Th

e C

om

mit

tee

Ed

it

or

ia

l

COVER PAGE: CARTOON BY Nathan Jones

It is with great pleasure that we publish the fourth issue of The Regulus Magazine. Founded in 2009 by Ben Shaps, and later nurtured under the tutelage of Chief Editors Luke Bentham and Elin James-Jones, this magazine has grown to become a pillar of the vibrant political discourse here in St Andrews. I hope to continue

this tradition, and expand the reach of our magazine. It has been a tumultuous period in the life of this publication, with the graduation of many of the writing staff and the vast majority of our committee. The Regulus has been undeterred, however. The team that I have assem-

bled, along with mainstays Kurt Jose, Deborah Marber, and Ben Shaps, has produced something of real quality. We now boast an active website at theregulus.co.uk, and as such are able to represent a greater diversity of student views than ever before. For

this issue, we have also doubled our production run to 2000 copies—as always, free of charge—possible thanks to the valiant efforts of our sponsorship team.

This issue has come out to coincide with the US election, because we believe that—for better of for worse—the outcome has broad geopolitical implications. However, we have not limited ourselves to American politics. This issue offers compelling commentary on a diverse array of pressing current topics; and in keeping with our commitment to neutral-ity where possible, we have given space to multiple political perspectives. In a time when the publication of a video criticizing the Muslim faith has led many to call for a restric-

tion of freedom of speech, we retain an unshakeable commitment to the inalienable right of individuals and the press to express controversial political views. As St Andrews’ only independent political magazine, in a town of a truly cosmopolitan makeup, we find our-

selves well placed to offer strong commentary on local and international issues.

I would like to thank everyone who made this issue possible, including our contributors, our sponsorship team, our peerless editors, and our design team. New contributors are

always welcome: please, do not hesitate to contact us at theregulusmagazine@gmail.com, or any of our editors via our website. If you wish to

comment on any of our articles and content, send an email to editor@theregulus.co.uk and we will publish some of your replies in the next issue.

Nic CarterEditor in Chief

Chief Editor: Nic Car ter

Managing Editor: Nora Backer Malm

International Af fairs Editor: Allen Farrington

Domestic Editor: Michael Cotterill

Head of sponsorship: Kur t V. Jose

Sponsorship of ficers: Angelina Magal and Lindsey Ayotte

Graphic Design: Deborah Marber

And a special thanks to all of our talented writers and ar tists.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this publication do not reflect in any way the views of The Regulus Magazine, the University of St Andrews, or any of its affiliates.

Table of Contents

Cultu

reFe

atur

esD

omes

ticPo

lititi

csFo

reig

nAffairs

‘Scotland, Britain and Three Hundred years of shared

blood, sweat and toil’

Scottish Independence - A pragmatic response

Scottish Independence - The internationalist perspective

The Romney Doctrine

Obama’s Foreign Policy: A retrospective

Working Towards a Multi-Speed Europe

Kenya’s Violent elections: a preventable storm

Unrest in Yemen

Paraguay’s antidemocratic suspension from

MERCOSUR

Robots in the Field; an Industrial Revolution of

Warfare?

House of Lords Reform, A Neglected Crusade

Aviation: the new (old) battleground for the Economy

Ecotourism: Green-washing or the future of ethical con-sumerism?

Blackface or artistic homage? The Story of Die Antwood

p.5

p.6

p.7

p.8

p.9

p.10

p.13

p.14

p.15

p.16

p.16

p.17

p.18

p.19

5The Regulus

FEATURES

Economic debate over the possible circumstances of an independent

Scotland have dominated the headlines and sadly form about the only grounds for the public’s views over the issue. I contend that the mere economic issues have been given too much primacy in the debate, while our collective heritage has been ignored. ‘Scotland, Britain and 300 years of shared blood, sweat and toil’ is my basis for why Scotland should remain part of the UK, a reason that has been largely absent from the narratives circulating in the press and the British public thus far. I generally have little deference towards nationalism as a concept: I feel that it is outdated, has often been abused and manipulated to something that does not necessarily reflect the public’s view, and has therefore proved a dangerous political tool. Such resurgent Scottish nationalism entails a position that is wholly irrelevant in modern Britain and in so doing, seems to downplay Scotland’s shared history, culture, and national heritage throughout its three hundred years of Union with England. The 18th Century Scottish enlighten-ment produced some of the greatest sci-entific and intellectual minds to grace the history books and was vital to the progres-sion of the industrial revolution and Brit-ain’s unrivalled international prestige and power throughout the ages. Figures such as Adam Smith, David Hume, James Watts, Alexander Graham Bell and many others have cemented Scotland’s place in Britain and the world as a centre of industry and intellectual development. The expansion of Britain’s overseas Empire, for better or worse, also involved a heavy contribution from the Scottish. A large part of the East India Company had Scottish personnel, as did (and still does) a large percentage of Britain’s armed forces, making Scots a permanent presence in every war fought by Britain from the Napoleonic wars to the current war in Afghanistan. Domestically the Scottish have always had a huge role to play in British domestic politics from the start. To list a few examples, the former prime minister was Scottish, the Prime minister before him was Scottish born and bred, and, if we are to be very pedantic, the current Prime Minister has noble Scottish heritage. There have even been various Scottish monarchs such as Mary Queen of Scots, James VI and the rest of the house of Stuarts. All in all, Scots have long held significant positions in all sections of Brit-ish society and continue to do so. Given the amount of Scottish influ-

ence in shaping the image and physical-ity of Britain, it is therefore difficult to understand how the nationalist movement attempts to shrug off and vilify what it has actively and enthusiastically helped to build. This characterization of the English as a foreign invader still seems to be preva-lent in current political thought. The fact that the 2014 referendum is being hailed as marking the 700th Anniversary for Robert the Bruce’s victory over the English at Bannockburn seems to me a petty attempt to bring back the outdated view of Scottish subjugation under the seemingly tyrannical English. Not only is it unhealthy to harbour such resentment after 700 years but if we are to bring matters of history into the mix, then it is factually wrong to cast Mediaeval and early modern England and Wales as being as an autocratic and repressive nation throughout its history with Scotland (the days of William Wallace put aside). Scot-land was after all a formidable opponent with a highly trained army, which had at one point invaded England as far south as Derby during the Wars of the Three King-doms. In short, historical grudges are not a progressive means by which to ensure a political agenda. With history as our guide, it’s clear that historical grudges have led to nothing more than xenophobia and an un-

justified contention amongst a population. Furthermore, not only is it unchari-table to consider England an age-old foe, but also misleading to class our southern neighbour as an executive autocrat. Popular as it may be to advocate Scottish self-determination and identity, it is difficult to justify this basis considering the amountof shared political heritage throughout the UK. British society is such now that one

country cannot be considered so distinct from one another politically and economi-cally, considering the centuries of political agenda enforced and passed in Parliament by politicians from all over the UK. The whole of Britain is in the same boat, and Scotland is no worse off, even now when times are hard. In many respects the aver-age Scot probably has greater economic and social freedom than that of any other Britain. Does the Scottish parliament after all not get to set its own taxes separate from London? And is it not only English and Welsh Students who now have to pay the increased £9000 to attend a Scottish University, compared to the free tuition experienced by Scottish and EU students? Lost among the many narratives and sensationalism has been the likely effect of independence not on Scotland but the entirety of Britain. Scotland currently has a voting population of 4 million people, some of whom won’t vote and many of whom will vote the other way, which leaves those voting for independence down to a few million at the maximum. With the rest of Britain currently unable to vote in the referendum, how is it justifiable to allow around 4-5% of the overall UK population to decide the future economic consequences for over 60 million people? To lose Scotland therefore would be like losing a vital limb from the body: As time goes by then you may be able to adapt but the wound will always be there. Provocative political debate aside, I’m a firm believer of Scotland’s invaluable con-tribution to the creation of Britain. Britain was not created by a single historical figure or by a single nation but to use the term once more, 'three hundred years of shared blood, sweat and toil’, and Scotland has given so much of all of that. It would therefore be a shame for Scotland to leave and forget a creation for which it played such a vital part in building.

‘Scotland, Britain and Three Hundred years of shared blood, sweat and toil’.

Edmund Bennett

“To lose Scotland therefore would be like losing a vital limb from

the body.”

Table of Contents

Fore

ign

Affairs

The Regulus 6

FEATURES

It can certainly be tempting to roman-ticise the prospect of Independence.,

either by evoking tales of revolutionary overthrow or eulogizing Wilsonian self-determination. While the Arab Spring has shown that the global community has not holistically advanced beyond holding these principles as sometimes necessary and always rightful, we must consider in our own particular situation the real motivation. The Scottish people are not oppressed by their remote rulers, nor are they suffering from inadequate repre-sentation in the bodies of supranational organisations. Rather, the question of independence must be of primarily pragmatic consid-eration; will the average Scottish citizen directly and obviously benefit from the proposed restructuring of their govern-ment? I will present two generalised pragmatic concerns—the lessened benefit to the Scottish people on account of a weaker representation on the global stage, and the unnecessary disruption of the pro-cess of secession itself—neither of which I believe can be answered by an appeal to idealism. Under the proposals I criticise, the sovereignty gained by secession from the Union would then immediately be returned by an application for entry into the European Union, which would surely be granted. And thus while it might seem that a true fruition of the principles of self-determination could be realised only by rejecting the executive and legisla-tive power of external organisations, we instead must question whether the Scottish people will benefit more greatly from membership of the EU as an independent nation rather than as a constituency of the United Kingdom. The answer is clearly that they will not. While we might be tempted to consider it beneficial to have democratic equivalence within the institutional framework of the EU, we would do well to recall the fact that the EU is fundamentally undemo-cratic, and is primarily sensitive to the contemporary balance of economic power. Consider some recent arbitrary and perhaps autocratic bureaucratic moves by the EU. The Czech Nuclear power station in Dukovany was forcibly closed by the EU over the violation of an obscure 1994 rule on the importing of Russian-enriched uranium. Consider the fines levied against the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Poland, also this past month, imposed essentially for exercising their sovereign rights to manage their respective defence industries. Consider the excessive fining of Hungary for failing to keep their deficit under 3% of GDP. The UK has a deficit of

7.7%; France of 5.2%. It is difficult to imagine heavyweight countries such as the United Kingdom, France or Germany bowing to the EU’s capricious and whimsical demands, in the way that the Czech Republic, the Nether-lands, Slovenia et al. do. Hence we must acknowledge that while an independent Scotland would certainly have the best interests of the Scottish people at heart, it is questionable whether it would have any meaningful power to protect them. In gen-eral cases of horrific mismanagement, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, and especially in those areas such as fishing, a major Scottish industry, it would seem that independent representation would increase our vulnerability to a far greater extent than it would our authority. Similar problems would arise in involvement with individual nations. Scotland has, by definition, less to offer foreign countries in the way of treaties on defence, trade—indeed every business of government—than the United Kingdom as a whole. It is decidedly unclear how Scot-tish commercial interests, whether on the part of consumers, exporters, or employees of foreign investors, will benefit from an independent Scotland’s significantly dimin-ished power to negotiate favourable terms with foreign counterparts on their behalf. The only recourse in this case would be to demonstrate that the policy of the United Kingdom is actively harmful to Scotland, an allegation that has proved a logical chimera thus far. The likelihood of Scotland, England and Wales enjoying a more fruitful relationship is also far from certain. A proper exposition of the fallacy reveals a potentially serious problem; namely, that the legal mechanism for determining disagreements between the governments would vanish entirely. This would leave no judicial procedure for settling disputes. If an antiquated political union is the cause of grievance under the current system, there is no reason to expect independence to have any effect other than to remove the only method of practical dispute mediation. Scotland’s economic prospects represent a topic of equally spurious extolment. Re-cent estimates propose a £4.5 billion grant by virtue of the Barnet formula, which will disappear in the case of independence. Similarly, Scotland’s supposedly bountiful potential for renewable energy is totally unsustainable on a commercial level, and is currently underpinned by funding that is ultimately derived from the UK budget. Having established the questionable benefit of independence, we must also examine of the process of secession itself. Whilst the majority of public services in

Scotland are controlled either partly or en-tirely by the Scottish Government, National Defence and Scotland’s representation in Foreign Affairs are entirely the domain of Westminster. Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute, best summarises the difficulties of establishing a new defence arrangement; “Significant one-off costs will be involved in building new infrastructure, and in moving people and equipment. There will be heated arguments over who should pay for the extra costs that the UK will incur as a result of Scot-tish secession ... In these circumstances, it would not be realistic for Scotland’s Defence Forces to expect an annual budget of more than around £2 billion. This would leave it with a defence budget that was significantly less than those of neighbours such as Denmark and Norway, even as it faced demands for new investments to fill gaps left by the break-up of the UK’s armed forces.” While there are a great deal of excel-lent theoretical arguments in favour of independence, the supposed right to self-determination and a sophomoric desire

for international influence are not among them. We are not contemplating revolu-tion, nor decrying the inadequate rule of a foreign power. Considering the necessarily pragmatic nature of this debate, I do not believe the evidence is strong enough to merit so monumental a reconstitution of government.

Scottish Independence – A Pragmatic ResponseC

artoon by Schrank from The Independent

Allen Farrington

“I do not believe the evidence is strong enough to merit so monumental

a reconstitution of government.”

7The Regulus

FEATURES

Upon its establishment, the United Nations comprised 51 independent

nations. Today that figure has risen to almost 200. Recent years have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of indepen-dent nations, particularly small ones. The days of empire building and aggressive colonial expansion are long gone. We are contemporaries to a new age of globali-sation, of independent nations working together on equal terms towards interna-tional peace and security. The increasing and enduring role of such supranational organisations as the United Nations, the European Union and the World Trade Organisation has effected a decisive shift away from only the largest and most powerful having a voice on the global stage. Small nations have benefited most from this new international settle-ment, whose result it has been to eliminate the need for small nations to surrender themselves to bigger powers for hope of survival in terms of trade, politics and defence. In this context, all of the benefits once afforded to Scotland by the 1707 Treaty of Union vanished with the incep-tion of the modern age. If the Union ben-efited Scotland in the days of the Empire, is there any case for it when the Empire no longer exists? At a time when many small European nations are flourishing under indepen-dence, Scotland urgently needs to take on responsibility for all of its own affairs and complete the process of democratic em-powerment that began with the devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999. An independent Scotland would take up full membership of international organisa-tions and ensure that the distinct interests and values of Scotland are represented in the world. At the moment, these are neglected in favour of those of the UK as a whole, where Scotland accounts for less than 10% of the population. Scotland is home to more than 70% of the UK fishing fleet and 90% of its fish farming. Issues like fishing and agricul-ture, which are of vital importance to Scotland, if not to the UK as a whole, are currently subject to EU agreements in which Scotland has no say. Scotland has no right to send ministers to EU Council of Ministers meetings and British minis-ters in Brussels naturally put the interests of the UK before those of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament taking control over all of Scotland’s affairs is essential to ensure that Scotland is fully represented in Europe and that it has a voice and a vote in the all-important Council of Ministers. A fully autonomous Scottish Parlia-ment would furthermore have the ability to makes its own decisions on defence. In

2007 an overwhelming majority of MSPs voted against the renewal of the UK’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This vote reflected equally overwhelming op-position from the Scottish public. However since defence remains a matter reserved to the UK Parliament in London -in which Scotland makes up only a tiny minority—the UK Government can ignore the will of the people and station their nuclear-armed submarine fleet just outside of Glasgow, Scotland’s largest and most densely popu-lated city. This is a situation that would be unthinkable—not to mention illegal—if Scotland were independent. Scotland’s glorious landscape has been blessed with natural wealth incomparable with other areas of the UK and unparalleled throughout Europe. Scotland has limit-less potential in renewable energy: 25% of Europe’s tidal power, 25% of its offshore wind resource, and 10% of its wave resource. The Scottish Government passed world-leading climate change legislation in 2009, yet (not being an independent nation) could take no part in the Global Climate Change Summit that year. Independence would allow Scotland to take up its place in the global community and play a positive and constructive role in tackling problems such as climate change, war and poverty. An independent Scottish Parliament would also take on responsibility for rais-ing and spending all of its own money, with the ability to tailor economic policy to Scotland’s specific needs and make the most of our nation's distinct assets. A glance at the 6 richest countries in the EU demonstrates how in the modern age small is beautiful. The economy of Scotland is even now in a consistently stronger position than that of the UK as a whole. A fiscally autono-mous Scotland with its population of 5.2 million is predicted to have a lower budget deficit than the UK as a whole and to be

ranked 6th in the OECD in terms of GDP per head, compared to the UK's sixteenth place (2010). Lastly, an independent Scotland would have a stronger and better relationship with the rest of the UK. The grievances of an antiquated political union would be removed and a partnership of equals in a social union would take its place, working together where we agree, and making our own decisions where we don’t. And there is nobody better placed to take decisions about Scotland than the people of Scotland. A Westminster Govern-ment in London cannot, and will not ever, have the interests of Scotland as their sole and first priority, a Scottish Government in Edinburgh can and does. We do not think it strange that the people of France run their own affairs, and we would not expect the people of Denmark to have another nation make decisions for them. A vote for independence in 2014 is a vote for normal nationhood. It is a vote ex-pressing the desire to take on responsibility for our own affairs and make our own deci-sions in the same way that other countries do; a responsibility that would best serve the interests of the people of Scotland, both domestically and internationally, and a responsibility that is entirely natural in the modern global community of nations. As Winnie Ewing (‘Madame Ecosse’) famously said:“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on!”

Scottish Independence - The Internationalist Perspective

Luxembourg 58,900 0.5Ireland 32, 600 4.2Netherlands 29,500 16.3Austria 328,900 8.3Denmark 28,600 5.4Belgium 27,700 10.5

GDP Population (millions)per head

Ashley Husband Powton

Allen Farrington

The Regulus 8

FEATURES

Two months ago, when it still seemed that the only real issue in the bid for the

American presidency was the economy, Mitt Romney and his advisers would much have preferred to underscore the former business-man’s savoir-faire for entrepreneurship and private sector stimulation. But given the re-cent heightening of tensions in regions in the Taiwan Straits and the Middle East over the past weeks, Gov. Romney has much reason to energize his foreign policy agenda, which distinguishes him from Obama’s “Mr. Nice Guy” policy. No American head of state since the end of WW2 can pass on the common presidential protocol of espousing America’s preeminence, but some understand the responsibilities of international leadership better than others. Mr. Obama’s assessment of what path is best for the United States is not dishonest; it’s just na-ïve. The proposition that the international sys-tem’s normative superpower should diminish its presence in vital regions of the world dur-ing a time of increasing hazards was always an unsound tactic. But Mr. Obama continues to operate as though the decline of America is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the consequence of which has been a foreign policy of mixed signals, ambivalence, and unpredictability. To the passing listener, Mr. Romney’s call for another “American century” may evoke the same sort of self-righteousness that disastrously plunged the US into Iraq in 2003. A more nuanced consideration of the former governor’s concepts for foreign policy, however, reveals that his ideas do not entail this sort of blunt unilateralism. Perhaps it is therefore necessary to debunk the apprehensions of (a return to) American quasi-imperialism that usually arise any time a US politician propounds a stronger American presence abroad. It would be deeply mis-guided to think that Romney’s solicitation for greater American ubiquity in the world neces-sarily engenders a policy where the United States forces its democratic values down other countries’ throats. Mr. Romney has repeatedly stated his sup-port for bilateral solutions to critical situations. Take Syria. Since the beginning of the conflict in March 2011, observing the trend of political upheaval that had already wrought Egypt and Libya, Gov. Romney averred the importance of congregating with regional partners such as Jordan and Turkey to come up with an approach tailored to the regional political and social landscape. The Obama administration, on the other hand, has been unwilling to offer a more targeted and substantive solution to the tumultuous civil situation still raging in the country. One can’t say that the president was completely idle on the matter of Syria. The Russian and Chinese veto of the proposed UN Security Council Resolution hemmed what was indeed a US-backed initiative, but if the sort of disproportionate nonconformity that

Russia and China displayed is to be the sole infringement on American resolve in these sorts of crises, then this administration is fall-ing short of its moral commitment to stability in the Middle East. There are other ways to address threats such as the one posed by Bashar al-Assad’s despotic regime. Although it is appreciable that President Obama has deemed the UN his preferred forum for international conflict resolution, a global superpower like the US must venture to utilize its far-reaching influence to conjure up local partners as an alternate method of dealing with regional conflicts when the UN channel is blocked. That is something Gov. Romney understands better than the president, but Republicans unfortunately risk being branded narcissists for their disavowal of UN preeminence. The UN should not be disregarded, but it should also not be the be-all-and-end-all to conflict resolution. In the case of Syria the current ad-ministration opted to wait through more than a year of bloodshed and bedlam before realizing that the UN was not offering substantive solutions. No less than fifteen months after the civil unrest in Syria began, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Turkey in order to establish a “working group” which was more a token gesture intended to assuage the critics than a substantive solution. With the memory of Iraq still fresh in the minds of many, another sweeping projection of American military grandeur in the Middle East as a solution to the Assad menace is certainly discreditable. Romney’s campaign has come to terms with that as well, though. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Romney’s foreign policy Advisor Rich Wil-liamson stated that “it’s very difficult to do a no-fly zone [in Syra] because, unlike in Libya, the distribution of the rebel groups and the government forces are more interspersed...” He went on to suggest that the US should have been more involved in identifying the moderate opposition groups amongst the rebels early on through targeted investment of financial and intelligence assets. Mr. Obama has showcased his unrivaled dexterity in addressing big crowds on count-less occasions. But individual sit-downs with other state heads irk him. Perhaps that explains why he was always quick to assure press assemblies and other large gatherings of the US’s commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, but suddenly backtracking in an open-mic exchange with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last March. On the topic of missile defense sys-tems in Eastern Europe aimed at intercepting warheads from Iran (which Russia rejected, seeing it as a threat to its national security) the president was overheard telling his Russian counterpart: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” What exactly Obama meant by this statement has been subject to much deliberation, but it is not hard to see what Tehran made of the president’s comment; namely that the US can be dragooned into accommodating a nuclear Iran. Alas, the government in Tehran contin-

ues to protract its “nuclear energy for civilian means” charade with impunity. One can’t help but then also ask whether Japan’s paranoia over the recent Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute with China is because Japan is less than assured of American com-mitment to its democratic ally in the Far East. And more worrying has been America’s fail-ure to offset China’s disproportionate increase in military arsenals directed at Taiwan. Taipei has been a long-standing friend of the US that has been relegated to seeming obsolescence on Obama’s Asia agenda. America’s friends abroad are wary of Washington’s fecklessness, and the infallibility of American support has become a very grey area in the US foreign policy handbook. One can only hope that giv-en Romney’s background in business, where grooming personal relationships is imperative to mutual understanding and cooperation, the Republican nominee would be more apt in allaying these enfeebled friendships. Just recently, the governor’s business ethos also revealed something about his visions for foreign aid. In his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative, he attested the pacify-ing powers of free market policies in the social struggles of the Arab Spring, citing the anecdote of a Tunisian fruit vendor who resorted to self-immolation in response to the pre-revolutionary government’s confisca-tion of his valued weighing scales. Romney correctly pointed out that the overwhelming share of resources now flowing to developing nations comes from private sector investment, whereas traditional foreign aid has become marginalized. He therefore proposed signing “Prosperity Pacts” with nations that agreed to remove barriers to free markets and vowed to reorient American assistance to “access the transformative nature of free enterprise.” Democracy is too nebulous a concept to impose upon societies as intricately woven as those often found in the world’s most unstable regions. Iraq was a case in point, where the Bush administration naively pursued a “one size fits all” democratic solution. The gover-nor, on the other hand, believes in the panacea of free market enterprise, seeing it as a mutu-ally beneficial institution. This may require a more nuanced discussion, but in principle the pursuit of global market integration is certainly a more viable aim when it comes to shaping outcomes abroad than both Bush’s democratic universalism and especially Obama’s turn inward. If history has any educative merit, it is worth remembering the last time the United States turned inward following an economic crisis. That was in the 30s, when America left the world stage open to the forces of fascism and Nazism. Granted, circumstances have changed and paradigms have shifted, but the world is far from devoid of malevolent forces—nowadays they’re just guised dif-ferently. It is too soon to say, but God forbid that events such as the recent triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are just the first examples of destabilizing forces seizing their chance in the void left by the absentee American leadership.

The RomneyDoctrine

Colin Arestos

9The Regulus

FEATURES

As the climactic November election approaches, analysts on both sides of

the partisan line have begun scrutinizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy record. Particular emphasis has been laid on his international action, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Often, Obama’s diplomacy has been labelled a “success” or a “failure” depending on political perspec-tive as facts are obfuscated for partisan gain. Nevertheless, if addressed on the basis of results—either political gains achieved by the United States or losses prevented—Obama’s foreign policy during his first term has proven to be reasonable, and, moreover, a logical extension of the values and goals which he expressly represents. As is demanded of the Executive Of-fice in the contemporary political climate, the President’s foreign policy has focused primarily on the Middle East, in particular Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Israel. In Iraq, Obama inherited from his predecessor a six-year, seemingly endless conflict. Begun in 2003 over the question-able and now infamous premises of con-fiscating weapons of mass destruction, by 2008 the Iraq war had become a quagmire draining U.S. finances, exacerbating the incipient economic crisis and deteriorat-ing U.S. credibility. One of Obama’s 2008 campaign platforms was to end the war, and he committed himself to bringing the troops home by 2011. He kept his promise, in ac-cordance with a timeline set out before his election. Moreover, Iraq has not collapsed into sectarian chaos, as some predicted; while Iraq is by no means stable, politics has superseded violence in the resolution of conflict, signifying a clear Obama foreign policy success. The tragedy of September 11th 2001 unleashed the United States against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but efforts to quell Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were soon bogged down in the “graveyard of empires”. By late

2009, Obama deemed it necessary to send a “surge” of over 30,000 soldiers to alter the stalemate between U.S. troops and the Taliban. By 2010, the death toll of U.S. soldiers had passed 1,000 and casual-ties among the surge troops doubled that number in less than two years. Though Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, claimed that the surge “reduce[ed] Taliban momentum on the battlefield,”, an increase in “green-on-blue” or “insider” attacks—those perpetrated by Afghan soldiers or police against U.S. troops—weakens his case. However, there is no doubt that the removal of Osama bin Laden by US Spe-cial Forces in Pakistan had wide-ranging effects on the Al Qaeda terrorist network in surrounding countries: most of all in Afghanistan. Obama has committed to withdraw all military forces from Afghani-stan by 2014, and, with the recent recall of surge troops, all appears to be going as planned. According to the National Security Strategy laid out by the White House in May of 2010, the Obama administration has given Iran a “clear choice” between meeting “its international obligations on its nuclear program,” that is, stopping the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium or facing crippling sanctions. Iran adamantly insists that its uranium will be utilized for peaceful purposes. However, considering Iran’s controversial history of supporting terrorism, calling for Israel’s destruction, and its recent unflagging support of Syria’s murderous attacks on its own citizens, the United States does not feel it can take Iran on its word. The Obama administration currently leads an international effort to impose sanctions on the Iranian regime, cutting off Iranian oil from world markets, the Iranian bank-ing system from the global economy, and Iranian commerce from many international partners. Popular discontent with the “characteristically offensive” Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is rising. The sanctions have served to push Iran into an isolated and precarious position, such that its people are vying for a regime change, and its leaders calling for a “national referendum on the nuclear program.” Not only has Obama’s leadership mitigated the potential inter-national threat of a weaponized Iran, but it has set the stage for a possible regime change: one that could manifest itself in the 2013 elections, with the rumored bid of pragmatic leader Akbar Hashemi Rafsan-jani. During President Obama’s famous 2009 Cairo speech, he affirmed that, “The United States does not accept the legiti-macy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements

and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” The Arab world took notice and expected a se-rious U.S. effort to halt settlement expan-sion activity. In August of 2010, Obama, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clin-ton, began to broker peace talks between Israel and Palestine, inviting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Presi-dent of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas to Washington with the “insistence that a comprehensive peace deal can be reached within 12 months.” With a mora-torium on Israeli construction in the West Bank temporarily in place, Abbas and Ne-tanyahu approached the negotiating table with clear red lines: Abbas insisted on the extension of the settlement moratorium, while Netanyahu would not consider it. Nevertheless, the sentiment about the reig-nited peace process was positive; observers hoped that Obama would “overcome the peace-process fatigue from which both Israelis and Palestinians suffer.” Unfor-tunately, the irreconcilable demands of both the Israelis and Palestinians as well as the inability of Abbas to control the Gaza Strip, which is under Hamas control, scuttled the peace talks. Obama’s goal of facilitating a two-state solution along 1967 lines failed due to the intransigence of both parties. The resulting disappointment over this unbreakable impasse resulted in the resignation of Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, in May of 2011. In a speech to the United Nations some months later, Obama emphasized the United States’ friendship with Israel and the United States’ enduring commitment to reaching a compromise in the Middle East which ensures the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state: “America's commitment to Israel's security is unshake-able…Israel deserves recognition…Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.” Obama set up a structure for reaching peace and thus managed to revive what had been a stalled peace process. Though no finalized agree-ment was made in 2010, the guidance of the United States in that year catalyzed an ongoing series of attempts by Palestinian and Israeli leaders to reach a compromise, unmediated by the United States for, as Obama stated to the UN, “Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side.” Obama has, in his Middle Eastern for-eign policies, represented his ideals, kept his promises, and generally contributed to an improvement in the hostile politics of the Middle East – an area that forms the fulcrum of U.S. foreign policy.

Illus

tratio

n by

Tob

y M

arsh

Obama’s Foreign Policy: a retrospective

Tamar ZiffColin Arestos

The Regulus 10

DOMESTIC Politics

On the first day back after the sum-mer recess, a depressed Nick Clegg

rose in the House of Commons, forlorn with despair, to solemnly announce that proposals to legislate for a reformed House of Lords have been scrapped indefinitely for the Coalition’s lifetime. One of the key pledges of the Liberal Democrat manifesto has been brutally kicked into the quagmire of long grass. The Coalition has retracted from the task of transforming the Lords from an archaic relic into a respected, professionalised, representative, debating chamber. The campaign for Lords reform was stagnated by the 91 Conservative MPs who voted against the proposals at the bill’s Second Reading in the House of Com-mons. This reveals the extent to which Lords reform embodies the dynamics of coalition administration and it accentu-ates the divulgence of values and priori-ties concerning constitutional reform. It is axiomatically the most emblematic disagreement between the Coalition parties thus far. It embodies a battle between the bearers of the flame of progress against the recalcitrant custodians of an outdated constitution. The consequences of this divulgence of opinion will have a pivotal effect on how this Coalition will be re-membered when posterity casts its verdict upon the Coalition’s acting scene in the continuum of history. Reform has faltered and the 2010-2015 government has proven to be a coalition that has failed the test of implementation when reform was within the grasp of our elected lawmakers. It is essential that light is shone on Lords reform because the issue is blinded by misunderstanding and suffers the paralysa-tion of inertia. Firstly, I will enlighten the topic by charting the infamous history of the Lords. Secondly, I will proceed to categorise some of the multitude of arguments in favour of Lords reform. Thirdly, I will attempt to contextualise the issue within the politics of the present. For too long, the deep injustices epitomised through the composition of the House of Lords have been allowed to continue without derision or criticism. Progressively minded people need to arouse their traditional reforming spirit, which has been regrettably dormant for far too long in British society. Only when Lords reform reaches sufficient momentum to become the zeitgeist of the times will it be taken seriously by Parlia-ment. Women were not harmoniously presented with the vote by a benevolent Parliament; on the contrary, suffragists and suffragettes fought fervently for their inalienable voting rights. Similarly, discon-tent and exasperation regarding the injus-

tice of the current House of Lords need to be expressed more voraciously before an air of reform is once again blowing through the corridors of power in Whitehall. The House of Lords has from its infancy played a decisive role in the political affairs of the English nation. Its functional birth contestably occurred with the signing of the Magna Carta, which sought to restrain the unruly effects of the unbridled power of the tyrannical King John. The House of Lords subsequently evolved into a revising chamber where those who were ‘born to

rule’ delivered their verdicts on legislation proposed by the Commons. Nevertheless, the idea that hereditary peers possess uni-versal knowledge through divine interven-tion is unequivocally repellent to demo-cratic sensibilities in twenty-first century Britain. We live in an increasingly diverse and multifaceted society, constantly sub-jected to the ever-more-ferocious waves of impounding globalisation rocking against the shoreline of our once ‘sceptred isle’. Unlike the patently romanticised world of ‘Downton Abbey’, modern Britons do not display deferential reverence for the social echelon of the high aristocracy. All aspects of the media, the Establishment and the po-litical class eagerly accentuate their fervent yearning for a society where equality of op-portunity reigns supreme. Accordingly, the ever-reverential House of Lords has, in recent times, endured increasing and entirely comprehensible hostility from the democratic Commons.

A principle whereby membership of a parliamentary chamber is achieved through the accident of birth, rather than dedicated merit, is axiomatically abhorrent and an unpardonable injustice to democratic sen-sibilities. Thus far, the nadir of the House of Lords came during the Liberal admin-istration of 1905-1915 when the peers of the realm greedily refused to sanction the government’s 1909 Treasury budget bill to pass through the Commons unscathed. The prospect of the Lords being burdened with an increased degree of taxation was vile anathema to a House composed of lordly nobles with vast estates continuing a pseudo-feudal existence in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the tides of his-tory were benevolently on the side of the Liberals. With his eloquent and progressive verbal powers of persuasion, Lloyd George inflamed the consciences of the social progressives by rallying against inherited authority, which was exerting inordinate influence at the expense of the people. After years of fiercely contested debate, the Commons prevailed with the welsh wizard at the helm. The entailing Parliament Act of 1911 removed the power of the Lords to block or prorogue government bills concerning the finances of the realm. The legislation also restricted the power of the Lords to only reject a Commons bill a total of three times. After that, the Lords would be overruled by the Commons. Regret-tably however, this epoch of turbulence did not last long and the contemporaneous reforming zeal was succeeded by a century of procrastination and indifference towards the House of Lords. Yet, one figure emerged from almost a century of silence towards the issue of Lords reform. Tony Blair was mag-nanimously swept to power on an ocean of goodwill; Britain had opted for a more

House of Lords Reform, a Neglected Crusade

“the idea that hereditary peers possess universal knowledge

through divine intervention is unequivocally repellent to demo-cratic sensibilities in twenty-first

century Britain.”

11The Regulus

DOMESTIC Politicsprogressive political scene. At last, cam-paigners believed that the House of Lords would be cast into the dustbin of history, a fate long overdue. Nevertheless, political inertia and the absence of an impending vision inhibited the institutionalisation of a momentum sufficient enough to sweep the concept of a thorough Lords reform into practice. Presently, the Upper house is a half-reformed, indefensible, anomalous chamber, lacking in creditable legitimacy and exemplifying the mockery that is Brit-ish democracy. We have a House of Com-mons elected through the vapid and dis-creditable first-past-the-post system and an unelected House of Lords. It is dangerously and immensely hypocritical for Britain to preach and argue for the dissemination of genuine democracy throughout the world when democracy is yet to be enmeshed in Britain’s own constitutional fabric. The only other nation-state that possesses a hereditary chamber is Lesotho. This only exacerbates the fact that Britain has stalled on the path of progress and remains a relic behind advanced nation states with an upper chamber that can trace its roots and composition back to the medieval era. Indeed, at present, the fabric of the House of Lords is composed of 816 peers and, alarmingly, this titanic number lies on a ceaselessly upward trajectory. Of this colossal army of peers, 94 are still heredi-tary. This plaguing prejudice is a scar on Britain’s democratic heritage and must be removed with all haste. It entrenches a mockery of the assertion that Britain is the home of the ‘mother of all parliaments’. It was traditionally the case that the aristoc-racy should possess a measure of power because they engulfed the vast majority of land ownership in Britain. Their argument can no longer be accepted since the aris-tocracy has profoundly diminished as an economic force in British society. Allowing a benighted aristocracy to hold power is a disgusting act of constitutional vandal-ism and should be condemned resolutely by democratic forces in British society. Nevertheless, the vast majority of peers are appointed. Most are chosen by party lead-ers to stand up for party political interests in the Upper chamber. No qualification is required other than absolute allegiance to the party whip machine. This suffocating system means that party political peers are almost compelled to adhere to their party’s high command because they are unaccount-able to any other group. This lack of cred-ibility severely reduces the analytical and deliberating power of the Upper chamber since free thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of legislation is incon-trovertibly discouraged. Despite this, the House of Lords does contain a commendable number of cross-bench peers who have been raised to the life peerage based on their merits in dif-

ferent fields of national life. This enables the House of Lords to be enriched by the wealth of wisdom and experience that these individuals of merit can bring to the debating chamber. Their contributions are highly valued and the intentions of Lords reformers to encompass cross-bench peers should be applauded. It diversifies the fab-ric of the Upper chamber and delivers an in-built supremacy to the Commons, which would satisfactorily consolidate the current balance of power in Britain’s constitutional structure. Conversely, the House of Lords presently includes 26 Anglican Bishops. This blatant favouritism disproportionately echoes the interests of the Church of Eng-land. It is beyond contention that England’s national church no longer genuinely speaks for the spiritual attitudes and well-being of the entire nation. More and more people are adopting atheistic or agnostic attitudes towards religion. Furthermore, the rising cosmopolitanism of the United Kingdom means that other major religions should deserve a degree of recognition, if Anglican bishops remain embedded in the fabric of the Upper chamber. To instil greater objec-tivity and accountability into the proceed-ings of the Lords, it would be advantageous to remove the singularly religious element of the chamber. This would avoid contro-versy against preferential values and enable ethical issues to be debated more rationally without overt religious interference. Moreover, a plethora of supplementary arguments exist to convey the inherently inequitable nature of the current House of Lords. Its compositional structure is delete-rious to a fair representation of the British people. Half of its members originate from the South East and London vicinity whereas only 2.6% venture from the North-East of England. This disparity of regional equality inevitably induces resentment and ensures that the Lords chamber cannot voice national concerns in a dispassionate manner. Its instincts and sympathies are fixed to the advancement and consider-ations of south-eastern and London affairs. An overhaul of the Lords would result in the trebling of the representation of the East Midlands. It would ensure that politics would be revitalised in areas that pres-ently feel disenchanted from the perceived distance of the political process from their own regions. The current composition of the House of Lords allows London to continue as the unequivocal hub of power whereas many regions are essentially voiceless in one of the deciding chambers of the parliamentary process. Similarly, this problem encompasses the more youthful sectors of British society. There are eight times as many peers over the age of 90 than peers under the age of 40. This cataclysmic division is pernicious because it fails to recognise the abundance of creativity that younger generations can unleash into the

political mainstream. It is a societal fact that older people are more conservative in outlook and more prone to discard original ideas in favour of more conventional ap-proaches. It similarly contributes to the ever-existent disenchantment with politics as something that categorically disengages young people. A democratic reform of the Lords would eliminate this injustice and allow a democratic revival to flow through the corridors of political power. It would allow constituents of a future ‘Lords’ to feel as though they could exercise their democratic voice to allow the second chamber to truly re-consider and consoli-date the issues of the day. A common line of criticism runs that Lords reform should be removed from the government’s agenda because Britain currently resides in an epoch of economic difficulty and uncertainty. Apparently, it is grossly inappropriate to deliberate on alter-native issues because the collective creative power of the Commons cannot stretch to deliberating on two significant political issues. This is incontrovertible nonsense, fuelled by political corners inextricably op-posed to Lords reform. It has eternally been the case that MPs must debate multiple issues in order to condone and pass the administrative and governmental business of the day. This very year has seen MPs debate over elected police commissioners, local government reform, legal aid reform and an avalanche of other issues. Unfor-tunately, this argument has a ring with the public who feel that the government simply is not doing enough to engender a strong economic recovery. Yet, the closeted nature of Westminster means that the public do not realise how much activity is spent debating peripheral issues that carry great importance, yet do not concern economic affairs. This tragic state of confusion needs to be illustrated so that coterminous debat-ing is not presented as incompetence or indifference towards economic recovery. Another fiercely propagated argument is that institutionalising a degree of demo-cratic legitimacy into the Lords would be a mistake of apocalyptic proportions because the supremacy of the Commons would be overruled. It must be accentuated that this is a terrifically dogmatic interpretation of constitutional possibilities. It is indeed very rare that second chambers in parliaments should be absolved of democratic legitima-cy. Britain is the abnormality in this field and an infusion of elected members would only enrich the vitality and energy of the Lords because they would have to prove their worth through accountability to the people who elected them to office. Elected representatives in the ‘Lords’ would consolidate the purpose of the second chamber as a revising institution. Currently, the opinion of the Lords is cast aside if its verdict is unfavourable to the will of the

The Regulus12

DOMESTIC PoliticsCommons. The Lords can eventually be overruled in their entirety. This renders them obsolete, their scrutiny becomes superfluous and they become devoured of purpose. The only way to ensure that legis-lation is properly deliberated on is to allow the second chamber to have the power to actually stop legislation that is deeply controversial or resonantly unpopular with the public. The ability of a second chamber to significantly prorogue or halt obtrusive legislation will allow its public standing to rise to greater heights of respectability. Furthermore, the assertion that Lords reform is a uniquely Liberal Democratic crusade must be addressed. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats consider this a very emotive and imperative issue that must be addressed with the utmost haste to allow Britain’s democracy to flourish to the extent that it deserves. Similarly, both the Conservative and Labour parties promised to institute Lords reform if they ascended to power in the 2010 election. Their seething opposition to proposals for Lords reform before the summer recess only serves to accentuate the mendacity of their promises. Contrary to the falseness of the Conservative and Labour MPs regard-ing Lords reform, the Liberal Democrats were obliged to humbly retract from their sincere pledge to deliver comprehensively free university tuition because the Coali-tion’s balance of power was colossally in favour of implementing the proposals of Lord Browne’s report on Higher Educa-tion. However, the Labour and Conserva-tive parties have absolutely no excuse for withholding legislative approval for Lords reform. Their opposition is malicious, unnecessary and counter-productive to the duty of politicians to revive a degree of respect for the democratic institutions of this country. These reactionary MPs have evidently and irately failed to learn from the tragically dire episode of MPs expenses. Only through bold and decisive action will politics rise to a more highly esteemed profession and remove itself from its currently inhabited malaise. One step in the right direction would be to catapult the House of Lords into the democratic age. Conversely, regardless of the unequivo-cal virtues of striving for Lords reform, democratic progress in the Upper chamber has been hindered by the politics of coali-tion. Disagreement is an inescapable fact in politics and, although it enriches debate and provides a framework for convictions, it can often lead to splenetic stagnation on issues of national significance. Self-in-terest, disproportional quarrelling, misin-terpretation, and expediency can unfortu-nately sometimes override the maintenance of values or the consolidation of promises. A tsunami of these political misdemeanours has wrecked Nick Clegg’s plan for Lords

reform. This disaster has been intensified by the reeling performance of the Liberal Democrats in the polls. After years of conscientious and determined climbing of the ladders to political success, the Liberal Democrats have fallen and the party’s pros-pects have incandescently started crashing and tumbling down the mountain range of political fortune. The Liberal Democrats hoped that constitutional reform would be one of the key pillars upon which the Liberal Democrat’s input, performance and record of the Coalition would be judged after the five year contract of government. However, this pillar has crumbled and it makes the record of government input infi-nitely less appealing to progressive minded people. The Liberal Democrats will have now to face up to the fact that their record in government will not be viewed with as much appraisal or satisfaction after the government’s lifetime reaches its demise. On the other hand, the blockage of Lords reform has been a profound eye-opener for the populace regarding the inherent instincts of the Conservative party. After his success at the leadership elec-tion, David Cameron pledged to make the Tories an electable party. To reverse his party’s slide into the shadows of political wilderness, David Cameron embarked on a modernisation process; he embraced the battle to halt climate change and chose to ‘hug a hoodie’ in lieu of condemning the ‘hoodie’ (as previous Tories would have done). Intriguingly, David Cameron even pledged to continue with New Labour’s spending plans in the successive Parliament which were contrived on an upward trajec-tory. Nevertheless, this meek modernisa-tion process has been mightily uncovered and identified as a mere self-interested facade. However, it would be impossible to blame the Tories comprehensively for the failure of Lords reform. The Liberal Democrats were remarkably naive if they believed that House of Lords reform would pass through Parliament without severe criticism. It would have been historically without precedent for the Tories to condone a wholesale transformation of the Upper chamber. For example, Margaret Thatcher refused to deliberate any alteration of the Upper chamber. Even though her mantra expounded that effort was more important than class, she was contentedly willing to condone the existence of hundreds of hereditary peers in the Upper chamber. Nonetheless, it is understandable that this conviction is embedded in Conservative philosophy; after all, the Tories possess an ingrained advantage since the vast major-ity of hereditary peers are of a decidedly Conservative persuasion. Conversely, New Labour has been preaching that they indel-ibly wear the crown of political sanctity since they supposedly operated with the

best interests of Parliament in mind. They refused to endeavour upon Lords reform because cross-party consensus could not be attained. However, this is a very indefen-sible approach because the Tory party will everlastingly prorogue debate as long as possible since constitutional change is anathema to their party’s soul. In conclusion, the epoch of opportunity has passed. The House of Commons has shown that it is a shadow of its historically zealous self. Great movements of reform can only prevail when the principle perco-lates into being recognised as a zeitgeist of the times. House of Lords reform has ulti-mately failed to prove itself to be an issue of national consequence. The consciences of most people are not repugnantly aroused by the comp/osition of the House of Lords. Unlike constitutional upheavals of the Vic-torian period, when the masses were invig-orated by politics to campaign vehemently for the extension of suffrage, Lords reform has failed to invoke a breathless sense of passion that is often required to make revo-lutionary leaps forward in politics. Nick Clegg’s once visionary and commendable character has lamentably been stained by the plethora of sacrifices that the Liberal Democrats have made to the Conservatives in order to sustain the Coalition. Nonetheless, any hope for Lords reform has not been blown completely out of the grasp of reformers. If a hung parliament ensues after the next general election, Lords reform could be back on the agenda as one of the primary conditions that must be instituted in order to win Liberal Democrat favour. If Labour can step up to this challenge, then the cause of Liberal-ism may still yet be alight with hope. It is now evident for all to see that, under this Coalition, the legions of statesmen demanding the obliteration of the Lords have been defeated by a quivering gather-ing of career politicians, determined to block progress at every opportunity. The Coalition, which was supposed to act as the vehicle down the road to Lords reform, has fatally crashed after an injurious disagreement. Britain’s journey towards eventual Lords reform will, one day, be reached since the House of Lords simply cannot continue in such an unsustainable and undemocratic mould. A new aspiring impatience is required in British politics where brave MPs can help achieve the heights that political vision can strive for. The current composition of the House of Commons is not sufficiently worthy or up to the task. For that reason, a new order of parliamentarians will be required before the flowering of democracy can truly occur in the Upper chamber, and by extension, in British politics.

Michael Cotterill

13The Regulus

DOMESTIC Politics

In the aftermath of the Tory party con-ference we may reflect on the awe that

Boris Johnson inspired in a captivated Tory core. The party faithful were riveted and sat salivating at his usual ‘devil-may care’ attitude to policy, his self-professed Periclean elegance and of course the pol-ished ‘Boris’ persona. Boris is heroically revered for his triumph in capturing the great city of London for the Tories in the mayoral elections; delivering the Tory party an often quoted Labour city, if but narrowly, for the second term. Further-more, Boris was one of the few Tories at the conference to mention the topic of aviation policy. Boris continues to vehemently pronounce his abhorrence of the idea of a third runway at Heathrow, and has rigorously campaigned for the brilliantly original suggestion of the so-called ‘Boris Island.’ What Boris presents here is an aviation plan; it may not be a flawless one, but it is certainly credible. Regrettably, unlike Boris, the coalition has axiomatically failed to produce a credible plan. Like Labour before them, they have toyed with several proposals before hastily retreating from all of them and deciding on that most utilitarian of public sector stalls: the report. Unfortu-nately, Justine Greening’s ‘consequences of a third runway’ report has been more or less forgotten with her own reshuffle. Nevertheless, in September, the govern-ment delightedly announced that civil servants will spend the next three years collecting evidence on the best direction for resolving the apparent shortage of air traffic capacity in the south-east of England. However, by the time the report has reached its conclusions, the Chinese economy will have grown by an esti-mated 25%. The United Kingdom will not be able to benefit from the fruits of this growth because good old Heathrow will simply have continued creaking at its eye-watering 98% daily capacity. This is intensely frustrating for British busi-nesses because more and more contracts are being handed to other countries that

provide infinitely superior aviation infra-structures. One of the key problems for Heathrow is the residential nature of its surrounding area. This affects flight times and this resi-dential argument is frequently employed to foil any manoeuvres to expand the airport. Labour found this to its cost and, conse-quently, lost some support in London dur-ing Ken and Boris’ first face-off. Fortunate-ly for Boris, his advisers have discovered that his opposition to prospective Heathrow expansion was instrumental in rallying sup-port for him in London during the election campaign. Nevertheless, the third runway is still muted as an idea because it remains the only tangible short-term solution to the issue. Unfortunately, the government has promised not to expand Heathrow, despite the fact that George Osborne’s personal support for a third runway is a very poorly kept secret indeed. Heathrow equally has been recognised as a short-term solution to this pressing issue while the famous Boris Island, alternatively Gatwick, Stansted or Manston, or even a new site would provide the long-term solution the UK desperately needs. The abject failure of the coalition to articulate a credible solution to the urgent and long overdue issue of aviation policy has been a continual running sore through-out its term of office. It has most disap-pointed the Tory core, who desperate to see a dynamic Tory government advocating logical solutions for growth, have been answered only with confusion and embar-rassing coyness. The recent announcement of a new assertion of powers independent from Europe will excite the party faithful, but they are longing for further decisive moments of policy direction. One might cite David Cameron’s ‘No to Europe’ moment in December 2011 as a lonely example of such decisiveness which saw him soar 4-6% in the polls. The aftermath of this occasion saw a honeymoon period for David Cameron, which lasted for three months, during which time he reached the late thirty percentile in the polls. However,

the honeymoon crashed cataclysmically after the budget delivery on 21st March, ‘pastygate’ and other nightmares from which the Tory party has not yet awoken. A bold new direction on aviation could provoke the much-needed boost in the polls for the Tory party. It is now common knowledge that George Osborne failed to mention the word “growth” in his keynote speech, and Ed Miliband failed to mention the word “indi-vidual”, perhaps reflecting their weakness-es. The Labour party is still enjoying good leads in the polls: 7% even after the Tory conference. Furthermore, the electorate have consistently advocated over the last 6 months that Labour would introduce better tax policies and would be more successful at tackling unemployment; however, they still trail the Conservatives on the gen-eral subject of the economy. Equally, Ed Miliband continues to trail behind David Cameron with regards to prime ministe-rial preference. If Mr Miliband wants to undermine the Tory strengths, then aviation could be the lightening rod he needs to scatter the Tory ranks which are profoundly divided on this issue. Such action would unite the electorate behind the Labour leader, who is yet to find a solid footing in the polls. Aviation has time and again been a set-aside issue for British governments despite the extraordinary queue of investors waiting for the green light. It is a situation that has come to a head and will have to be solved by a decisive move. What is clear is that if Labour decides to exploit this ‘vulnerable flank’ of Tory economic policy, then they may inspire the confidence in economic credibility that ‘Milliballs’ need to swipe the next election. If the Conserva-tives want a second term to become a real-ity, they have to face up to difficult issues like aviation. If they manage to achieve this, we may yet see the making of them in this government.

Aviation: the new (old) battleground for the Economy

Henry WilsonMichael Cotterill

The Regulus14

FOREIGN Affairs

In late September, UK Prime Minister Da-vid Cameron once again made headlines

hinting at the possibility of a referendum on Britain’s European Union membership. The move is the latest in a series of manoeuvres to nudge the Conservative Party further to the right and appease its often vociferous backbenchers. Indeed, the EU could scarcely be a less popular institution at the moment. In 2011, 73% of Britons said they “tended not to trust” the EU, while 49% held a generally negative view of the organisation, compared to just 13% who felt favourably. The public’s hostility, crafted by a diet of media narrative around supposedly endless EU regulation and high-profile legal challenges in which the British government has been overruled by Brussels, has only been reinforced by the disastrous Eurozone crisis, blamed for the UK’s current economic woes. And yet, with eurosceptics pointing to the crisis as evidence of the European Project’s inevitable failure, and arguing that now is a better time than ever to jump ship, it is the crisis itself that renders debate on Britain’s membership of the Union somewhat prema-ture. Simply put, you do not make a decision on whether or not to buy before you have seen the product.The EU is an organisation which has con-stantly developed and changed, having dealt with the end of the Cold War, several waves of expansion and jurisdictional dilemmas, such as the question mark over the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an area of the EU in name only. But the Eurozone crisis presents an unprecedented challenge requiring both short-term action and long-term restructuring of the European Union as a whole, obscuring what Europe might look like ten years from now.The dream of a single European currency has been all but crushed as the global financial meltdown has exposed the faults of a system where members lied about their solvency, little planning was made for a widespread recession, and enthusiasm for a united conti-nent ignored the vast differences between the economic characteristics of member states. How can we salvage this dream? More

Europe.There is now, after many months of wran-gling, widespread consensus amongst the governments of member states that mon-etary union necessarily requires budgetary coordination. The European Fiscal Compact, signed in March 2012 notably without the support of the more eurosceptic-minded Brit-ish and Czech governments, represents this progress. However, many now believe that yet further integration is vital if the common cur-rency is to be saved. Last month, Prof. Paul de Grauwe, head of the European Institute at the London School of Economics, called in his speech to the European Society of the University of St Andrews for the establish-ment of a European fiscal and budgetary union, with a requirement for Eurozone bud-gets to be centrally checked and approved. His views are echoed by many scholars, finding political support amongst a growing number of European governments – most notably in Angela Merkel’s administration. This budgetary regulation certainly seems necessary, if perhaps not desirable. The fail-ures of the current system have demonstrated that the differences between European economies necessitates some degree of cen-tral fiscal coordination, and it appears highly likely that change similar to that proposed by Prof. de Grauwe will take effect, driven by German enthusiasm for fiscal responsibility. However, the resultant level of sover-eignty necessarily handed to Brussels would undoubtedly be viewed with suspicion by many member states. While Eurozone coun-tries may feel compelled to act in panicked defence of their economies and the future of the Euro, non-Euro member states will be far more reluctant to embrace the common currency in the future. The renewed rhetoric of a European Federation, supported by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Bar-roso, in his call for a “federation of nation states” as a response to the Eurozone crisis, will also frighten less enthusiastic par-ticipants. The idea of the EU pulling closer together in times of crisis may comfort those states that have embraced the Euro and are now worried for their future, but it makes those who have never fully thrown in their lot somewhat uneasy. Despite the thinly-veiled federalist ambi-tions of numerous notable EU architects and the commitment to “ever closer union” spelled out in the organisation’s found-ing Treaty of Rome, concern for national sovereignty has until now tempered the pace of unification. States such as the UK joined the EU in an attempt to benefit from the advantages of European unity – of which there are many – whilst trying to prevent ‘excessive’ integra-tion. Britain has enthusiastically supported

expansion into Eastern Europe and champi-ons Turkey as an accession state, in the hope that widening the EU will make it impossible to deepen it. With Britain, and other states such as Denmark, the Czech Republic and Hungary likely hostile to a politically centralised Europe, the EU’s attempt to save itself by gluing members closer together may leave some feeling held to ransom unless it adopts an approach that better recognises the vary-ing degrees of investment that states are prepared to contribute to integration. One such solution is the proposal for a ‘multi-speed Europe’, first formulated by thinkers at the end of the Cold War in an attempt to tackle the very problem that states like Britain worked hard to cause – the dif-ficulty of integration coupled with rapid and continuing expansion. The proposal would

see a core group of Eurozone states deepen political integration and surrender more sovereignty while newer and more reluctant states adopt new structures at a slower rate. In today’s political landscape this still poses problems for euroscpetic members. Multi-speed Europe may build upon the system of treaty exemptions which has made them comfortable enough with Europe up until now – for example Denmark’s opt-out of the Euro or the UK’s self-exclusion from the Schengen zone, and those members of the European Free Trade Area who seek ac-cess to the free market short of full EU mem-bership – but it implies that those states will eventually fully integrate into the system. The British government and people, regardless of any debate on the value of the EU, will simply not accept such a sudden relinquishment of sovereignty. We must, therefore, explore a ‘multi-depth Europe’ model: the Euro states (following any departures by structurally unsuited economies) form a fiscal union, share defence capabilities and form a uni-fied foreign policy, “creating”, as Prof. de Grauwe suggests, “a sort of country”. And for states outside the core: continued access to the common market, profiting from advantages of trading with a more inte-grated core whilst limiting the ‘surrender’ of sovereignty, continued use of the EU’s platform for speaking to the world with a stronger voice where foreign policy interests converge, and continued benefit from coop-eration to solve common problems and share responsibilities to the benefit of populations. The European project is plagued by a disparity of enthusiasm amongst member states, but by removing the expectation for less enthusiastic states to integrate beyond their limits, the EU can both solve the struc-

Working Towards a Multi-Speed Europe

“Multi-speed Europe may build upon the system of treaty ex-

emptions which has made them comfortable enough with Europe

up until now”

15The Regulus

FOREIGN Affairs

The disputed Kenyan election result of 2007 led to over 1,000 deaths,

thousands of incidences of rape, and over 600,000 people displaced, many of whom are still unable to return to their homes and remain at severe risk of disease and starva-tion. This travesty followed the horrific exploitation of tribal divisions for political gain, leaving many to wonder—in light of the forthcoming elections—what will be different? Why should we not expect chaos once again? In the run up to the election over a hundred people have already died in tribal clashes near the Tana River delta and more in riots in Mombasa and Al-Shabab. Prom-inent politicians such as MP Ferdinand Waititu have even publicly incited political violence; it is evident that similar chaos is inevitable unless urgent action is taken. In 2007 the world stood by and watched as Kenya imploded, but a recurrence of this barbarity can be averted. First, world leaders need to let Kenya know that they are watching. In the last election, Joshua Arap Sang allegedly organised attacks through his radio station, Kass FM, broad-casting the location of the Kikuyu opposi-tion to paramilitary henchmen. He has been charged with inciting ethnic hatred and ordering the burning of a church filled with ethnic Kikuyus—but nothing was done at the time. With real global attention such political violence would not go unno-

ticed, as it has done in the past. The simple step of monitoring radio signals could po-tentially allow international organisations to save hundreds of lives. The Kenyan media should be encouraged to report honestly and transparently. A second major danger is the Mungiki—a terroristic mafia organization with wide-spread influence and composed of young men of the Kikuyu tribe, the largest in Ke-nya. This group, which operates primarily in the Mathare slums of Nairobi, is alleged to have planned and coordinated vengeful attacks against the Luo and Kalenjin ethnic groups around the time of the last election. The cause of the systemic violence becomes clear upon appreciation of the cor-ruption in the police and judiciary. Kenya is currently ranked in the top 30 of the world’s most corrupt countries and is incapable or unwilling to stamp out the threat posed by organised crime, and its related influences. Since Kenyan institutions are evidently unable to fetter such organized criminal groups and corrupt influences stretching to the very highest echelons of government, any help must come from abroad. However, I believe international scrutiny is the most practical and most likely remedy. While by no means a panacea, proper international in-fluence could considerably limit the power and effectiveness of the various criminal regimes at play in the coming election. In-ternational organizations such as the United

Nations, the African Union and Transpar-ency International must put pressure on the Kenyan government; the attention of the United States would not be amiss either. One simple and effective task for foreign agencies would be to monitor the election. By keeping a close eye on the workings at the ballot box and recording the events as they unfold they could help create a safer and fairer atmosphere. International envoys would not be expected to have any power or position, but given that the violence at the last election resulted from the vast suspicion of electoral injustice, the presence of international observers would surely be a positive influence, and could be a critical step to ensuring peaceful elections. And yet, given the aforemen-tioned problems, we must ask whether we have a duty to help? Surely it is neither the responsibility nor the expectation of world powers to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. But the world, especially the UK, has a vested interest in Kenya. With the recent invasion of Somalia, Kenya now plays a significant role in the fight to bring stability to the region, as Kenya will be instrumental in setting up and supporting the new Somali government, a task it will be unable to meet if it is destabilized by election violence. With the elections com-ing at a key moment in the battle against quasi-militarist Somalia, the stability of the region would suffer enormously, were Kenya to be rendered ineffective by internal violence. The UK not only has strong historical links with Kenya, but also has a very strong current affiliation. In 2012 over 170,000 tourists from the UK visited Kenya, and indeed tourism is Kenya's largest foreign exchange earner. The danger posed by the political instability and the possibility of mass violence could pose a substantial risk to the economy of the entire nation. The precedent for violence is so recent and so clear that it is of paramount impor-tance that international organisations and world superpowers commit to a course of action that will counteract this outcome: the world must pay attention to the Kenyan elections.

Kenya’s Violent elections: a preventable stormAngus Millar

tural crisis at its heart and concentrate on cooperating on matters where integration is desirable and achievable – pooling resources in science and research, for example, or im-proving extra-European co-ordinated foreign policy response. The more eurosceptic mem-bers may shrink in horror at the thought of surrendering sovereignty to an autonomous or centralised institution, but they value the forum for co-operation and co-ordinating policies. After all, nobody is going to argue against cancer research or speaking with an

authoritative voice on undemocratic regimes overseas. Europe is always going to be a reluctant grouping of nations who diverge on precise ambitions. Support for the EU will grow and fall time and again, and a snap referendum would be best cautioned against when the nature of the institution is in constant flux. We need to rethink Europe so that all involved will benefit. As much as we may have in common, we are not homogenous and do not have the same needs and desires

when it comes to European integration. Go too far too quickly, and states such as Britain may feel compelled to leave. A new approach taking account of this can offer the solution. With the EU’s char-acter being reforged in the meeting rooms of Brussels and Strasbourg, and the tem-peramental attitudes of the more recalcitrant governments of the Union, we can only hope that Europe’s leaders do not pull Europe apart in attempting to mend it back together.

Aneurin Howorth

The Regulus16

FOREIGN Affairs

Lost in the tumult of the Arab Spring was “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Pen-

insula’s” (AQAP) removal of Yemen’s thirty year President Ali Saleh, and the jihadi group’s subsequent rise to power and control over the Abyan Governorate region for several months. In May of this year the Yemeni army was reported to have retaken control of most of the territory, having effectively removed AQAP from power. While undoubtedly a desirable improve-ment, such late and basic military action has done nothing to solve the underlying issues that made the initial overthrow pos-sible. Yemen, like many of its neighbours, suf-fers from heavy youth unemployment, reli-gious extremism, and economic stagnancy: complex problems that Yemen would ap-pear unable to tackle currently. While many Arab countries suffer from the detriments of transitional government, Yemen does so especially, having been without a strong civil society to begin with; the nation has a tenuous national identity, affording the opportunity to separatist groups to pursue

their own political ambitions. While this may seem typical of the region, Yemen deserves greater attention than it has received; not from obligation, but in self interest; the country has already become a safe heaven for AQAP, Al Qa-eda’s most active branch. That Yemen may become this decade’s Afghanistan is not an unrealistic fear. It is in the greatest interest of the international community that Yemen is saved from internal collapse. The United States has begun to extend greater levels of aid to Yemen, in an effort to help improve a failing infrastructure, but at is simultaneously serving to alien-ate itself from the general population by heightening a campaign of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle bombing. While this drone offensive has largely succeeded in eliminating ranking members of AQAP, the covert nature of the bomb-ing campaign could easily be considered a breach of sovereignty, considering that the disposed president was caught lying about the program on the United States’behalf, promising to "continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours" in U.S. diplomatic cables unearthed by Wikileaks.

On June 14th 2012, a group of over one hundred landless farmers occupied

the lands of a well-known Paraguayan conservative businessman, Blas Riquelme, protesting the extrajudicial stripping of agricultural land in Canindeyú county. One day later, the Paraguayan armed forces entered the lands to evict the protestors, but were victims of an ambush, causing the deaths of 6 police and 11 farmers.The wake of the tragedy allowed the Para-guayan opposition to place great political pressure on the President, Fernando Lugo. On June 21st the Paraguayan Senate ap-proved the motion to impeach the Presi-dent, finding him politically responsible for the shooting. On the next day, the Para-guayan Senate removed him as President with 39 votes in favour, 4 against and 2 absences. The right-wing vice-president Federico Franco acceded the Presidency. The legitimacy of the trial was clouded by its speed – less than 48 hours – as Lugo and his lawyers protested that they were not allowed a fair trial, given only 2 hours to prepare their defense. Next, the UNASUR expressed its support for the ex-President, declaring, “With Lugo’s destitution, the democratic order has been violated.” The Uruguayan president, José Mujica, went as far as calling the incident a putsch. On June 29th, after a MERCOSUR summit between the presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, Cristina Fernán-dez de Kirchner announced the suspension of Paraguay from the trade union until free elections occurred and a legitimate

President took charge. Under the Protocol of Ushuaia, a document signed by all the members of the MERCOSUR which legiti-mizes political and economic sanctions to countries if the democratic order is broken, Paraguay was suspended from the MER-COSUR. Argentina’s president after this meeting made an announcement that further compli-cated the issue: the MERCOSUR decided that Venezuela could finally integrate into the block, six years after applying for membership. This decision came as a shock to most South Americans, considering that the Treaty of Asunción, the creational document of the MERCOSUR, states in Article 20 that “the approval of other coun-tries to form part of the organization will be a subject of unanimous decision by all the original States members.” Paraguay had been the only country to reject Venezuela’s request because its Senate declared that Chávez’ government was not a true democ-racy. Although Lugo was the president, he did not have majority in the Senate, and the opposition joined to dismiss Venezuela’s participation in the MERCOSUR. This decision, made by the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, was highly controversial on political, social and juridi-cal grounds. Was the decision legal during Paraguay’s suspension? Was the suspen-sion legitimate in the first place, or were there ulterior motivations? Is a comparison between the supposed antidemocratic governmental functioning in Paraguay and Chavez’ Venezuela hypocritical?

The Organization of American States sent a committee to Paraguay to analyze the situ-ation. In their announcement on the 22nd of August 2012, they did not sanction Para-guay, having found the proceedings to be legitimate. Although the trial appeared to be suspicious and one may not fully agree with Lugo’s destitution, the exercise was legal under Article 225 of the Paraguayan Constitution. In an interview with The Regulus, the leader of a major Uruguayan opposition party, Partido Colorado, and candidate for presidency for the next elections, Dr. Pedro Bordaberry, criticized the inclusion of Venezuela based on its extrajudicial characteristics: “The protocol demands Paraguay’s approbation, so Venezuela cannot be incorporated while Paraguay is suspended”. He also disputes those who consider Lugo’s destitution antidemocratic: “The Paraguayan Constitution establishes that the President can be removed through a political trial by the Parliament. Nobody

Paraguay’s antidemocratic suspension from MERCOSUR

The U.S. and Yemen have moved in the right direction by publicly acknowledging the bombing campaign, but to ensure the future of the volatile Yemeni government, the international community needs to focus its energies on improving Yemen’s infra-structure and bolstering the allied central government to a stable enough station to tackle its internal tribulations.

Unrest in Yemen

Gus Tate

17The Regulus

FOREIGN Affairsargues that the formalities of the Constitu-tion were not respected, meaning accusa-tion and voting. It is true that the length of the trial was short, but the Constitution does not establish any definite period of time.” When questioned about what would have been the attitude of the opposition if faced with this conflict, he answered: “The attitude of not intervening in the internal affairs of other countries.” Dr. Bordaberry believes the suspension of Paraguay and acceptance of Venezuela is hypocritical and adds, “It is also paradoxi-cal that Cuba has removed their ambas-sador in Asunción for the same reason. But I will repeat to you that I do not think that what happened in Paraguay was antidemo-cratic. The UN and the OAS agree with me.” Regarding what this conflict will mean to the future of the MERCOSUR, he answered: “A wound that keeps it from being what it initially was. When it was created, the main objectives were eco-nomical, and today, it is almost exclusively political.” While a reaction of this sort would be expected from the opposition, even the Uruguayan vice-president, Danilo Astori, has surprisingly criticized the decision of the President in a press release: “This is an institutional aggression significantly important for the MERCOSUR. It is prob-ably the deepest wound in 21 years of this

organization.” The Director of the Centre for Global and Regional Studies (CEGRE), Andrés Serbin, accuses the presidents of the MERCOSUR of a political excess: “For the Paraguayan suspension to be legitimate, it should have been approved by the parlia-ment of the countries which are members. We could see a presidential excess, which once again, shows the weak institutions of the international organizations.” This presidential excess raises another question: What would have happened if Lugo was right wing? The same decision in such a scenario seems unlikely; the democratic idealism so pompously conveyed ought, in principle, to transcend political tendency, but in this case, political affinity seems to have been the deciding factor. The major organ within the MERCO-SUR is the CMC, which is in charge of making the decisions in relation to the suspension of any member. The CMC did not make this decision, but the Presidents, in an informal manner that failed to respect the juridical protocols of the MERCOSUR. In another interview with The Regulus, a prominent Uruguayan senator, Dr. Sergio Abreu, had harsh words for the Presidents of the MERCOSUR: “In this region, the conception of democracy has been reduced to the fact that the authorities are chosen freely by the citizens, leaving behind ele-

ments like the separation of powers, the respect for individual rights established in the Constitution and the freedom of speech. The agreement about the rupture of democ-racy in Paraguay was a political aggression without any evidence to justify it, so that Venezuela could be incorporated.” Regard-ing any particular interests on incorporating Venezuela into the MERCOSUR, Abreu points out the fact that Chávez financially supported the electoral campaign of the actual Argentinean president, Cristina Fernández. In the case of Brazil, he thinks that Dilma Rousseff’s interest is to have one of the greatest economic powers of South America inside the MERCOSUR in order to have control over them. After the announcement about Venezu-ela’s inclusion, most juridical experts agree that the institution’s regulatory procedure had been violated. Under a propagandistic facade, the Presidents committed an illegal usurpation of power and hypocritically excluded Paraguay from the MERCOSUR trade union. At times it would appear that things have not changed much in the Americas since their discovery in 1492: in South America at least, the “law of the jungle” seems still to be valid.

New technology brings new dilem-mas. Today, robots are ubiquitous in

production lines and in hospitals, but have yet to gain acceptance on the battlefield. The rising use of “smart weapons” presents new interpretations of strategic warfare and its ethical considerations. Military robots in active use can operate on the ground, at sea, and in the air. They are of all sizes; the little Sand Flea, weigh-ing just about 5 kilos, is able to jump up to 9 metres, making it capable of entering through small windows or spying from rooftops. The Falcon drone has hypersonic abilities and has been tested at 21,000 km/h. The Guardian blogger, Andrew Brown, refers to the drone as a “flexible killing machine”. Other robots, like the SUAV, can be equipped with software al-lowing them to identify and follow a man in a crowd. The TALON SWORD is one such smart weapon being tested in the battlefield, three of which were deployed by US forces Iraq, starting 2007. The TALON can survive 7 days on standby before requiring a recharge, and can transmit live visuals to its operator up to 1,000 meters away. The SWORDs robots have since gone out of production, and it is believed that its successor, the Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System (MAARS) will fulfil the

same deployment role in the near future. To the common citizen, the term “robot” connotes Star Wars or the Terminator, painting horrible images of soulless warfare conducted from afar. However, it is impor-tant to note that the current technology is anything but the nightmarish fantasies we encounter in popular fiction. Real military robots are noisy, clumsy, and prone to dam-age. Production is lengthy and expensive, and the use of robots is currently very low—only 3 SWORDS were deployed in Iraq. Ronald Arkin, Computing Professor at Georgia Tech, argues that robots can be more humane warriors than soldiers. They do not have any human needs, and can observe a target over long periods of time. In addition to easing the soldiers’ responsibilities, robots should find it easier to discriminate targets. However, we may question this argument given that during the last eight years CIA drone strikes have killed over 500 civilians in Pakistan alone. Despite the benefits related to the use of intelligent weapons, we must not forget the dangers; technology does not always behave precisely as we expect. In October 2007, a South African robot killed nine and maimed fourteen in an act of unrestricted friendly fire, one of several examples of armed robots running amok. When

technology fails, ethical issues regarding responsibility arise. Should we hold the nation state, the operator, or the robot itself accountable for the harm? Soldiers can be set for trial; robots can be destroyed or reprogrammed—but is advancing technol-ogy worth the cost in human lives? Intelligent weapons grant huge advantag-es on the battlefield. Casualties are lowered, and with greater efficiency in production and practice in operation, the costs of dam-age will fall, and so will the cost of waging war. While some argue that robot prolifera-tion will lead to a state of deterrence, others rebut that this will exacerbate mismatches in sovereign military power. States without the latest technology may seek to acquire

Robots in the Field; an Industrial Revolution of Warfare?Toti Sarasola

The Regulus18

FOREIGN Affairs/CULTURE

Ethical consumerism is a form of activ-ism in which consumers are encour-

aged to make decisions based on ethical criteria. This kind of thinking involves con-sidering the impacts of consumer behaviour on all areas of consumerism. This requires a comprehensive understanding of socially and environmentally responsible corporate practices, no mean feat in today’s world. A rapidly growing subset of ethical consumerism is the movement known as ecotourism. Ecotourists strive to find an al-ternative to commercialized mass tourism, aiming for a low-impact form of travel. The goals are twofold: educating the tourist on sustainable living, and a positive impact on local development. Therefore, ecotour-ism aims at socially responsible travel, environmental sustainability and personal growth. For these reasons, ecotourism often involves social or conservation work, and is not a holiday in the traditional sense, but rather work to promote the destination of travel. The project of ecotourism may yet prove unfulfilled, a victim of its own success. Lofty ideals aside, tourism is a practice that, although economically profitable to the destination, inevitably seems to lead to environmental degradation. The required infrastructure needed often boosts econom-ic development, but it also requires space; roads, marinas, airports, accommodation, leisure and health care. The development of this infrastructure means that the tour-ism industry infringes on other first-order economic ventures, such as agriculture. It also creates ecosystem fragmentation and pollution, as well as an over-consumption of scarce local resources. The high standard of living many tourists to third-world countries require is often unsustainable in terms of the available water at hand, which causes water shortages in the local popula-tion. A research report by the Non-Gov-ernmental Organization Tourism Concern

finds that water consumption by tourists in Zanzibar is generally 16 times higher than that of the local population. "While hotels may have the money and resources to ensure their guests enjoy several showers a day, swimming pools, a round of golf, and lush landscaped gardens, neighbouring households, small businesses and agricultural producers can regularly endure severe water scarcity,” the report warns. One also wonders whether anyone who flies halfway around the world in a jet powered by fossil fuels can con-sider him-or-herself an eco-tourist. The growing allure of appearing “green” on the part of hotels and tour agen-cies has also spawned a cynical abuse of the consumer’s environmental goodwill. Hotels frequently deem themselves eco-logical on the sole basis of recycling food waste or only washing towels when left in the tub. Such token half-measures do not make up for the social and economic harm done by tourists. Environmentalists have expressed concerns over what is now termed “green washing”, an occurrence where limited “green” practices or market-ing are used to deceive the public about in-herently untenable environmental policies. In this way, ecotourism suffers from the same issues as green branding, namely that there is no central authority to authenticate or certify them. Research done by Ter-raChoice Environmental Marketing shows that 99 percent of products conveniently labeled “green” do not live up to these standards. Ayako Ezaki, director of the International Ecotourism Society, reflects on such facile green business practices; “I've stayed at hotels where you can put a card on your bed if you want your linens changed every other day, and on the back it says something like 'Save the planet’. Not washing linens every day does not save the planet. And sometimes, they wash them every day, anyway.”

The sober truth is that ecotourism has become nothing more than a buzzword; true sustainable tourist practices, it would appear, are fundamentally incompatible with western norms of consumer behav-iour. Thailand tourism mogul and promoter of sustainable practices, Vincent Tabutuex, is not a believer of the concept. He states; “I’m more concerned with greening mass tourism. Ecotourism has become a vehicle for those who have one nice environmental product, and claim they are green.” It is evident that true ecotourism is still some way off. An emergent global middle class hailing from China and India will only supplement the immense demand for tourist destinations. When genuine ecotourism does become the norm, not the exception, it will have arisen out of neces-sity rather than belief. For now, however, ecotourism does offer some redeeming qualities. At the very least ecotourist agen-cies attempt to incorporate environmental perspectives and give the consumer an in-centive and opportunity to establish greener norms and values—sustainable practices that man pertain to the day-to-day and do not leave us at journey’s end.

Ecotourism: Green-washing or the future of ethical consumerism?

weapons of mass destruction in order to balance the new threat. Finally, we must consider the psycho-logical impact of military robotics. There is a concern that civilians in occupied areas will be less inclined to build a friendly re-lationship with the occupiers if faced with constant robot patrol. Only human beings are capable of constructing human relation-ships. Secondly, the operators of the robots will work in areas that are unaffected by the environment of the theatre of war, which may lead to inhumane and unnatural critical decisions. Today drones are used for missions considered too “dull, dirty or dangerous” for soldiers. This may not stay the same for long. Several nations are actively pursuing

an increased capacity of unmanned military devices. The United States Air Force Unarmed Aircraft Systems Fight Plan 2009 – 2047 demonstrates a long-term commit-ment for fundamentally transforming its in-frastructure. The fight plan originally insist-ed that a “human should always be in the loop”, however this was changed in 2009 to “on the loop” and “that for a significant period into the future, the decision to pull the trigger will not be fully automated”. Further, during the NATO Chicago Summit in May 2012, Northrop Grumman, the US defence contractor, signed a deal to supply NATO with its first unmanned surveillance aircraft. Even though this machine will not carry lethal weapons, it shows that NATO is willing to join the technological develop-

ment. A spy plane might seem harmless, but may still provoke the sovereign state whose airspace it is inspecting. NATO member states have used armed drones previously, such as during the Libyan civil war. The established ethics related to such warfare have yet to be discussed by the alliance. As an escalating number of nations are jumping on the fast moving train of advancing smart weapons, it now remains to see to what extent they are willing to face the ethical challenges that will inevitably rise. Smart weapons may be smart in theory, but are we willing to pay the moral price?

Linn Kristin Klausen

Nora Malm

deemed them exploitative; the narrative runs that Tudor-Jones is old enough to have lived through Apartheid, and thus his claims to represent all South Africans are perverse, since he’s idolizing those that suf-fered under a regime from which he was a direct beneficiary. And how can two upper-middle class Afrikaners posing as Cape-town’s version of white trash possibly rep-resent the downtrodden members of South African society? The reality is that their act is not a mere farce—their over-the-top personas are indeed parody, but parody that truly embraces their subject matter, to the point of fetishism. Their frequent lambast-ing of Jacob Zuma (who has faced charges of corruption, rape, racism, and interfering with the democratic process) rings true, presented though it may be through wittily asinine lyrics and quirky skits. So while Die Antwoord may refer to themselves on their official website as “a fre$, futuristik, flame-throw-flow-freeking zef rap-rave krew from da dark danger-ous depths of Afrika,” they are far more than that. They are willing to engage and confront social issues with their intensely satirical demeanor, and all the while swear-ing in three languages. Despite the cultural barrier, they have attracted a massive global fanbase, known for their fan art and particularly rabid expressions of love for the band. Die Antwoord’s peculiar brand of riotous, devil-may-care thuggery, combined with an indifference to race and class, has brought a degree of nuance to what appears on face value to be utterly vapid shock art. Nelson Mandela’s South Africa has ebbed away in the years since he has left the public eye. In its place, an intensely fissured society and a corrupt, nationalistic government have arisen. The spectre of Apartheid lingers. Die Antwoord are not healers, but rather sardonic minstrels who confront race, class, and tribal politics head on, rather than shying away from them, as Zuma has been wont to do. Divisive and provocative, the band are hated and loved in equal measure. Many South Africans dismiss them as middle-class poseurs des-perately seeking attention. In this respect, they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. Die Antwoord is performance art—fascinating and shocking, it’s sheer entertainment. In the immortal words of Ninja, “F**k the no game-having, intellectuals out there ... We appeal to the man in the street. We make pop music. We don't make intel-lectual music. Our s**t is hostile takeover s**t. What the f**k you going to do about it? Nothing!”Die Antwoord’s released a non-album single XP€N$IV $H1T on 31 July 2012. It’s well worth a listen.

19The Regulus

CULTURE

In 2010, a Capetown rap group called Die Antwoord took the world by storm.

Rapping in English, Afrikaans, Xhosa, and occasionally the ‘prawn’ language from District 9, Ninja (Watkin Tudor-Jones) and Yo-landi Vi$$er (Anri Du Toit) were discovered on Myspace and became an overnight sensation. Liberally peppering their lyrics with profane Af-rikaans slang and borrowing beats from the racially mixed ghettos of the region, they introduced the world to a counter-cultural movement called Zef (Afrikaans for “common”). The act combines over-the-top personas with slick beats and beguiling multilingual rap verses, and it is strangely compelling. Critical responses to their work run the gamut from abject horror at the collective’s ap-parent obsession with phallic props and disturbing imagery to outright dismissal, but beneath the deliberately shocking fa-çade, the rap group offers a glimpse into a unique South African subculture. Die Antwoord is quite possibly South Africa’s biggest cultural export since Neil Blomkamp’s sci-fi masterpiece, District 9. Ninja and Yo-landi have appeared on David Letterman, the cover of FHM magazine, and they have turned down requests to open for Lady Gaga and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. This summer they embarked on a massive sold-out tour of the US and Europe. To their foreign fans they present a raw and unfiltered insight into Zef culture—a term similar to the UK’s derogatory ‘Chav’ or Australia’s ‘Bogan,’ except for the fact that Zef-siders seem to revel in the moniker. To them, race and class are moot; as Ninja says in their debut album $O$, “in South Africa, you get a lot of different things: whites, coloureds, English, Afrikaans, Xhosa, Zulu, watookal [whatever]—I’m like all these different things, all these different people, f****d into one person.” Their Zef-like rejection of conven-tional racial identity is evident in one of their early offerings, “Evil Boy,” featur-ing teenage Xhosa rapper Wanga. In the song, Wanga repudiates the traditional Xhosa circumcision ceremony—consid-

ered an essential ritual to gain manhood—and opts instead to remain an ‘evil boy’ for life. The customary rite involves unster-ilised and unanesthetised surgery in the bush, but to spurn the ritual is seen as ef-feminate, often resulting in exclusion from the community. Wanga’s use of the taboo Xhosa exclamation ‘umnqunduwakho’, as well as the assertion “no glove no love”, a reference to condom use (which has yet to gain full acceptance in South Africa, partly due to Zuma’s antics), evidences a sharp break with superstition and tradition. Die Antwoord has become an unofficial mouthpiece of sorts for the disenfran-chised in South Africa, a subsection that has swelled under the erratic and corrupt rule of President Jacob Zuma. Their local gigs attract the tsotsi from the townships, Afrikaners, and suburban, gated-communi-ty-dwellers in equal numbers. They claim not to be post-racial or great social healers but display instead a marked indifference to all identity characterization. The line “my inner f****n coloured just wants to be discovered” from their track Fish Paste is simultaneously confusing (why would a middle class Afrikaner claim to be ‘coloured’?) and liberating, as Ninja simply eschews race in favor of fame. The personas Tudor-Jones and Du Toit have created have been derided as cheap ploys for attention, but they counter this by obstinately staying in character—to the point of becoming them. To their fans, the fakeness of the act is irrelevant, as the music is undeniably captivating. The lyrics are fascinating, immersive, and trashy, the synths an eclectic mix of vintage euro-pop and rave in the local Cape flats tradition. Their fundamental message—a homage to Zef life, characterized as rejecting norms of race and culture in favor of “driv[ing] fast and playing kak music loud”—clearly resonates with millions of disaffected fans worldwide. Die Antwoord are not just modern performers, they are parodies of performance art in general. Their transcen-dental fakeness is a reminder that modern life is inherently a charade, an exercise in pageantry and posturing. To them, state-ments of race, wealth, and class, still very sensitive topics in South Africa, are mere costumes behind which hide our true selves. In this respect, their name—‘the An-swer’—is less of a self-aggrandizing term and more a statement of their insouciant ideology. Their answer to questions of identity and class struggle is to say, “screw it” and become Zef instead: to wear bling and grills, to drink cheap beer, and have a good time regardless of social norms. Naturally, Die Antwoord attracts their fair share of critics. Many commentators have

Blackface or artistic homage? The Story of Die Antwood

Nora Malm