w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
om
.c
9777/03/PRE
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 3 Presentation
s
er
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
Cambridge International Level 3 Pre-U Certificate
October/November 2010
INSTRUCTIONS (Pre-Release Material)
To be given to candidates
*2158364661*
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST
Guidance for Teachers
This Resource Booklet contains stimulus material to be used by candidates preparing their presentation for
9777/03. One copy should be given to each candidate.
Presentations must be prepared in a four-week period. This may take place at any point before 31 October
2010, by which date all presentations must have been submitted to CIE via eRepository.
Instructions to Candidates
•
You should use the enclosed stimulus material to help you identify the subject for your presentation.
•
Your presentation should attempt to answer a question.
•
Your presentation must address alternative perspectives on the question you select and must engage
directly with an issue, an assumption, a piece of evidence and/or a line of reasoning (explicit or implicit)
in one or more of the documents within this Booklet (i.e. you should not just pick an individual word or
phrase which is not central to the reasoning of or the issues covered by the documents).
•
Include in your presentation an explanation of how it relates to these pre-release materials.
•
Your presentation should be designed for a non-specialist audience.
•
Originality in interpretation is welcomed.
•
Your presentation may be prepared in a variety of formats (e.g. PowerPoint, weblog or web pages) and
should normally include an oral presentation or commentary. Where this is not possible, accompanying
written notes must be provided.
•
The speaking or running time of your presentation should be a maximum of 15 minutes.
This document consists of 13 printed pages and 3 blank pages.
DC (LEO) 20404/4
© UCLES 2010
[Turn over
2
Document 1
‘60th Anniversary: Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a living document.’
Department of Public Information, United Nations, 2008
Many things can be said about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is the foundation
of international human rights law, the first universal statement on the basic principles of inalienable
human rights, and a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. As the UDHR
approaches its 60th birthday, it is timely to emphasize the living document’s enduring relevance, its
universality, and that it has everything to do with all of us. Today, the UDHR is more relevant than ever.
It was the UDHR, almost 60 years ago, that first recognized what have become nowadays universal
values: human rights are inherent to all and the concern of the whole of the international community.
Drafted by representatives of all regions and legal traditions, the UDHR has stood the test of time and
resisted attacks based on “relativism”. The Declaration and its core values, including non-discrimination,
equality, fairness and universality, apply to everyone, everywhere and always. The UDHR belongs to all
of us.
More than ever, in a world threatened by racial, economic and religious divides, we must defend and
proclaim the universal principles – first enshrined in the UDHR – of justice, fairness and equality that
people across all boundaries hold so deeply.
Enduring Relevance
Human rights are not only a common inheritance of universal values that transcend cultures and
traditions, but are quintessentially local values and nationally-owned commitments grounded in
international treaties and national constitutions and laws.
The Declaration represents a contract between governments and their peoples, who have a right to
demand that this document be respected. Not all governments have become parties to all human
rights treaties. All countries, however, have accepted the UDHR. The Declaration continues to affirm
the inherent human dignity and worth of every person in the world, without distinction of any kind.
Ongoing struggle
The UDHR protects all of us, and it also enshrines the gamut of human rights. The drafters of the
UDHR saw a future of freedom from fear, but also of freedom from want. They put all human rights on
an equal footing and confirmed human rights are essential to a life of dignity.
The UDHR drafters’ vision has inspired many human rights defenders who have struggled over the
last six decades to make that vision a reality. The contemporary international human rights edifice that
originates in the UDHR is to be celebrated. But it has yet to benefit all of humanity equally.
The struggle is far from over. As the Declaration’s custodians and beneficiaries, all of us must reclaim
the UDHR, make it our own. While we are entitled to our human rights, we should also respect the
human rights of others and help make universal human rights a reality for all of us. In our efforts lies the
power of the UDHR: it is a living document that will continue to inspire generations to come.
[http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/declaration.shtml]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
3
Document 2
‘Culinary democracy required.
Why Italy’s attempt to outlaw kebabs is nuts.’
The Straits Times, 2 February 2009
Rupali Karekar
Ancient Indic philosophy has a mantra which goes thus: ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – which means
‘The whole world is but one big family’. The sages, I think, got it right. So did Jason Mraz when he sang:
“We are one big family”. One definition, almost perfectly suited for contemporary families, is a one-liner
by an anonymous author, which I read recently. “Families”, the author has said, “Are like fudge – mostly
sweet ... with a few nuts.”
I was reminded of this after reading about a group of politicians in Italy, who were encouraging locals to
eat only Italian and throw out ethnic cuisines like kebabs, “to protect local specialties” and to “safeguard
(Italian) culture”. Talk about nuts in my fudge!
First of all, let us look at what is being “protected”. That would be local foods like pastas, spaghettis
and pizzas among others – which have long since ceased to be “local”, and have carved a niche for
themselves on the global food map. Eateries around the world will have at least one of the above three
Italian specialties on their menu. In fact, they are the staple diet of a particular species on this planet
– teenagers. These cuisines will never ever make it to the list of “endangered foods”. So, frankly, they
don’t need protection.
Secondly, what are these politicians trying to “protect” them against? Those would be cuisines like
kebabs, sushi and Chinese foods, which are nothing but distant cousins of the good-food family. They
are in the same culinary league as these Italian masterpieces, not trying to steal their thunder, but
providing a welcome change to the taste buds of any average human being.
Pragmatic people in Italy have rightly called this strange campaign “gastronomic racism” and “culinary
ethnic cleansing”. If this is true, then the trend is truly worrying. Italy is facing some of the most serious
and violent crimes in recent years, mostly blamed on the illegal migrant population. Italians are looking
to their leaders to safeguard the people and their interests from rogue elements of every kind.
But politicians – be it of any country or under any circumstances – always miss the point and take
a direction which leads to more divisions within a social framework. I should know, I come from
India. Surely there are other ways to deal with security and cultural safety of a society – like proper
implementation of law, cultivation of a sense of responsibility among the populace, and punishment for
those who do not abide by the rules.
Singapore is an example of how a multi-cultural society lives harmoniously. Here, a nasi lemak entices
me as much as a chicken rice or a roti prata. Expats like me have the power of choice – and not
just in the matters of food either. In these trying times, when the world needs to unite against the
threat of terrorism and work together to overcome the immediate hurdle of recession, such shortsighted, polarising decrees by a group of vote-hungry politicians should be condemned and disobeyed
altogether. Depriving the people of variety, good taste and pure joy (culinary or otherwise) is hardly
the right way to show disapproval or deal with unruly elements in the society. It’s time to throw out the
distasteful nuts and truly enjoy the fudge.
[http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/2/2/culinary-democracy-required]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
[Turn over
4
Document 3
‘North Korea’s Threats.’
The New York Times, editorial, 16 June 2009
North Korea is developing a frightening track record of making good on its threats. True to its word,
in recent weeks it has conducted a second nuclear test and several missile tests. It also may have
resumed making fuel for nuclear weapons. And the threats keep coming. Over the weekend, the North
vowed to make more nuclear weapons and to take “resolute military actions” against efforts to isolate it.
Whether new sanctions adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council can deter even
more dangerous actions is anyone’s guess. We know there is no chance if they are not implemented.
The resolution leaves a lot of room for governments to avoid enforcement should they choose.
The resolution bars North Korea from selling weapons (ballistic missiles and parts are exports) or
buying them. It authorizes states — but does not require them — to inspect cargo vessels and airplanes
suspected of carrying North Korean weapons or nuclear technology. The North has sold missiles to
Iran and other unsavory customers and a nuclear reactor to Syria.
It also calls on — but does not require — states and financial institutions to stop providing banking
services, loans and credits that could support its nuclear or missile programs. That could have the
biggest impact, if countries and banks heed the call.
It is encouraging that China, North Korea’s top supplier of food and fuel, and Russia were heavily
involved in drafting the resolution. China’s ambassador endorsed what he called the international
community’s “firm opposition” to the North’s nuclear ambitions. But talk is cheap. China and Russia
exposed their continued ambivalence by blocking efforts to make certain elements of the new sanctions
mandatory. China also insisted on carving out an exception so that it could continue selling small arms
to the North.
No one has more influence with the North Koreans than China, but it has repeatedly blocked
tough sanctions for fear of destabilizing the North and unleashing a flood of refugees. The Obama
administration is doing its part. It has said that it would confront any ship suspected of carrying banned
items and is exploring new ways to squeeze the North financially.
After all that has happened, administration officials are understandably skeptical that any negotiated
deal is possible. And they are right to insist that they will not keep paying the North to live up to
commitments it has repeatedly made and then reneged on. But they are also right to leave the door
open to negotiations.
After meeting on Tuesday with South Korea’s president, Lee Myung-bak, President Obama called a
nuclear-armed North Korea a “grave threat.” He also said that the North had “another path available”
and that it could still come in from the diplomatic cold if it returns to the bargaining table and abandons
its nuclear ambitions.
This is a very dangerous time. As the pressure mounts, no one can be sure how North Korea’s erratic
leaders will respond. But it would be even more dangerous to allow the North to churn out more nuclear
weapons or sell them to the highest bidder. The United States and the other powers, starting with
China, must use all of their influence to head off the worst.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17wed1.html? r=1&scp=2&sq=north%20korea&st=Search]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
5
Document 4
‘Globalization.’
Adapted from ‘Control of Resources: Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism.’
Global Issues, 30 December 2002
Anup Shah
With the Cold War over and the West victorious, globalization in its current form was able to spread
further. Conflicts also broke out between nations that were within the sphere of Soviet influence,
especially in Central Asia, where many were Islamic. Extremist regimes and organizations were
involved in participating in those conflicts for separation.
In addition, with globalization, came the increasing spread of western culture to the global South. In
the Middle East as well, western products and more importantly, culture, was coming in more so. While
around the world, not just the Middle East there has been increasing concern at what is described as
“cultural imperialism”, because of the extremes in the Middle East, for the extremists and fanatics, this
has added to the concerns and anti-West feelings that have spilled into violent actions and hatred.
Hardly touched upon on this page has been the economic policies that have accompanied these
geopolitical policies. Harsh Structural Adjustment imposition on the Third World for example, as
described on this site, has deepened poverty for most in the world. Walden Bello, professor of sociology
and public administration at the University of the Philippines, and co-director of Thailand-based research
organization, Focus on the Global South, describes the harsh geopolitical ramifications well:
‘The Southern policies of all the key Northern governments on the eve of the twenty-first century are
marked by similar features. These include continued support for structural adjustment in the Third
World; creation of a new Berlin Wall to prevent the entry of refugees fleeing the devastation of the
South; exploitation of tribal fears of racial and ethnic minorities to deflect domestic attention away from
structural causes of economic distress; and demonization of Southern figures or institutions, such as
Islam, as the new enemy in the post-Cold War era. ... Not surprisingly, the dark vision of the twenty-first
century as an era of North-South polarization between privileged white citizens and colored barbarian
hordes, or between the Christian West and the “Islamic-Confusion Connection”, has begun to take hold
in the writings of Northern intellectuals.’
[Walden Bello, Shea Cunningham, Bill Rau, Dark Victory, The United States and Global Poverty, Food
First, Pluto Press, 1999, p.6 ]
The political economy of globalization therefore has been accompanied by all nations vying to best
represent their interests. Of course, the more powerful and stronger nations are better able to represent
their interests, which can also have the effect of undermining others. The United States being the most
successful and powerful nation on the international political scene therefore wields incredible power
and influence, as Professor Wade of the prestigious London School of Economics, for example, vividly
highlights:
‘These power relations and exercises of statecraft are obscured in the current talk about globalization.
Far from being just a collapsing of distance and widening of opportunities for all, the increasing mobility
of information, finance, goods and services frees the American government of constraints while more
tightly constraining everyone else. Globalization and the global supervisory organizations enable the
United States to harness the rest of the world to its own rhythms and structure.’
[Professor Robert Hunter Wade, ‘America’s Empire Rules an Unbalanced World’, January 3, 2002]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
[Turn over
6
Because we live in such times, it is hard to see or accept that today’s global political system, from
the perspective of many in the third world, is a continuation of the system of previous decades and
centuries, but of course evolved with its own nuances and complexities. Oftentimes, then, military
solutions and other aggressive courses of actions are supported without understanding or considering
the deeper and long term causes of various situations. S. Brian Willson, a U.S. Vietnam War veteran,
now a peace activist, highlights an aspect of this quite well:
‘The most highly decorated Marine Corps General in U.S. history, Smedley D. Butler understood all
too well the real nature of the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. foreign policy in general when he concluded
after his retirement in 1931 that during his 33 years as a Marine officer operating on three continents,
he served “as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a gangster
for capitalism” [Smedley D. Butler, “America’s Armed Forces,” Part 2, Common Sense, Vol. 4, No.
11, Nov. 1935]. But it seems that that understanding is easily forgotten. General A.M. Gray, former
commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, in 1990 identified threats to the United States as originating
from the “underdeveloped world’s growing dissatisfaction over the gap between rich and poor nations,”
creating “a fertile breeding ground for insurgencies which have the potential to jeopardize regional
stability and our access to vital economic and military resources” [Marine Corps Gazette, May 1990].
Gray understands the structural social and economic problems, but it apparently does not occur to him
that the solution might be to directly address the injustices rather than perpetuate them with the use of
military force.’
[S. Brian Willson, Who are the REAL terrorists?, Institute for Policy Research and Development, 1999]
Such factors in the Middle East on top of the heavy militarism and political oppression have also
contributed to extremism.
[http://www.globalissues.org/article/260/control-of-resources-supporting-dictators-rise-ofterrorism#Globalization]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
7
Document 5
Adapted from ‘The Impact of guns on women’s lives’.
Amnesty International, The International Action Network on Small Arms & Oxfam International,
2005
Women, men and guns
The relationship between women and guns is a complex one. Women are not only killed and injured
by the use of weapons, they also play other roles – sometimes as perpetrators of armed violence,
sometimes encouraging the use of guns, and sometimes as activists for change. Women in many
countries have become powerful forces for peace and human rights in their communities.
This report includes the experiences of women who have been affected by gun violence and have
decided to do something about it by calling for tougher arms controls, for safer communities, and for
respect for women’s human rights. Their campaigns are working to rid not only their own lives, but also
those of their families and communities of the ravages of gun violence.
However, women’s attitudes can sometimes contribute to the powerful cultural conditioning that
equates masculinity with owning and using a gun, and regards gun abuse by men as acceptable.
Women sometimes overtly encourage their men to fight, and, more subtly, support the attitudes and
stereotypes promoting gun culture. Women and girls also actively participate in many of the world’s
conflicts, either willingly, through coercion, economic pressure, or because they have been abducted
and forced to serve. For some women and girls in armed groups having a gun is seen as a way of
protecting themselves and acquiring greater status. However, this is frequently illusory; and many girl
and women combatants continue to be abused and are forced to commit abuses themselves.
The perception that a gun provides some measure of protection can be found in many different social
contexts and is not confined to situations of armed conflict. Many men carry guns as part of their
perceived and constructed role as “protectors” of women; the argument used by gun lobbyists is
that they need guns to protect their families from armed intruders or attackers. But the reality of gun
ownership and use is very different. Thousands of men in different countries are becoming actively
involved in arms control campaigns that try to achieve greater security and safety for everyone and
are also joining campaigns to stop violence against women. Some men are working alongside women
specifically to challenge existing cultures of masculinity and the presumption that violence, including
sexual violence, against women, is “normal” male behaviour.
Campaigns like the White Ribbon campaign, started by men in Canada to challenge men’s silent
complicity in violence against women, have gained support from men in Costa Rica, Denmark, Mexico,
Namibia and South Africa, among other places. At another level, male former combatants and former
gang members are among the people who can act most powerfully for change in challenging the links
between violent expressions of masculinity and the gun culture.
Campaigning for change
This report provides an overview of where two major international campaigns intersect: Control Arms
– organized by Amnesty International (AI), the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)
and Oxfam International – and AI’s Stop Violence Against Women campaign. There is a growing
acknowledgement that issues of gender need to be fully integrated into international work to stop
the proliferation and misuse of small arms and that the specifics of armed violence have often been
overlooked in some campaigns to address violence against women. More detailed analyses of many
of these issues can be found in the reports published as part of the Control Arms and Stop Violence
Against Women campaigns.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
[Turn over
8
What needs to be done?
(a) Parties to armed conflicts, the UN and international bodies should ensure that women
have equal participation in the resolution of conflict and in peace processes, as well as in
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.
(b) Parties to armed conflicts, the UN and other international organizations should ensure the
effective collection and destruction of surplus and illegal weapons in the context of peace
agreements. To do this effectively women’s and other civilian community organizations must be
fully involved.
(c) Civilian and military authorities, and intergovernmental organizations including the UN should
ensure that the needs of women and girls are fully incorporated and addressed, in disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration programmes.
(d) The UN and all governments contributing to UN field operations should ensure that their forces
do not violate women’s human rights. This should include enforcing codes of conduct to protect
women from sexual abuse and exploitation, placing women’s human rights at the heart of
training programmes, and bringing to justice troops that are found to be involved in sexual
exploitation and other forms of violence against women.
[http://www.controlarms.org/en/documents%20and%20files/reports/english-reports/the-impact-ofguns-on-womens-lives]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
9
Document 6
‘Disuniting colours of fanaticism.’
The Times of India, 6 September 2008
Jug Suraiya
Many, in India and other parts of the world, would have us believe that religious fundamentalism has
only one colour, that of Islamic green. The vicious attacks on Christians and Christian institutions —
including orphanages — instigated by VHP activists in Orissa have savagely shown that such fanaticism
comes in many colours, including that of Hindu saffron. Not that this needed further proof, after the
Gujarat riots of 2002 which VHP leaders had vindicated with the sacrilegious claim that the atrocities
committed “had the blessings of Lord Rama”.
Fundamentalism — the hijacking of a faith to promote an exclusionist agenda, often through violent
means — is a transcredal phenomenon: it doesn’t begin or end within the confines of one belief system
but is common to all. There are Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and atheist fundamentalists (sometimes called
communist), not to mention so-called ‘pro-life’ fundamentalists who murder people who work in legal
abortion clinics.
Though no credo has a monopoly over fundamentalism, after 9/11 the word (often interchanged with
‘terrorism’) has been hyphenated with the word ‘Islamic’. It is often urged that ‘moderate’ Muslims must
stand up and be counted as a corrective influence on their radical co-religionists. So, in the current
context of Orissa (and earlier of Gujarat) should only moderate Hindus denounce the horrors that
have been perpetrated in the name of their religion? No. Moderates of all faiths — including that of
moderation itself, which surely is the most beleaguered of faiths in an increasingly divisive world —
must unite in condemnation of such acts.
The goal of fundamentalists, of any stripe, is to disunite and destroy our common humanity. Such
subversion can only be countered by a refusal to ghettoise the response by making it the responsibility
of one particular faith. Fundamentalism is based on the premise of extreme exclusion, the creation of a
demonised Other; the opposing voice of moderation must base itself on the principle of inclusivism, the
affirmation of a pluralist identity.
That is why the often-repeated call to ban organisations which allegedly are fundamentalist in nature
— be it the Students Islamic Movement of India or the RSS (progenitor of the VHP) — make for a bad
politics of moderation, necessary though such proscriptions may seem at times. (The RSS has been
banned thrice in India: after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi; during the Emergency; and after
the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In each case, the ban was lifted by the Supreme Court.)
Bans go against the basic nature of both democracy and moderation, which many might say are one
and the same thing. A ban is another way of saying that fundamentalism won, that it achieved its
objective of divisive exclusionism; it turned moderation into a mirror image of prohibitory fanaticism.
The Vatican has come out strongly against the carnage in Orissa. Let’s hear it now from the leaders
and practitioners of other faiths. But most of all, from those who profess belief in that ultimate credo:
that no moderate is an island, entire of itself.
[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Jug Suraiya/Disuniting colours of fanaticism/
articleshow/3454444.cms]
Notes:
VHP: Vishawa Hindu Parishad, an international, right-wing Hindu organisation which aims to promote
Hindu values and society.
RSS: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Singh, a Hindu social and cultural organisation in India. Whether the
RSS is political as well is hotly disputed.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
[Turn over
10
Document 7
‘Russia-Georgia War and NATO.
Conflict in South Ossetia put into Context.’
Suite 101.com, 17 September 2008
Vincent Gagnon-Lefebvre
How can Russian apprehension of NATO enlargement help explain this war between Russia and
Georgia in the small breakaway province of South Ossetia?
To really understand the war in South Ossetia and to put the conflict into context, it is primordial to
go beyond finger pointing and propaganda stemming from both sides. So let’s put the actual conflict
beside and observe the contextual elements that can explain how tensions between Russia and NATO
could become so profound.
There are four main contextual elements to take into account:
•
The enlargement of NATO towards the former Soviet sphere of influence;
•
Energy geopolitics in the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia;
•
Washington’s contradictory policies towards stability in the Caucasus;
•
And the independence of Kosovo.
The first element to consider is the enlargement of NATO as an instrument of American projection
of power and the re-emergence of Russia’s instinctive fears – dating back to the Tsarist era – of
encirclement by hostile powers. Moscow observes and apprehends the series of existing or developing
American strategic partnerships and alliances arcing around its territory. This arc begins with the
Baltic states and Poland, passes by the NATO protectorate of Kosovo, then Turkey, Israel, Georgia, the
occupation of Iraq, the NATO military presence in Afghanistan, the growing ties with India, to finally end
with Japan and South Korea.
The Cold War that Never Really Ended
At the end of the 1980s, American President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev that NATO would not seek to integrate former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe
and that negotiations would soon begin to also bring the trans-Atlantic alliance to an end. Breaking that
promise was one of the first things that Bill Clinton did after moving into the White House.
Russians never considered being defeated at the end the Cold War. On the contrary, they claim that
they are the ones that put an end to international tensions by willingly dismantling their empire, without
any bloodshed or violent revolution. They are frustrated by the lack of sensibility of Americans toward
the sacrifices that they had to make to achieve this. Thus, by seeking to enlarge NATO to the East, all
the way to Russian borders – and often in a threatening manner toward Moscow – the United States
act as if the Cold War never really ended.
As a result, the obstinate drive to integrate Georgia into NATO at any cost has been perceived by
the Kremlin as a scheme to encircle and contain Russia. Since the rise to power of President Mikhail
Saakashvili in 2003, Georgia has multiplied its military budget by 30 with the help of the United States’
and other NATO members’ generous military aid. This membership would definitely bring Georgia into
the American sphere of influence because of the NATO clause that dictates that an attack against one
member is an attack against all.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
11
Washington Not Considering the High Risks
The logic behind American pressure would want that Russia never risk a move of hostility toward
Georgia for fear of being drawn into a war in Europe, however threatening a US military presence in
the Caucasus would be perceived by Moscow. Not only is this way of thinking dangerously playing with
fire, it does not take into account Russian determination of never letting itself being encircled. It is also
this enormous risk of being drawn into an absurd and unnecessary war with Russia – with the potential
to degenerate into a worldwide conflict – that pushes France, Germany and Italy to resist American
pressure toward the hurried incorporation of Georgia into NATO.
Of course, on this last point, it is also essential to take into account Europe’s increasing dependence
on Russian oil and natural gas to meet its energy needs, which leads on to the next contextual element:
energy geopolitics in the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia.
[http://russia.suite101.com/article.cfm/russiageorgia war and nato]
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
[Turn over
12
Document 8
‘Shoot but not to kill.
If we can’t stop people fighting, shouldn’t we at least make the weapons non-lethal? But what if
that does more harm than good?’
New Scientist, 20 September 2008
Michael Bond
The world has embarked on a new arms race – and rather than nuclear warheads, the currency this
time is arms that don’t kill. Governments, armies and police forces hope that “non-lethal” weapons
(NLWs) will not only offer more effective methods of crowd control, but help draw a line under the
bloody conflicts of the 20th century. The philosophy – if we can’t stop people fighting let’s try to stop
them killing – seems admirable. But there’s a catch. In many situations NLWs may cause more suffering
than they prevent.
The field took off in 1996, when the US Department of Defense set up the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons
Programme, (JNLWP) to develop a half-way house “between shouting and shooting”. Enthusiasm for
NLWs has accelerated, particularly after the 9/11 attacks and subsequent military campaigns in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The directorate’s annual budget is now over $50 million, and among other things it aims to develop
devices to clear buildings of people, control the behaviour of individuals and crowds, and divert aircraft
in mid-air. The market for NLWs is thriving, with private companies competing for contracts from
governments and security agencies around the world. Over the past ten years, the US company Taser
International has sold more than 359,000 hand-held devices to more than 13,000 law enforcement and
military agencies in 44 countries.
“Governments are going full steam ahead,” says Robert Mandel, who studies international affairs at
Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. “They feel this can sanitise war and remove the body-bag
inspired objections of sceptical citizenry.” It’s a trend John Alexander, a senior fellow at the US military’s
Joint Special Operations University and Hurlburt Field, Florida, fully supports: “If it’s your kids being
held hostage, what tools would you like the police to have available?”
Police forces now have an impressive range of “humane” weapons at their disposal, from plastic bullets,
tear gas and electroshock devices to stinger grenades, sticky foam and high-velocity beanbags. Higher
tech devices are on the way. One US company is building a microwave gun that will create sounds
inside a person’s skull. Another is developing a strobe gun whose flickering lights cause disorientation
and vertigo. The JNLWP is working on high energy lasers and devices that can direct intense beams of
sound, as well as a microwave heat-beam that causes an intense burning sensation at more than 500
metres. Supporters say this technological carnival is great news for policing because it should result in
fewer deaths.
If only it were that simple. One cause for concern is that very few of the weapons are truly non-lethal.
Following the deaths of a “significant number” of people in custody, the US Department of Justice is
running an investigation into the use of stun guns by the police, due to report next year. When Russian
security forces used the anaesthetic fentanyl to overwhelm terrorists who took over a Moscow theatre
in October 2002 they killed 130 hostages. Even tear gas and pepper spray have caused fatalities, while
projectiles such as plastic bullets can cause permanent disablement.
Steve Wright, a security expert at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, believes NLWs “militarise” the
police, who often end up using them inappropriately. The Patten Commission’s 1999 report on policing
in Northern Ireland stated that the use of plastic bullets was a major cause of conflict escalation during
the Troubles and called for research into safer options. “Less lethal weapons induced a backlash which
then justified the deployment of more forceful methods by the security forces,” says Wright.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
13
While supporters hope NLWs will consign blood-and-guts warfare to history and end mass suffering, this
may well be wishful thinking. Minimal death tolls from NLWs could prolong wars with huge psychological
effects on the societies involved. NLWs could also make conflict more likely, with governments more
gung-ho about going to war. And they could encourage “adventurism”, with nations intervening in
conflicts that don’t concern them directly. “I stand with American civil war general Robert E. Lee when
he said it is actually desirable that wars be bloody and gruesome so that they are avoided whenever
possible,” says Mandel.
NLWs are of course a valuable option in many policing situations and have reduced casualties in
peacekeeping and crowd control operations in Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere. The US army now employs
barbed nets instead of bullets to slow cars speeding towards checkpoints in Iraq, for example.
The problem is that governments and companies are rushing to develop new NLWs with little thought
to how they might be used, then deploying them without adequate testing. A report on crowd-control
technologies written for the European parliament in 2000 made a host of recommendations, including
more research into their effects and legally binding rules on how they are used. Almost none have been
acted on.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
14
BLANK PAGE
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
15
BLANK PAGE
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10
16
BLANK PAGE
Copyright Acknowledgements:
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
Document 6
Document 7
Document 8
© The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; A Living Document ; http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/declaration.shtml;
7 February 2009.
© Rupali Karekar; Culinary democracy required ; http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/2/2/culinary-democracy-required; 14 July 2009.
© North Korea’s Threats ; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17wed1.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=north%20korea&st=Search%20;
The New York Times; 16 June 2009.
© Anup Shah; Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism ;
http:www.globalissues.org/article/260/control-of-resources-supporting-dictators-rise-of-terrorism#Globalization.
© The impact of guns on women’s lives ; Amnesty International;
http://www.controlarms.org/en/documents%20and%20files/reports/english-reports/the-impact-of-guns-on-womens-lives; 7 February 2009.
© Jug Suraiya; Disuniting colours of fanaticism ;
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Jug_Suraiya/Disuniting_colours_of_fanaticism/articleshow/3454444.cms;
6 September 2008.
© Vincent Gagnon-Lefebvre; Russia-Georgia War and NATO ; http://russia.suite101.com/article.cfm/russiageorgia_war_and_nato;
7 February 2009.
© Michael Bond; Shoot but not to kill ; New Scientist; 20 September 2008.
Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every
reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the
publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity.
University of Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.
© UCLES 2010
9777/03/PRE/O/N/10