1

Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School . Abbey Place . Faversham . Kent . ME13 7BQ

2

3

Contents Page

4 Introduction

5 Meet the Team

6 Faculty Report

7 Game Theory Economics

8-9 Elephant in the Courtroom Sociology

10 Market Failure Economics

11 Social Mobility Psychology

12-13 Attachment Psychology

14 Financial Crisis Economics

15 Military Politics

16 Caption Contest

4

5

Meet the Social Science Magazine Team....

My name is Robyn Andrews and I’m studying

two social sciences of Economics and Psychology, as well as English Language at A2 level. I also studied French at AS level. I’m interested in Psychology due to a curiosity of human nature. I’m hoping to go to University next year to study a degree in Business and Marketing, as in the future I would like to work for a marketing organisation.

I'm Anna Milne, a year 13 student

and deputy head girl. I take psychology, politics, maths and English literature and intend to read psychology at university next year.

My name is Callum Brown,

I'm in year 12 and studying English Literature, Politics, English Language and History. Politics and English Lit are my main interests and I hope to study English when I eventually go to university.

Hi I’m Abbie Wiggins, I study sociology,

English literature, and government and politics. I also studied philosophy at AS. Interested in different cultures, want to learn more about people! I hope to study sociology at university.

I’m Sam Berry. My hobbies include

football, athletics and tennis. I study Economics, Mathematics, Further Maths and French at A level. My aim is to study Economics at the University of Warwick and to spend a year in France as part of my degree.

Hi I’m Evan Ramsden. I am currently

studying Economics, Information Technology and English Language. My aspiration is to study Criminology at University however I have a keen interest in I.T so have yet to decide between the two.

Back (From Left ): Oliver Bruton, Harry Johnson, Lewis Goulding, Evan Ramsden

Front: Anna Milne, Naomi Collison, Abbie Wiggins, Robyn Andrews, Callum Brown

My name is Lewis Goulding,

I study Sociology, English Literature and Philosophy. I want to go to Bristol University to study Sociology.

Everyone involved in producing the magazine…

Hello, I’m Oliver Bruton.

I am currently studying Economics, Politics and History at A2 and plan to study Economics and Finance at University.

Hi I'm Naomi Collison in year 13 and the

'coordinator' of the magazine! I study politics, geography and psychology and my main interests in the articles I write will probably be current affairs and ideological discussion :) I hope to go on to study politics at Exeter university.

6

Faculty Report

Economics In the Economics department, there are a number of opportunities to expand your knowledge out of school. The London School of Economics Lecture Society (logo below), run by Harry Johnson and Sam Berry, aims to travel to the university and see relevant lectures, such as important ones about the EU and the recession. Anyone doing GCSE or A-Level Economics would massively benefit from seeing professional lecturers in their prime.

In terms of wider reading for the subject, Mr Bottomley has personally recommended a number of magazines, all of which are available in either the library or on the shared area. Under the Economics section on Student Resources, you can find PDF files of important magazines that will certainly help with exams.

Economics Today is essential reading for A-Level students in particular because of the close link with the curriculum; whereas The Economist is more for those who want to develop a great knowledge of current affairs (also for Politics students who want to keep a close eye on current affairs). Mr Bottomley also has an Economics library that includes backdated issues of the Economist Weekly and recommends student visit www.economicsonline.co.uk – just ask him for more information.

Philosophy Philosophy Club runs every Thursday at 1.15, and whether you are taking the A-Level, or are simply interested in the nature of the subject, it is definitely worth going to. Most presentations are taken by students, so it is a good chance to test their knowledge, and stretch your own.

Mr Bee recommends only one specific book for philosophers to read, which is Sophie’s World – available in the library. This book gives a great summation of the evolution of philosophical thought. Those with access to the Philosophy text book are also able to see the comprehensive reading list which may ultimately be of vital importance to them.

Mr Bee thinks that Philosophy is great and everyone should study it because of the breadth of the subject, and also the fact that it challenges everything.

Politics The annual Battle of Ideas (right) was a great success, as anticipated, and provided students with healthy debate topics to consider. However, future events include a number of lectures at the University of Kent by several significant figures in British politics. The list of lectures is yet to be announced. Also, coming up in November at Canterbury Christ Church is a fantastic opportunity to engage in an EU workshop for an afternoon, and watch a panel debate about Britain’s position in the EU.

Essential reading for Politics students is the hailed Politics Review, which is readily available from the library. This is specifically designed to aid A-Level students in their study of Politics, with lengthy articles about specific topics that we cover and excellent facts to use in the exam. On top of this, Mr Finn-Kelcey implores students to listen to BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme for great factual knowledge to manipulate in the exam and achieve the top grades.

For more information about lectures, speak to Mr Finn-Kelcey.

Psychology and Sociology

There are two conferences for A-Level Psychology students to attend next year in order to improve their exam

technique and skills. The first is for AS students covering units 1 and 2, in London on the 17th March. The second

is for A2 students, which covers units 3 and 4, a week after the first conference, on 24th March.

Mrs Maybank suggests purchasing the AQA revision guides for Sociology and Psychology. For Psychology, the best

is the ‘My Notes Revision Notes’ guide (pictured right), and for AS Sociology students, there are two separate

revision guides which cover the ‘Family & Household’ and the ‘Education with Research Topics’, respectively. All

are easily available on Amazon.

Also, Mrs Maybank constantly receives information on the incredible number of Psychology and Sociology

courses available at universities. For more information about these, feel free to speak to her.

Written by Callum Brown

7

What is Game Theory?

Game theory is concerned with predicting outcomes of

strategic games. In such games, players do not know

for certain the action that an opponent will take. They

can only predict or second guess their likely actions.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma The prisoner’s dilemma is the most popular example of game theory. The scenario is very theoretical but shows what game theory is all about. There are two prisoners who have been charged with committing a crime. Neither prisoner has contact with the other. There are two strategies available to each prisoner, they can either confess to the crime or deny any involvement.

Right is a matrix showing all possible outcomes. If both confess, each prisoner will receive 6 years. If one confesses and one stays quiet, the one who confessed will be released and the one who denied involvement will receive 10 years. If both choose to stay quiet, each will receive only 2 years.

In this scenario, it would be in the self-interest of each prisoner to confess if there was no cooperation between the two prisoners. This is because whatever the other prisoner does, the prisoner that confesses is better off. However, the best overall outcome is where both prisoners deny any involvement and they each receive a two year sentence.

John Nash was an American mathematician who worked in the field of game theory. The Nash Equilibrium was his main contribution to game theory and non-cooperative games.

What is the Nash Equilibrium? The best way to explain the Nash equilibrium is by testing for it. There is a Nash equilibrium, in a non-cooperative game, if all players in the game leave their strategy as it is after being shown the actions of other opponents.

Written by Sam Berry

Game Theory and Climate Change

How does this relate to climate change?

If we model the world and its non-renewable resources as a strategic non-cooperative game, all countries will maximise their personal benefit by consuming the world’s resources such as oil at will and at their own rate. This is the equivalent move as confessing in the prisoner’s dilemma. In this scenario, a Nash equilibrium exists as no country would change their consumption of oil and other non-renewables after seeing the actions of other countries. This Nash equilibrium is unsustainable and will result in the depletion of the world’s resources.

The best overall outcome for the environment, however, is where countries reduce their consumption of non-renewable resources such as oil and develop more sustainable energy. This is the equivalent of both prisoners denying involvement in the prisoner’s dilemma. Without cooperation, this outcome will not be reached as it is the self-interest of each country to continue consuming oil and other resources in an unsustainable manner until a time comes where it is absolutely necessary that all countries become sustainable.

How can countries cooperate?

Alliances and treaties can be used such as the Kyoto Protocol and the G8 Summit (left).

8

The Elephant in the Court Room

“Should full face veils be banned in public places?”

A large amount of tension has surrounded the case of a 22 year old woman Muslim from Hackney. She entered a ‘not guilty’ plea to a charge of intimidation last week – and was wearing a Niqab (full-face veil for Muslim women). She cannot be named for legal reasons, but she said that she was not able to remove the veil because it violates her religious beliefs to have people see her face in public. In Judge Peter Murphy’s final ruling, he said that there was a “pressing need” to address the issue of whether women who are involved in these kinds of proceedings should be allowed to wear the veils in court. It was later said that he “expresses the hope that Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer” as well as, “the niqab has become the elephant in the room”. Clearly, this issue, having reached the level of judicial concern, has to be addressed rapidly. Pressure group, Liberty, (which campaigns on civil liberties and human rights issues) apparently welcomed the ruling by Judge Murphy. Leader, Shami Chakrabarti says: "Credit to Judge Murphy for seeking to balance the freedom of conscience of the defendant with the effective administration of justice. He has shown a sensitivity and clarity that can only further build confidence in our courts in Britain's diverse communities and around the world." In dealing with such a highly sensitive issue, especially surrounding a world-religion, we are indefinitely facing head-on a much wider-scale issue than a court ruling.

Home Office Minister, Jeremy Brown called for a national debate calling on whether the state should start intervening to prevent young women from having the face veil imposed on them, when they don’t actually have the capacity to - one, understand why they are wearing it, or two, understand the implications it may have on them in later life. Jeremy said that he was “instincitvely uneasy” about restricting religious freedoms, but he added there may be a case to act to protect girls who were too young to decide for themselves whether they wished to wear the niqab or not. How far should we go to impose on people’s religious freedom and perhaps how far should we protect people from religious imposing on their lives?

Essentially, the face veil/niqab is worn according to the Islamic belief system that women must not be looked at by other men. As well as this, it is the belief that the face is the ‘centre of beauty’ for Muslims that propels the obligatory wearing of the veil. The idea is that only the eyes are left uncovered to ‘see the way’. This dress-code directly reflects various Muslim beliefs. E.g. the idea that husbands are a degree above their wives - The Quran in Sura 2:228 says: “…Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status…” (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165).

From an outside perspective, it seems to be entirely derogatory towards women in general, whether they are of a faith or not, and it follows the epitome of sexual discrimination, which religion often promotes because it is a part of their traditional belief system, and so is acceptable. Should this be something we also need to observe, taking Jeremy Brown’s perspective, not just looking at the legal/practical side of the issue and whether the niquab should be allowed, but addressing a more deeply rooted problem?

‘A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must

remove it to give evidence’ - a judge has ruled. We take a further

look into the real opinions on this matter, and explore how far we

can accept religious freedom. What should be done?

9

In a practical sense of the issue, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, went against the decision of Judge Murphy not to disallow the veil in court. He said: "It is vital that defendants' faces are visible at all times, including while others are giving evidence, so we regret the judge's decision not to require this. We will be complaining to the Office of Judicial Complaints and also be asking senior legal officers to make visibility throughout court hearings mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion." So, as well as the veil being viewed as belittling towards women, it is obvious the practical issues it causes and will continue to cause.

Shaista Gohir, Chair of Muslim Women’s UK network gave her opinion on the issue of whether the veil should be banned in some public places (left). “Women and girls should not be pressured to conform - it's important they make autonomous choices about their lives and their bodies including what to wear and not wear. For this reason I oppose a complete ban of the face veil. It is unfortunate that sometimes the odd Muslim woman is unreasonable and refuses to remove it. Such attitudes are contributing towards portraying their own faith negatively - Islam is not rigid and is flexible. I wonder if their stance is really about religious freedom, or about making a political statement? The debate has now become so polarised that those people who didn't care what Muslim women wore are now turning against the veil”.

Religious freedom cannot be stemmed simply because it is causing such disputes. In a widely practical sense, of course it seems (as Wood points out) that we must also value the discretion of the court and higher judiciary of the UK, as well as retaining the liberal sense of religious freedom. Both rulings would be contentious. If one rules over the other, say, the judiciary over an individual’s religious autonomy, then the outcome will be that we do not live in liberal democracy any more - just as if religious freedom became the priority in a court case, we might well be considered an ineffective system without the capacity to make effective decisions, or come to any level of negotiation. It is clear that we should strive for effective cooperation as well as there being a high level of autonomy for all - without compromising substantial religious freedom or the ability of the UK to function as an effective democratic, free and non-discriminatory system.

Written by Abbie Wiggins

Cartoon by Liam Etheridge

10

HS2 to Price Freezes:

Why does the government intervene in the market?

Despite the fact that the UK, and most of the World in the 21st

century, operates under the free market system, which relies on the fact that individuals within are capable of making the correct economic decisions without being controlled by government, it seems that the government constantly has to intervene in the markets, most recently seen with the coalitions proposal for HS2, a high-speed rail service between London and Birmingham, as well as Ed Miliband’s plans to freeze gas and electricity prices. So, why does the government intervene in a free market economy?

The reasoning behind government intervention comes from the thinking of a 20

th century economist, John

Maynard Keynes (bottom right). Keynes noted that the free market tended to result in massive fluctuations between times of high growth, ‘boom periods’, and times of recession, or ‘bust periods’. As the fluctuation between boom and bust tended to result in social and economic instability, Keynes concluded that the role of government in the economy should not be to give free reign to market forces, but instead to intervene in cases of the market failing to lead to prosperity. These ideas were resisted at first, but became widely accepted during the Great Depression, in which market forces were simply incapable of providing economic stability, and so various governments took action in order to return the market to a functioning level, most famously the American government undertook Roosevelt’s New Deal.

So, if government intervention exists in order to counter-act or prevent market failure, what exactly is market failure? In a strictly economic sense, market failure means that the market is allocating resources in an efficient manner. But market failure is more than just this. Market failure takes many different forms. Consider the two forms being combatted by the measures described above. The first form, being combatted by HS2 (above), is the concentration of lucrative business in the South of England, in particular, London, which creates disparities in wealth, and so there is a misallocation of resources. It is hoped that by making it easier for commuters to travel from the South of England to the North, business will expand away from the South, and so more wealth will be generated in other parts of the country. The issue that the price freezes aim to treat is the loss of consumer welfare. As many utility companies hold monopolies over particular areas, or at the very least have control over the prices of the services they supply, as seen by British Gas’ ability to raise prices (left). This is due to the fact that utilities are an essential part of many people’s lives, and they cannot go without them.

As a result of this power over the market, they are able to raise prices without a loss in business. The reason for this intervention is that this ability is viewed as unfair by Ed Miliband, who feels that this ability to raise prices is unfair, as it erodes the welfare of the consumer, by forcing them to pay a higher price than they need to, or go without a vital utility. This is perceived as market failure, as the resources are allocated in a way that does not benefit the broader masses of people, as they have lost wealth, and therefore welfare. Market failure can take many other forms, for example, if a firm is operating inefficiently, resources are misallocated as there are costs that could be avoided in production.

Should the state intervene in the market? There are as many answers as there are economic ideologies. Despite the success of Keynesian methods in the 20

th century,

there are still those that believe in the self-regulating nature of the market. In addition to this, there are those that would suggest that the state’s ability to control the actions of private businesses is an affront to liberty. However, it cannot be denied that if intervention is necessary to maintain stable growth, then it is in the government’s best interests to intervene, ensuring economic prosperity.

Written By Oliver Bruton

11

Why should we abolish Schooling?

7% percent of England’s 63.7 million attend public schooling roughly translating

to 445,000 people, I think I we can all agree a very small number. Whilst statistics can be shady, even more so when an excuse is needed to condemn and criticise our government, none the less research shows us that 80% of top positions in power are held by those who attended public schools, hardly surprising. 53% of conservative party members attended fee paying schools. We are being run by products of public schooling, David Cameron (Eton[below]) and Nick Clegg (Westminster) both attended private schools. This begs the question should private schooling be abolished? And the answer is yes.

Fee paying schools, where you can send your children to receive the highest possible quality of education available to them. You have worked hard your whole life to afford the privilege of sending them to Eton or Wycombe Abbey, where you can rest at night knowing your wealth and family name will be sustained through your little one striving to hit the heights set by these schools and with your cheque book they are likely to succeed in their endeavours. Sounds pretty much flawless, correct? Churning out well-spoken politicians, Finance ministers, Bank owners and CEO’s, the right people guiding the country from the clutches of the middle and working classes and safely into the hands of those who know what they are doing, it is if for ‘everybody’s’ interests of

course though isn’t it? Wrong.

Social mobility is something than in theory for it to work

needs the educational playing field to be level, whilst our society claims to be ‘meritocratic’ I do not see many pupils from comprehensives being given the opportunity to have their say, or being given the chance to be put into any sort of position where it counts. With the current state of comprehensive schooling I wouldn’t give them a chance either, politics is not an option at GCSE nor is it at A level, I myself was unable to do it due to attending another school. It is little wonder that the majority of public just have to put up with being pillaged by Osbourne (below) and the like they do not even know what they are fighting very little concept of modern politics and society, if any at all. They are being controlled and brainwashed

by the Ideological State apparatus to accept their plight. Knowledge is power and the majority of young people (and not so young) do not have it, not being taught in their teens who runs our country, why they run it, and alternative solutions to who should run it. Whilst public schooling needs to go for people to live in an equal society, with those who desire the want for knowledge and to give ideas on how we go about living and coping with each other, a change on curriculum is also desperately needed (Mr Gove I hope you are reading this).

The solution, Private schools….. you breed our politicians, then a few more to say the first ones were awful, you train your students to use the institutions available to them to brainwash a population who cannot think for themselves to accept that what is put in front of them is correct; financially ruinous wars, nuclear weaponry , meritocracy (a myth don’t get me started), apparently we don’t really need an industrial output either (which by the way would create jobs for the percentage of young people taking courses in vocational subjects most of which are hand skilled). Take a look at Sweden (right), free schooling for everybody we claim to stake an interest in that way of running education but I can see no obvious success in it our efforts.

Written by Lewis Golding

12

Attachment is the emotional bond between two people,

as defined by John Bowlby as a ‘lasting psychological connectedness between human beings’. The attachments formed between baby and caregiver are believed to affect the child throughout their life, impacting future relationships, and as indicated by recent research, moral judgement.

How does attachment type affect moral development?

Attachment type There are three main types of attachment between baby and caregiver, which were identified by Mary Ainsworth (1970) in her ‘Strange Situation’ experiment. The first of these is secure attachment: the child uses the caregiver as a safe base and is distressed when the caregiver leaves. Children who form secure attachments tend to have trusting, long-term relationships and high self esteem. The next type is insecure-avoidant attachment.

Children with this type of attachment are distant and avoid closeness with the caregiver.

During adulthood, people with an insecure-avoidant attachment tend to not be as successful in intimate relationships, not investing much emotion. The final attachment type identified by Ainsworth is insecure-ambivalent; babies with this attachment type seem to expect the relationship to be difficult and alternate between seeking closeness and wanting distance. In later life, those who have had an insecure-ambivalent attachment feel reluctant about becoming close to others and worry that their partner does not reciprocate their feelings.

Attachment leads to a child’s development of mental working models for social interactions and expectations of interpersonal relationships, for example their response to others’ suffering. Attachment thus influences mental representation, cognitive expectations of social interaction and emotional processing and appraisal: all of which are relevant to moral judgement.

Morality There are differing theories proposing the development of morality, the first of which suggested by Jean Piaget (1932). Piaget identified three stages in moral development, firstly, pre-moral between 0-5 years, when the child has no morality. At 5-9 years, this progresses into heteronomous morality as external and unalterable rules are imposed. At this stage, infants believe that any deviation from the rules deserves retribution, but still have primitive moral judgement. This undeveloped morality may be due to cognitive structure, as the individual is unable to see others’ perspectives and still maintain their own. The final stage that Piaget identified is autonomous morality; from 10 years on, people are able to judge by intention rather than outcome, taking in others’ perspectives. However, Lawrence Kohlberg disagreed with this view of morality, believing that moral development is more lengthy and gradual than Piaget has suggested. In 1984, Kohlberg classified three phases of moral development. Firstly, the pre-conventional stage, where the individual simply obeys to avoid punishment, but can factor in personal needs. The next stage in conventional, entailing blind obedience to the law and following with others perceive as right and wrong. The final stage is post-conventional, when individuals believe that what is right and wrong is determined by society, thus meaning morals differ between societies. This is also based on universal ethical principles, which are followed instead of the law. Kohlberg suggested that children are in the pre-conventional stage and the majority of adults are in the conventional stage, but some fail to develop and remain in the pre-conventional stage, and some develop further and exist in the post-conventional phase.

13

Links between Morality and Attachment

As attachment schemas so strongly influence adult behaviour, it is clear that this would include moral behaviour. In a study by Koleva et al (2013), the relationship between attachment and moral development has been researched. Secure attachments lead to the individual having transcendent values, volunteerism, are more helpful and have higher levels of honesty and authenticity. All of which we would identify as being characteristics of a moral individual. Those with insecure-avoidant attachments tend to have a ‘cynical, pessimistic view of human nature’, leading to being distrusting, inauthentic and have low levels of empathy.

This was identified to have a negative implication of morality, with their judgement being linked to higher psychopathic traits: the low levels of empathy lead to low levels of pro-social behaviour. The individuals with insecure-avoidant attachments as a child tend to not appreciate the hurtfulness of their detached demeanour.

Finally, individuals with insecure ambivalent attachments have a tendency to engage in ‘compulsive caregiving’ and have greater empathetic accuracy, influencing them to have stronger concerns about harm and fairness. Koleva et al identified a positive association between insecure-ambivalent attachments and harm, fairness and purity. Hence, insecure-ambivalent attachments lead to greater moral judgement.

It is clear that attachment type does affect moral development, given the nature of attachment’s long effects in other aspects of the individual’s life. There has been some research into the details of this relationship, for example Koleva et al’s study, as detailed. However, the lack of investigations means that no full conclusion can be drawn in regards to attachment type and moral development.

Written by Anna Milne

Cartoon by Liam Etheridge

14

The financial crisis has caused a global recession, higher unemployment and growing

The financial crisis has caused a global recession, higher unemployment and growing

government debt. Everyone has been affected to some extent by the crisis directly or

indirectly. We are currently seeing the various responses of governments to the financial

crisis which are all very interesting but equally fascinating are the central causes of the

financial crisis.

Deregulation

It was deregulation which made London the centre of the financial system. The policies of the Thatcher government attracted many banks as

they could take advantage of a far more free market. The financial industry was allowed to grow and the merging of firms in the industry lead

to the creation of a few huge banks, which were in the end deemed too big to fail when the banking industry started to collapse. The gap

between investment banks and retail banks had become smaller, with many retail banks engaging in casino banking which involved taking on

high risk loans with depositor’s money. Deregulation allowed banks to have high leverage (use of borrowed money) for their investments

which can be very rewarding if the investment pays off but very damaging if it doesn’t.

Securitisation This is essentially where you turn debt into a security (a tradable asset) which

can then be traded. Banks were making loans and then turning them into

securities and selling them on to investors who were more willing and able to

take on the risk. This meant that banks had more capital (were more liquid)

and more able to make loans. Credit became much cheaper as a result.

Eventually, banks started to create securities called CDOs (collateralized debt

obligations) which were far more complex and it was difficult to assess their

risk accurately. As a result of securitisation, the relationship between the

borrower and lender (the bank) no longer existed. This is referred to as

disintermediation. This meant that investors didn’t understand the full risk of

what they were investing in. The rating agencies were all the investors had to

go on and these rating agencies were giving most securities AAA credit ratings

so they appeared very safe investments.

The Derivatives Market The growth of the derivatives market was another cause. Derivatives are assets which derive their value from the value of an underlying asset.

In this market, bankers would gamble on prices rising or falling for various products e.g commodities. Bankers would make high risk

investments in the derivatives market which had a high reward if they were successful. However, high losses were made when they went bad

but bankers didn’t get in trouble when this happened. As they were not gambling with their own money, but instead with the banks money,

they were more incentivised to make high risk deals which weren’t always successful.

Written by Sam Berry

Ultimately, the deregulation of the financial industry allowed banks to get involved in

activities that were very complex and risky. They became far more focussed on short run

profits rather than long term health of the industry.

What caused the Financial Crisis

of 2007-2008?

15

Is it ever acceptable to use military force to intervene in other countries?

With the vicious civil war in Syria taking its toll on civilians, both within the country itself and affecting its neighbours, the question of military intervention has once again reared its head. Is it ever acceptable for one country to use, or indeed threaten to use its military to intervene in the affairs of others?

In my view, absolutely not. No I would not intervene in Syria. No I would not send troops into Israel. And no, I would not invade Nazi Germany. Twice in the last century - after the First and Second World Wars - there was a major reshaping of the Middle East. Their ability to learn from their mistakes has proved to be zero, while their propensity to repeat the mistakes continues.

What I suggest is that there is no correlation between a foreign military intervening and less lives loss or greater stability in the future: in fact what we actually do is provide less stability long term. A paper by Reed Wood, Jason Kathman, and Stephen Gent shows that, historically speaking, intervening on behalf of rebels increases the number of civilians who are killed by increasing the desperation of government forces. By creating stalemates we are actually allowing fighting to continue for longer - endangering more civilians and potentially greatly damaging international relations; for example, if we ‘side’ with the rebels yet the regime ‘wins’, what good are we in the future to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians? As a country, we will have lost all diplomatic influence to the detriment of citizens who are literally caught in the crossfire.

It is also clear to see that the type of language people and politicians use when referring to atrocities of war is childish – we should not be so gung-ho, glory seeking and ready to intervene. In a warped morality wrapped up in colonial guilt, it no longer matters where we intervene or to what success, as aiding these areas has become little more than a cultural commodity and a chance to congratulate ourselves on our philanthropic nature. Political motivations cast shadows over our self-satisfying personal image, as we revel in the illusion of poor little dysfunctional countries that need the heroes of the USA and the UK to come along and save them. It gives us a lovely little ego boost, yet eclipses the ability for rational appraisal of the consequences of intervention to take place.

Western intervention in particular or any intervention in general, in Syria, or anywhere else in the Middle East, would deny freedom and justice to the people of that nation, and fuel greater displacement

and war. To intervene in another country’s workings does not allow or motivate that country to develop properly accountable systems that will stand the test of time - that are appropriate and have naturally evolved in that area. Attempts to impose liberal democracy in China, for example have been far from successful, yet this has not prevented the upward surge in living standards or development in that area since that country and its people have felt integrated and connected to the political health and development of their own nation. It is obviously hard for us to comprehend why every nation in this world would not want to be like us, however, artificial systems simply entice countries into a vicious circle consisting of the failure of their artificial adopted systems leading to political instability and civil unrest, at which point we so kindly step in and ensure the cycle begins again. We have the ability to break the chain, by allowing countries to discover for themselves which mechanisms work and fail and therefore develop in accordance with their own national identity.

Despite my stance on military intervention, I would like to end this article by stating that I completely support providing humanitarian assistance during times of conflict. However, I do feel that we need to recognise that the distinction between humanitarian aid and military intervention has become blurred, with some even now calling for ‘humanitarian military aid’. What on Earth is this? Humanitarian aid consists of providing the materials and care essential for nurturing human life at times of extreme conflict, whereas military intervention involves the systematic taking of life. Some may argue that military intervention brings about a swifter end to war, thus saving more lives, yet as I have already demonstrated, this is rarely the case. Furthermore, Ivo Daalder and James Stavridis recently claimed that NATO's decision to support the anti-Kadaffi rebels in Libya saved "tens of thousands" of lives. I found that the same amount of American money could have saved almost 590,000 people from malaria, and the U.S. spending was only about one-fourth of total spending. It is far from clear, on the whole, that military intervention prevents loss of life in either the short or long term.

Written by Naomi Collison

16

Caption Contest

Simply think of a caption for these pretty pictures of Boris and email your ideas to Naomi Collison

by the 1st April for a chance to win a social science mystery prize.