregone conclusion in the favour
of the Republicans. Having retaken it in 2010, they have maintained their hold
for the past four years. Throughout this period, they have been a thorn in the
side of the Obama Administration’s agenda. This has included 54 attempts to
repeal Obamacare as of March 2014, a bill to block his authority regarding
immigration, and a bill to block proposed rules to limit carbon emissions. If the

Democrats want to prevent these actions, then they need a miracle. Current
estimates show that the Republicans essentially have 215 seats that are
either guaranteed or likely GOP, a mere 3 seats from a majority. The
Democrats, conversely, have 178 seats, nowhere near what they would need
to take the house back. So even if they hold control of the Senate, the status
quo of the legislature will almost certainly remain. Which brings us to the next
point.
Currently, the Democrats hold 53 seats, and they caucus with two
independents for the purposes of voting. The Republicans hold 45 seats. The
current estimates for the Senate are more forgiving to the Democrats than the
House. However, this isn’t saying much. Polling by Real Clear Politics is
currently predicting that disregarding the toss-up seats to be decided, the
Republicans are one seat ahead with 46 that will either be safe, likely win, or
not up for election. When the seats that could go either way are counted,
Republicans lead in six races out of nine according to most recent data. If the
results pan out as they appear now, the Republicans will seize control of the
senate with a slim majority of 4 seats.
This will of course mean that they have full control of the legislature, leaving
the President rather isolated, and his ability to preside over the passing of
legislation amenable to his ideas, curtailed. This probably won’t mean much
of a change for him in that regard. Politics has pretty much ground to a halt in
that regard anyway. However, a Republican hold on both houses will make it
considerably easier to pursue their legislative agenda. The Senate therefore
is a safeguard against potential laws that Obama finds disagreement with.
With that barrier gone, and it looks like it will by current estimates, this is a
reality is will probably have to face.
It will also be a blow to Obama personally. His presidency, whilst not as awful
as many on the far right make out, has not been stellar, although that is not
entirely his fault. Nonetheless, his party losing the Senate and more seats on
the house will be a great disappointment, especially as it is his last election
cycle as President. The man who came to office on an enormous national
and international high, taking massive majorities in Congress faces ending his
tenure with an approval rating that will likely be lower than it is now, and his
party a minority in the legislature.
Whilst there cannot be certainty as to the results just yet, it does appear that
the Democrats are very much at a disadvantage. The polls overall may well
favour them, barely. But the individual campaigns, point to a Republican
takeover. Whatever happens, it will show that their remains a sharp divide
between both sides of the political spectrum, something unlikely to change
any time soon.

2016 - Economic Policies.
With the Democratic and Republican parties having over 20 candidates in the
primaries between them, the contenders will be bringing a plethora of
economic strategies to the table. However, much like the presidential
hopefuls themselves, only a handful of the plans have a good chance of
being implemented. For this reason, I have decided to focus on the economic
policies of the top three Republican candidates; Donald Trump, Jeb Bush,
and Scott Walker, and the two top Democrats; Hilary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders
Donald Trump (R) - Celebrity Businessman
Best known for his role in the US version of The Apprentice, A major policy
proposal is to enact enormous trade tariffs on goods imported from Mexico
and China. His second most notable proposition is to repeal the President
Obama’s healthcare bill. Mr Trump regards the law as disastrous. However,
he seems to view healthcare as a fundamental right, rather than a service
that a privileged few can afford; in a July interview he stated “You can't let the
people in this country, the people without the money and resources, to go
without health care”. A marked difference from most Republicans, who favour
healthcare provision devoid of governmental oversight. The multitude of
attempts to repeal Obamacare is good indicator of this.A third policy is tax
cuts, with the aim to halt corporate income tax, and estate tax, and a
reduction on capital gains and personal income tax. Mr Trump wishes to
lower the latter from the top rate of 40% to 15%.
Why should this policy be implemented?
Trumps views on healthcare are surprising, tax cuts and trade tariff not
withstanding, a genuine, comprehensive, universal healthcare policy would
likely benefit millions, and bring the US into the fold of the remainder of the
industrialised world.
Why not?
Trump’s tariff measures, are likely to poison Sino-American and Mexican
American relations, he also risks, “A major trade war that would likely hurt
American Jobs and Exports.” The very thing Mr Trump is trying to protect. His
substantial tax reductions will likely burgeon the already colossal national
debt. Furthermore, the healthcare measures for those unable to pay will need
to be appropriately costed.
Jeb Bush (R) - Former governor of Florida

Mr Bush presided over significant economic growth during his tenure,
witnessing significant increases in the tourism and housing industry, and a
GDP rise of 4.4% on average whilst in office. If elected, he would aim for 4%,
looking for a 19 million increase in jobs. Regarding healthcare, Mr Bush takes
a very similar approach to Mr Trump. In March of this year, he referred to
Obamacare as a “monstrosity.” It is his aim to see it eventually replaced by a
Republican alternative. What this alternative is remains to be seen.
Nonetheless, much like Mr Trump, Mr Bush sees a role for the government in
helping people out; “catastrophic” illness or injury, when an individual might
accrue high costs, would be covered by state of federal government funds.
On the subject of taxes, Mr Bush has remained ambiguous. As governor of
Florida, he clearly favoured the trickle-down economic approach, cutting
taxes on the wealthy, linking it to the siginifcant growth Florida experienced
on his watch. Running for the president may well have sparked a change. He
has not eliminated the possibility of raising taxes on wealthier citizens, a
departure from many others in the republican field. His tax plans will hopefully
become clearer in the coming weeks, and with the forthcoming debate
roughly a month away, he will have plenty of time to formulate a clearer policy
proposal.
Mr Bush’s healthcare proposal is not universal. However, his aim to support
those with federal money who suffer catastrophic illness or injury is admirable
and a step in the right direction. Rather than simply jabbing at the president,
he does at least have some sort of replacement, in spite of its foundational
nature.
Why not?
His economic record is not as watertight as he makes out. Shortly after
leaving office as Governor, Florida’s economy suffered the effects of
recession. Furthermore, the tax cuts were widely perceived to benefit the
wealthy, and many home buyers who benefited from large loans were
subsequently unable to pay them back. That said, him bearing the brunt of
responsibility for the crash or boom is a matter of debate. But it does imply
that Mr Bush could well implement policies that predominately favour wealthy
citizens. And if the cuts during his time as governor did contribute the crash,
applying them on a national scale might have a similar effect.
Scott Walker (R) - Incumbent governor of Wisconsin,

The policies
Mr Walker likewise follows the traditional Republican line, viewing tax cuts as
being fundamental to economic growth, having overseen a reduction in tax
predominately directed at those earning between $15,000-$50,000. Wether
he will apply this on a national level remains to be seen. Like Mr Bush, Mr
Walker has yet to provide comprehensive details on his federal taxation
plans, though it is believed he will argue for wide ranging tax cuts. It seems
likely though that we will provide greater clarity as the debates and primaries
draw nearer. His views on healthcare, however, are much less ambiguous. It
should come as no surprise that he, like his fellow Republicans, views
Obamacare with considerable distain, pledging to repeal it immediately upon
entering office. The replacement will be to give states more power in the
matter; namely to operate Medicare provisions, to link tax refundable credits
to a persons age rather than income, and to have discretionary power over
under 26 year olds remaining on parental healthcare plans.
Tax cuts on the Middle Classes will mean they have more money to spend.
And if they do indeed spend it, this helps to foster economic growth, as has
been demonstrated in the past few decades. Applied to a national level, this
could likewise assist in economic growth, and would endear Mr Walker to
those with a more moderate income.
Why not?
Mr Walker has cut hundreds of millions of dollars from public education funds,
from Kindergarten to university level, which will deprive already struggling
schools. The measures have also seen fit to remove much standardised
testing. It does not take much to realise that well educated people generally
have a greater likelihood of prospering in life and contributing to society and
the economy. This approach as president could blight the future of millions of
people, hardly what is needed for economic growth. His healthcare policy is
also cause for concern. Mr Walker’s plan to repeal Obamacare would be an
extremely brash move. The President’s signature bill has seemingly resulted
in record low uninsured rates, and with nothing significant proposed to
replace it, repeal will deprive millions of health coverage without offering any
kind of remedy.
Hilary Clinton (D) - Former New York Senator and Secretary of State
The Policies

Mrs Clinton’s approach to tax is in some respects, the opposite of what the
Republican candidates propose to do. In contrast to Mr Trump’s proposal to
reduce capital gains tax, Mrs Clinton seeks to impose a hefty increase on
assets that are under six years old. The drive behind this is to encourage
investment. She also plans to cut taxes on small businesses and the class,
and increase the minimum wage. On healthcare, the only thing that can be
gleaned is her tacit support of Obamacare, and that she plans to strengthen
it, and reduce healthcare costs overall. In contrast to Mr Walker’s attitude,
Mrs Clinton plans to increase funding in education and ensure that higher
education is more affordable, and that job training is more accessible.
The improvement of education prospects would greatly benefit those who are
not as well off, and so long as it is implemented well, would provide and
output of millions of well educated and trained individuals. Mrs Clinton rightly
sees value in having an educated populace. Something other nations have
benefitted from, especially in Asia, where education is highly prized. The pay
off from this plan would likely not emerge for some time, but it represents a
distinct foresight by Mrs Clinton. Her aim to improve the health of the nation
through reducing healthcare costs would work in tandem with better
education. A healthy population can only be a good thing, combined with
good schooling is not going to be of detriment to the nation.
Why not?
Whilst her website lists numerous proposals, of which a few have been
discussed here. They appear to be little more than bullet points on a
slideshow, and there is no indication so far as to whether these policies will
be affordable, with no statistics or any economic reports to support her cause.
To put it bluntly, it looks as though she has cobbled together popular ideas to
appeal to a broad range of people in order to get elected.
Bernie Sanders (D) Independent Vermont Senator
Mr Sanders presents himself as significantly to the left of the American
political mainstream, and is a self-described socialist, with economic policies
that are more mainstream in contemporary Europe, particularly Scandinavia.
He plans to enact extensive tax reform, with a central ethos of targeting large
corporations who do not pay income tax on profits, and horde large sums of
money offshore in order to avoid said tax. In line with making large earners
contribute more, he hopes too to raise the minimum wage from the current
$7.25 per hour, regarding it as a “starvation wage.” He also takes a similar
stance with Mrs Clinton by aiming to make education affordable on all levels.

His most radical proposal though, pertains to healthcare. Not content with
simply expanding Obamacare as Mrs Clinton has pledged, Mr Sanders would
like to see the implementation of universal healthcare, considered a right in
the rest of the industrialised world.
Mr Sanders proposals are at their core, populist and they are policies that are
the antithesis of the Republican platforms. But they are policies that could
help millions of impoverished Americans by relieving them from poverty, poor
education, and ill health. Like Mrs Clinton, he rightly sees an educated and
healthy populace as being of great benefit rather than burdensome. The aim
to provide healthcare coverage regardless of status is perhaps most
admirable, for it is a right. One should not be denied it because of their
inability to pay.
Why not?
Mr Sanders’ pledges suffer from much the same drawbacks as Mrs Clinton’s.
They have not been costed. It is admirable that he wishes to help large
numbers of the populace, but with no studies to support whether his plans
can realistically be paid for, they will remain little more than populist slogans.
The other major drawback would be to get many of his policies past a
republican controlled Congress, many of which are anathema to their
conservative positions.
Election 2016, predictions for the primaries.
Political campaigning never seems to end in the US. A mere four months after
the Republican party thrashed the Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms, the first
candidate for the Republican nomination announced he was running. The
man in question was Ted Cruz. The Canadian-Born, Tea-Party backed
Senator from Texas has made his name for himself, proving to be a source of
annoyance for the Republican establishment. His 21 hour speech against
Obamacare is perhaps the most (in)famous instance. Over the past few
months, Cruz has been joined by over a dozen other candidates. Among
them Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal,
Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, and just last
month, Donald Trump. The announcement on Tuesday of Ohio Governor
John Kaisch has added the 16th candidate to the Republican pool.The voters
will not be starved for choice by any measure.
By contrast, the Democrats have only two people of note so far. Normally
independent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State
and First Lady Hilary Clinton. Between these two, Clinton is the only viable

candidate for her party’s nomination. Crucially, she has the funding
advantage, that Sanders to date, cannot match. Her campaign has raised
over $63 million as of the 30th June from all forms of contributions. Sanders
by contrast has raised just shy of $15 million dollars. None of the donations to
his campaign, however, have come from super pacs. Essentially, Mrs Clinton
has the full financial backing of the Democrat mainstream, and in turn the
political support from the party’s voter base; A poll conducted by the Wall
Street Journal and NBC news last month, indicated that 75% of Democratic
primary voters saw her as their choice for presidential nominee. Bernie
Sanders, whilst ranked second amongst the polled demographic achieved
only 15%.
One poll may appear to be an outlier, but a dozen others compiled by the
Huffington Post portray a very similar story, albeit with slightly fewer
percentage points for Mrs Clinton and slightly more for Mr Sanders. Coupled
with the financial and political support, her surname also carries a significant
gravitas amongst the US populace. Recent surveys have ranked her
husband, former President Bill Clinton among the top ten greatest presidents
in history. However, whether she can capitalise on the popularity of her
husband remains to be seen, and there is no guarantee that she can. All
things considered though, it seems reasonably likely that she will score a
victory in most of the primaries, thereby securing her place as the democratic
front runner.
Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to see this as purely advantageous. On
the contrary, Mrs Clinton’s status as the only person in the Democratic corner
with a realistic presidential ambitions is something that her party should take
note of. In the event that her popularity declines precipitously amongst
democrat voters, there are few people if any, who could substitute her
effectively. Fundamentally, though, is the question of what happens if she
loses support amongst the general public overall. Mrs Clinton is no stranger
to waging tough political battles over the years, she had the strength to
forgive her husband for his infidelities, standing beside him during his
impeachment for perjury. More recently, she has faced investigation by a
House Select Committee over the Obama Administration’s response to the
Benghazi Consulate Attack in September 2012. Even further scrutiny was
directed towards her after it emerged she had used a private email server
during her time as secretary of state, rather than one issued by the State
Department.
Such a revelation may do little to affect Mrs Clinton’s chances, but regardless
as to whether they have hurt her politically or not, her polling amongst
Americans overall is a deeply troubling sign for her campaign. In the key
swing states of Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa, Mrs Clinton has fallen Behind
Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker by margins of over 6% in some

cases. Whilst this should not be seen as a final result; the election is not for
another 16 months, it should be taken as a sign that a Hilary Clinton victory is
no assured by any measure. She is vulnerable, and if she hopes to win, she
will need to drastically improve her standing with Americans, lest she fail
facing the Republican contender. The challenger who runs against her though
remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the aforementioned wide backing she
receives from the party and voters of her own party, whilst being a liability,
also has its advantages. It highlights the core strength of the Democratic
party; unity.
The Republicans, conversely, are fractured. That so many of their party have
announced their candidacy for president is perhaps the most glaring
illustration, the level of support for them evidences this further. A number of
opinion polls spread the preferences much more evenly than for Mrs Clinton
and Mr Sanders. In a surprisingly turnout, Donald Trump, having recently
made statements that have drawn criticisms from all sides of the political
spectrum, has a commanding lead over the remainder of the contenders.
Scoring almost double in the polls compared to the next best ranked
Candidate, former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Whether Mr Trump will actually win the nomination appears unlikely.
However, with the first Republican presidential debate only two weeks away,
his lead shows no sign of reversing. It is doubtful his debating skills will be
particularly refined, his recent comments about John McCain’s military
service, and immigrants being ‘drug dealers’ and ‘rapists’ had no adverse
effects on his standing. So it is therefore doubtful that a poor debate
performance will change the situation either. The reality is, people like Donald
Trump. He has a bullish attitude that resonates with large numbers of the
populace, and the fact that his campaign is, according to him, self funded,
separates him from mainstream Washingtonian politics.
In the event he doesn’t win the nomination, Trump could well follow the path
taken by Ross Perrot in 1992 and 1996 elections and run as an independent
candidate, which today he announced he may do. For the Republican
nomination for president, this would be an uncomfortable situation to say the
least. When Perrot ran in 1992, he won almost 19% of the popular vote,
which came from almost 20 million people. Had George Bush Snr. won those
votes instead, he would have crushed Bill Clinton in a landslide victory. The
same could befall any would be Republican seeking the highest office. If the
polls are anything to go by, and Trump doesn’t win the nomination, then the
most likely man to run will be either Jeb Bush, or Wisconsin governor Scott
Walker.
Mr Bush, however, seems the most likely of the two. In terms of raw spending
power, he outclasses all the candidates including Mrs Clinton. Raising almost

double the amount of money she has, and close to fourfold of Mr Walker’s
total funds. He is also uniquely poised to eat into a core Democratic
demographic. Latinos. He can speak Spanish, and along with Marco Rubio is
the only candidate able to do so. This might seem to be a minor factor, but in
order to be elected to the presidency, the Republicans have to attract more
Latinos, and that means understanding them and trying to relate to them. This
is ever more prescient when their population is increasing at a steady pace,
with 100s of thousands reaching voting age every year, and millions per
election cycle.
A second problem that Mr Bush may have to contend with is that he is the
brother of former president George W. Bush. The former president has
actually admitted that the association with his sibling could hurt the latters
chances, and the legacy of the Bush Administration is still a bitter point of
contention for many. The two, immensely costly wars in the Middle East were
a direct fulfilment of a foreign policy directed primarily against al-Qaeda, and
the destabilisation of Iraq as a consequence of the invasion in 2003 may well
have fuelled the rise of ISIS. Clearly, Mr Bush will not want to be linked to this
at all, and whilst he did not have a hand in the debacle that was Iraq and
Afghanistan, guilt by association could be poison pill for his campaign.
Hopefully, he will be able to distance himself from this particular aspect of the
premiership of his brother, although his opponents at the debates could well
bring the subject up as a means to undermine his support, and facilitate their
own. Whatever happens though, with 16 candidates to whittle down to one,
the next few months will not be uneventful by any measure. The Republicans
are sure to provide months of entertainment.
North Korea; Business as Usual
Whilst almost every sovereign state has, to some degree, embraced the
progress of the 21st century, the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea), by its own volition, has isolated itself from the rest. DPRK remains
trapped in a bizarre time warp, with military marches and parades from an era
that has now passed into the annals of history. Its government propaganda,
mass surveillance operations, and imagined perpetual conflict conjures up
images of Orwell’s 1984. Whilst this sounds rather amusing from a superficial
glance, North Korea’s continued flouting of international rules and norms is a
perennial irritation to the regional powers, and to the United States.
The most recent example of this is the imprisoning of three American citizens
for alleged crimes. This is by no means the only infraction the regime has
committed. In 2010, it sank a South Korean Corvette warship, killing dozens
on board. Later that year, it fired barrages of artillery at a South Korean
island, taking the lives of two civilians and two soldiers of the South’s Armed
forces. In 2009, it kidnapped two American journalists.

Provocative behaviour
These instances garnered the attention of the international community and
this, it seems, is no different. An article by CNN last month hypothesised that
the three men would be used as ‘bargaining chips’ to have the U.N. Sanctions
that were imposed, lifted. This type of bartering is not a unique instance: in
the past, it has used the threat of its nuclear weapons programme to illicit
food aid; In exchange for supplies, it would freeze its atomic ambitions. After
all, its isolation has left millions of its people starving and they cannot go
forever without food.
Fast-forward back to the present, and the United States must once again
confront North Korea’s provocative behaviour. However, U.S. attention, if one
judges by news reports has been rather tempered. A google search of
‘Barack Obama’ and ‘detained Americans’ in the news tab, demonstrates this.
The current news at the time of writing appears to be focused almost solely
on the current Middle East crisis, and the volatile situation in Hong Kong.
Does this mean that the US has abandoned its citizens to meet their fate?
No.
On a recent trip to Asia, Glyn Davis, special representative for North Korea
policy, was spurned by North Korea on the topic of the American prisoners.
Perhaps, then, this is an indicator that the regime will not use the detained
men to barter for resources or for negotiations. However this seems unlikely
given past crises and other related situations.
North Korean behaviour has always been rather volatile, often hyperbolic,
and bizarre. It likely facilitates their propaganda efforts that they are able to
bend the Americans, to their whims. Therefore, it is likely that they will end up
using the prisoners to their benefit, it is just a question of when, rather than if.
Another question that might arise from this relates to the ethics of using
prisoners to get what they want. North Korea’s isolation leaves it with few
options; its economy is stagnant, the United Nations enacted stringent
sanctions that are further crippling it. Secondly, as a sovereign state, it is
acting in accordance with its national laws. The US citizens have purportedly
broken them, and are being dealt with accordingly by the North Korean legal
parameters. Another argument could well come in the form of a criticism of
the United States for having allegedly used detainees as tools for bargaining
during the War on Terror.
Pawns for political gain
Contrastingly, North Korea has arguably detained these people on scant
evidence, for actions that are, at worst, misdemeanours elsewhere in the
world. It is possible that using prisoners as bargaining chips violates
international law. Finally, human beings are, according the the UN Declaration

of Human Rights, born with inalienable rights. Life, freedom of speech, belief
etc. They are not commodities to be bartered with and traded. Treating
humans like pawns for a political gain is a violation of these universal
principles to which we are all supposedly born.
Nonetheless, from a purely practical standpoint, it is doubtful that this will gain
DPRK the affections of its opponents. However, it will again force the United
States to confront the North Korean leadership. In essence, it is par for the
course again on the Korean peninsula.
All in all, it is quite likely that in the next few months we will witness the North
Koreans negotiate with US officials or distinguished statesmen for the release
of the men. They will want something in return, as is the norm in these kinds
of negotiations. The ethics behind this are up for debate, but, regardless: the
DPRK will not be assuaged from using people for personal gain.
Drugs; A more moderate outlook
This is a rather significant departure from my normal writings. Usually, I tap
out a piece on US politics or international affairs, or terrorism. This is different.
This is something that I have been deliberating a lot on recently. What I am
going to argue for, is the legalisation, or at the very least, a more moderate
government policy for certain drugs that are currently forbidden. This is not a
rallying cry for the use of heroin or methamphetamine. I know full well of the
damage both of these substances can wreak on the individuals using them,
and the friends and relatives of those people. Instead, I am arguing for the
legalisation or at the very least, decriminalisation of a certain selection of
drugs that in my view, have been unfairly demonised over the years and
decades; LSD, Magic Mushrooms, and Cannabis, despite the Prime
Minister’s preposterously antiquated views on the matter.
To reiterate, this does not mean that I am arguing for people to be able to buy
them like one buys a packet of crisps and a can of coke from a local corner
shop. The current systems implemented in Colorado and Washington for the
sale of small amounts of cannabis seems to me the most appropriate course
of action. That however is another matter altogether, why they should be
afforded the status of legality is the issue in question.
The most prescient justification that comes to mind first is regards to health.
Now as someone who identifies as libertarian in many respects, I personally
believe that people should be able to do what they want so long as no one
else comes to harm through their actions. However, that is not the state of
affairs we find ourselves in in 21st century Britain. In spite of what they like to
expound, the government is most certainly more pervasive in our lives than
they care to admit – the wiretapping of British citizens by GCHQ is a case in
point, as is their stance on drugs. To be fair, this is not all down to the present
government. It is thanks to Labour that cannabis was reclassified as a class B

drug, and Magic Mushrooms were classified as class A and completely
banned. Nonetheless, Cameron’s steadfast intransigence merely continues
the prohibition.
The government does at least realise the impact of two legal drugs which are
undoubtedly harmful to millions of people; Alcohol and Tobacco.
One has to only open a newspaper or turn on the television to see adverts
advising people on the risks of drinking and smoking in excess. Moreover, the
harm these substances cause is demonstrated by the body count they leave
in their wake. In 2012, the number of alcohol related deaths in the UK was 8,
367. The death toll for smoking related deaths in 2011 in England alone, in
people over 35 was 79,100. Yes, that’s right, seventy-nine thousand, one
hundred, yet in spite of the harm they cause, and the government warnings,
these are legal substances.
Of course, I am not arguing for a ban on either substance, but when one
looks at the damage they cause, one does wonder why certain other drugs
are illegal. It doesn’t help the situation that alcohol is glamourised in the
media either. Cigarette advertising is banned, yet alcohol in excess kills
people, breaks families apart, causes indirect deaths (via drink driving or
violent outbursts) and its presence is ubiquitous in the public consciousness.
In films, TV, magazines, books, radio and so on, we cannot escape it.
So clearly alcohol and cigarettes can cause a lot of harm. But what about the
drugs that I mentioned earlier, what harm do they cause or can they in fact be
of benefit to people’s health? There have been claims of cannabis causing
death. However, the Time article cited, quoted a statement from the leader of
that particular study who stated:
“Cannabis does not paralyse the breathing or the heart,” said Jost Leune,
who heads the group. He said the dangers of marijuana are “exaggerated”
and that “deaths due to cannabis use are usually accidents that are not
caused by the substance, but to the circumstances of use.”
Moreover, the article acknowledges that numerous other studies appear to
demonstrate that cannabis does not in fact have adverse affects, a position
supported by considerable evidence suggesting the complete opposite; that it
can have considerable health benefits. A recent article by Policymic, listed
several of them, which included: slowing the progression of cancer cells,
Alzheimers, and HIV. Furthermore, it provided pain relief, helped with opiate
addiction and many others. Admittedly, this is in a medical context, not
recreational use. However, the fact of the matter is, people are benefitting
from it, and yet it is an illegal substance in many jurisdictions. This seems to
be immensely illogical, why prohibit something completely that seems to help
rather than hurt people, and in addition, why not let people take it
recreationally for the same reason?

IPF portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to IPF portfolio

Similar to IPF portfolio (19)

IPF portfolio