While hacking is not as glamorous or all-powerful as portrayed in fiction, it is still a problem faced by official institutions. Last month Donncha O’Cearbhaill, a first-year Trinity student, was arrested for allegedly hacking into and recording a conference call between the FBI and SOCA, the UK’s Serious Organised Crime Agency. The call was to discuss international plans for dealing with the hacking groups Anonymous and Lulzsec, of which O’Cearrbhaill is a member, and he duly put the contents of the exchange on Youtube. He has been charged in the US with one count of computer hacking conspiracy and one of ‘intentionally disclosing an unlawfully intercepted wire communication’, facing up to fifteen years in prison if found guilty. For context, the average time served for murder in Ireland is twelve years.

This was not O’Cearbhaill’s first offence. Last year he hacked into the Department of Foreign Affairs simply by guessing their passwords. Three of the passwords used by these government officials was ‘password’. The alleged hacking above stretched Mr. O’Cearbhaill’s supernatural hacking skills even further. The Gardaí have an email system designed specially by the foreign consultancy firm Accenture at a cost to taxpayers of sixty-one million euro, which is apparently so faulty that it is standard practice to forward emails to private unsecured Gmail accounts, which is what one hapless member of the Gardaí’s Computer Crime Investigation Unit did with the details of the conference call. O’Cearbhaill already had access to this Garda’s account because he had, once again, guessed the password.

A University Observer recreation of what hacking may or may not look like

The question is not whether it was illegal or even wrong; of course it was. It’s the digital equivalent of breaking into the Taoiseach’s office just to tip-ex “HA HA HA” on his desk. But if the person breaking in was a security expert and Enda Kenny didn’t know how a door worked, there might be a better use for the burglar than letting him rot.

This astonishing level of technical misunderstanding is endemic in world institutions. The generation in charge has very little understanding of computers, despite the huge number of social and criminal interactions that take place through them. This was not a dedicated terrorist organisation using the information to blackmail or destroy, it was a bored teenager doing it for a laugh. The CCIU not only couldn’t stop him, they couldn’t choose a more inventive password than ‘password’. The huge gaping flaws in the system have been exposed with no malice, and instead of making an effort to fix the system, they are throwing the people who revealed it in jail.

If this is the kind of lazy incompetence at the highest levels of our state, it’s hardly surprising that that same generation of people managed to destroy the country. We have seen the institutions of this country collapse around our ears in the last five years. They have mismanaged the government, the banks, the hospitals, and the police, and we are the ones who have to pay for their stupidity. We are the ones who face unemployment, fees, pay cuts, and tax increases to cover for the mistakes they have made. And when someone comes forward and reveals that the emperor has no clothes, they are punished. We are in a society that always shoots the messenger.

This isn’t corruption, it’s incompetence. Corruption isn’t good, but it implies that the corrupt are at least able to achieve something if given proper motivation. Incompetence is worse, because it can’t be either fixed or deterred. If we continue this tactic of shutting up whoever dares to show a flaw in the system, whether it is in law enforcement, government, or finance, we are doomed to repeat these mistakes over and over again. In the lead-up to the economic crisis many people cried out about what was going on, and how it couldn’t last, and they were silenced and scoffed at. Do we need a technological crisis before hackers are taken seriously?

Here’s a suggestion for any institution finding themselves hacked: Hire the hackers. Hire the people who find the loopholes; they clearly understand the system better than you do. Hacking is not as thrilling or mighty as it is often portrayed to be. It’s not a femme fatale in a catsuit fighting to recover her identity, it’s not a Hollywood nerd who’s only pretension to intellectualism or unattractiveness is a pair of glasses, nervously typing in an abandoned warehouse, ready to pull a gun out when the bad guys arrive, and it’s not a terrorist group trying to take down the indulgent bourgeoisie. Hacking is some teenager dicking around on a laptop while drinking Revamp, and if he can outwit a system purpose-built by highly paid officials, they are the ones who are at fault.

To many, the impending referendum on our ratification of the Fiscal Compact (with the catchy formal title being the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) is the strongest case for wanting to dwell in some fantasy Carlsberg world, with an omnipresent Option C. To take the most cynical tone, as many will between now and May 31st, a yes vote is one to shackle us further to the domineering sway of the European Union, while a no is a death knell for our role in the global markets. Can’t we just have a ‘sometimes’ option on the ballot?

That said, the truth is that we should not approach this with the trepidation we did previous referenda. This treaty is a concise, accessible plan for economic stability in the Eurozone, which may give it the potential to engage voters in a way that the tome of jargon that was Lisbon failed to. In fact, the worst thing the yes side could do is patronise the electorate by shouting the word “Jobs!” at them again à la the first Lisbon referendum. Clearly explained as what it is and taken on that one criterion, as a plan for getting the continent out of the dire straits it is currently floating in, there is a lot to be said for the treaty.

The media spectacle that complemented our planet’s financial meltdown meant that we all know what went wrong and how it was allowed to happen. The treaty aims to respond to this by setting limits on public debt levels, as well as deficit levels, with mandated balanced budget legislation. The proposed debt ceiling of sixty per cent is one that Ireland held mostly throughout its boom years, only to be hoisted well over it by the need to socialise bad bank debt to keep the markets (and the EU) happy. For these extreme, unanticipated cases, the treaty establishes the European Stability Mechanism, a formalised bailout fund of €500 billion. A common criticism has been that this entrenches austerity over stimulus as the go-to policy in a downturn, but room is left for stimulus as long as it is tenable to do so within the existing target. High stimulus spending often only increases debt levels, making it difficult to access money markets due to high yields on what are now risky bonds, making the situation far worse than it started out. The adoption of the treaty itself is likely to send a strong signal to money markets about our commitment to stability, a step along the process of restoring our international standing.

The accumulation of public debt is a domestic problem, one that arises from a political willingness to keep the masses appeased with current high spending, putting the short term ahead of the long term. In as much as the policies here are relatively more technocratic and less pressured by the public, they’re more likely to be a fair judge of how our debt accumulation should go, particularly in comparison to the parochial vote-buyers that too often fall into power.

Yet that hits on the problem. The treaty, no matter how you put it, is a surrender of sovereignty. While that word alone will get the republican left foaming at the mouth, the sovereignty we lose is real policy power, not just symbolic identity. The common currency and earlier agreements removed our capacity for independent monetary policy; now we are constraining our fiscal policy, but it is a trade-off. To reap the gains that we get from our shared currency, capital markets, and powerful union, we have to accept that the risks of our policies no longer affect just us. While this time around, the centre was bailing out the periphery, we do not want to end up in a future situation where we are bailing out a country for their flippant behaviour.

At that point, the only question is whether or not you believe the European project is still something we want to be part of. Each referendum and each crisis we face is a functional spillover to a more centralised union. Many have made the interesting argument that we should use this referendum as a bargaining chip to get better terms on our bailout, especially given how stringently we have stuck to its terms so far. While there is a lot to be said for pursuing this for our long-term stability, we have much less bargaining power than we did with Lisbon and prior treaties. Although the former status quo was unanimous passage of treaties for implementation, that is no longer the case. The Fiscal Compact, approved by all EU countries bar the UK and Czech Republic, is to become a reality; our decision is whether or not we want in, and whether or not we are happy to be in the slower part of a two-speed Europe. In that sense, the yes option seems pertinent. What it will come down to is how we weigh our own sovereignty and independence against fiscal stability, and while a no vote is not the end of the world, it should warrant us to rethink our place in the future of the monetary union.

Despite the outcries against the rampant corruption seen in governments and corporations around the globe, it’s often those with the courage to speak out who suffer the most. Those who dare to speak out against abuses can lose their jobs, find themselves ostracised from their profession, or even put their lives at risk. There is very little in place to protect them, and their bravery often goes ignored by the public.

The Mahon Report is perhaps the most damning indictment of a culture that existed in Ireland over the last decade – as long as a profit was being made, it didn’t matter how. This was true of government, banking and business. “It continued because nobody was prepared to do enough to stop it. This is perhaps inevitable when corruption ceases to become an isolated event and becomes so entrenched that it is transformed into an acknowledged way of doing business,” Judge Mahon concluded in the report. The long, costly, but ultimately necessary process of tribunals began when James Gogarty, a former Garda and senior construction worker, revealed that his firm had bribed senior government minister, Ray Burke. Without whistle-blowers like Gogarty and dozens of others to give testimony about this state of affairs, we may never have discovered the degree to which corruption had become “endemic and systemic” in our political system.

The economic downturn, the failure of ‘light touch’ regulation, and revelations of corporate corruption have acted as a catalyst in the search for transparency. In America this has been characterised by the creation of Wikileaks and the release of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the extent to which the American government had lied to its people and congress about the Vietnam War. In Britain, we have seen revelations of phone hacking by the News of the World, and the parliamentary expenses scandal.

However, the unfortunate truth is that there are thousands of abuses perpetrated at all levels of organisations, businesses, and governments that go unreported. This can be for a number of reasons; fear of reprisal, misplaced loyalty, or the belief that blowing the whistle is equivalent to being a snitch.

Most importantly, there exists a negative attitude to whistle-blowing. Sometimes exposing problems within a system can be rewarding, as was the case with Jesselyn Radack, who exposed the ethical violations in the interrogation of suspected terrorist, John Walker Lindh, by the FBI. Since then, Radack has been promoted to the position of national security and human rights director for the Government Accountability Project in Washington.

However not everyone is so lucky. Thomas Drake, a former senior official at the National Security Agency, spoke out against illegal surveillance of millions of Americans that had been implemented in the Bush era. Although the felony suit against him was later dropped, he lost his job, his retirement savings, and is seen by many as betraying his country. Many whistle-blowers report that there exists a widespread ‘shoot the messenger’ mentality by corporations and government departments.

One of the recommendations made in the Mahon report was creating more robust whistle-blower legislation. The upcoming ‘Protected Disclosures in the Public Interest Bill’, known commonly as the Whistle-Blowers Bill, has been cited by Minister Brendan Howlin as being the best in the world. It is based on the existing models in South Africa, New Zealand and Britain. The comprehensive bill includes protections from any penalisation by their employer, including harassment, dismissal, discrimination or any threat of reprisal. The proposed Electoral Amendment Bill, which proposes donation limits and registering lobbyists, also displays a move in a promising direction.

While all legal protections are welcomed, this may not go far enough to tackle the perception of whistle-blowers. The decision to report on an employer is not one made in a vacuum, but it is heavily based on external factors, such as fear of ill-treatment, belief that the wrong-doing is ‘run of the mill’, or ‘needed to get something done’, or, indeed, beneficial to the employee.

More needs to be done to change our attitudes towards corruption. Not only does the Mahon Report condemn politicians, developers, and the business elite, but it also denounces the wilful ignorance on the part of ordinary citizens and points out the “general apathy on the part of the public towards . . . corruption.”

We can no longer call ourselves a democracy if we allow the rule of law to be undermined consistently by those who believe themselves to be above the law. We can no longer afford a culture of ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ and business as usual. We need to accept our personal responsibility to stand up and expose abuse when we see it. As a country we need to take a long look at ourselves and make the decision not to let the wave of anger pass without some kind of change.

1. Graduate Tax – Elizabeth O’Malley

Under a graduate tax system students would repay the cost of their university education through extra taxation. The rate of tax is proportional to their earnings and suggested rates are quite low; the scheme proposed by the National Union of Students in the UK includes rates of between 0.3 per cent for the lowest earners and 2.5 per cent for top earners. In practice this would cost a teacher seven pounds of their income per week. This is compared to the nine per cent students pay on average of their incomes under student loan schemes. This scheme could either be capped after a number of years or levied throughout their working life. There would be no upfront costs at the point of entry. Repayments are interest-free.

This system is the fairest suggested for a number of reasons. Unlike our current system, which is forcing students out of education because of financial difficulties, entry to university will not be based on whether you can afford it; everyone will be able to attend. The government in turn won’t have to pay grants except for maintenance fees. This will reduce barriers to further education.

Unlike the student loan scheme, students will not be deterred by the prospect of personal debt once they have left university. It will not compromise the next generation’s ability to get reasonable loans or mortgages. There is also less of a temptation to emigrate under this system; most people don’t consider future income tax ‘debt’ and there are very few people who emigrate in order to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere. The rate of tax is also minimal. There are fewer problems for students after they have graduated.

This system is proportional, taxing those who can afford it most. Those who leave education and find it difficult to get high-paying jobs will not have to pay a huge amount. It takes into account a student’s future earnings rather than their parents’ income. This eliminates the problem we currently have under our means-tested system, in which an individual’s parents may either be unable or unwilling to pay for university even if they can afford it. Those who gain the most from their education will give the most back.

A graduate tax would also raise more money than our system of registration fees as graduates will pay back the full cost of their degrees over time. Depending on whether the system is capped it could also mean that students repay their fees many times over, raising significant revenue for investment in education. All plans for a graduate tax have suggested ring-fencing funds. Money raised would go toward maintenance grants, facilities and services. This is a long-term solution for funding higher education.

Admittedly there could be difficulties in implementing such a system. The time and cost of setting up this scheme as well as the lag before graduates begin earning are practical issues. However we must remember short-sighted ideas such as increasing registration fees or student loan schemes will only deter people from entering education. This will lead to less money being earned by those people and the economy benefiting even less from their tax payments. An educated workforce is also a significant factor in attracting foreign direct investment. This can be seen as a long-term economic investment as well as ensuring that all students can avail of their right to education. Overall, the graduate tax is the fairest and most rational way of paying for our third level system.

2. Student Loan Scheme – Catherine Murnane

When students were polled by The Examiner in 2011, fifty-one per cent favoured the introduction of a student loan scheme over any of the other models mentioned here. The loan scheme, which has been introduced in over sixty countries worldwide, is implemented by the State without a guarantor. When availed of, students receive loans to cover the cost of their education throughout their time in college, only facing repayments after the graduation robes have been well and truly tucked away.

So what made every second student that responded to that poll support the student loan scheme?

The first reason would most likely be the equality of access to education that it provides. The ‘free fees’ scheme of the last government, although alleging to achieve this, merely eased access for those who could already comfortably afford third-level education. A student loan scheme removes money from the managerial role it currently holds in the Irish education system, postponing payment until graduates are in a position to afford it. Under this scheme, graduates are not instantaneously burdened with repayments on completion of third-level education. Rather, it is only when graduates attain a job and rise to a particular point on the salary scale that they must begin to pay for the education that has led them there.

A student loan scheme provides funds upfront for all, and also eliminates a variety of issues associated with our current grant scheme. Since our last budget, postgraduate students who would have previously qualified for a student grant now only qualify for the €2,000 fee grant, a figure which doesn’t even cover the costs of the contribution fee. When determining eligibility for this grant the focus is placed on the income of the applicant’s parents, but this does not necessarily translate to the finances the student themselves has access to. The student loan scheme provides up-front finance for students, regardless of family circumstances, even when their grant application fails. This enables them to complete their education without the fear of their financial assistance being reduced, without the fear of having to leave college without their degree. The strengthened awareness that this scheme gives students of the costs of their education, along with the responsibility it places on them to use it wisely, will undoubtedly heighten its value in Ireland. By delaying repayment until employment, the scheme emphasises the important role third level education plays in ensuring access to the workplace.

It is also important to remember that our government will want rapid returns from these loans over the coming years. As the state will receive no revenue from their graduates until they have attained suitable jobs, the scheme will act as one of checks and balances on our government. Employers will choose the best candidate with the best education, regardless of what state they come from, and the scheme will motivate our government to constantly improve the education system to not only ensure that we supersede competing institutions, but to see that we can also reap the financial benefits it provides.

So far our government has taken a twisted stance on equal access to education. By raising the contribution fee and simultaneously cutting the grant, those who were struggling to get in have now been locked out. A student loan scheme which provides finances upfront, only views education as valuable if it provides you with employment, and places the value of education directly in the hands of those receiving it is a viable alternative and a worthy winner of this fifty-one per cent majority vote.

3. Full Upfront Fees – Conor O’Nolan

The government needs to make dramatic cutbacks in an attempt to plug our ever-growing deficit, and there is one sector that is heavily funded and can easily be cut: third-level education. The reintroduction of full, upfront college fees would probably have no adverse effects on the education system in Ireland; in fact it could improve the education available.

The argument that the introduction of full up-front fees would be a barrier to the access of third level education is somewhat disingenuous. There is little or no evidence to suggest that the free fees initiative introduced in the 1990s increased participation levels from members of low-income families. It is hard to imagine that the reintroduction of undergraduate fees would really impact the uptake of third-level places. Put simply, those who want to go to college will find a way to go to college. Secondly, it is unlikely that there would not be some description of a loan scheme set up to help people pay for fees, either run by the state or by the individual colleges in partnership with a bank.

A system in which those who can afford to pay for their education actually pay for their education should be introduced. The only particular hurdle involved here is that there is no functional, existing system in place. The county/city council grants system is broken; there is no question of that. However, aside from the inherent difficulties, restructuring the current system could potentially save taxpayers millions and possibly make access to education ‘fairer’, as those who need monetary support for third level education could be granted it instead of giving it to students who don’t actually require it.

Of course, there is the argument that charging high-income families for education is unfair because they already pay more tax than lower income families. Unfair or not, it is likely to be a necessary evil. The current austerity measures have adversely affected everyone’s finances to some degree, and while further impositions might seem harsh, they may be essential if Ireland is ever going to escape the massive level of debt it is currently facing.

Aside from the fact that universal access to education probably wouldn’t be affected, the standard of education received in third-level institutions under full fees would most likely improve. If students have to pay a significant amount of money for their education, they are in a much better position to demand quality from universities. As it stands, lecturers are allowed stay in the university’s employ regardless of their ability to teach, especially if they contribute a significant amount in terms of research.

If students have to pay, it can be expected that the quality of lecturing in the college will become a more important factor in choosing a third level institution. Currently, in private institutes, close attention is paid to the standard of teaching; lecturers who are not performing to a high enough standard are replaced. This would not only stop academic staff becoming complacent in their roles, but it would also force colleges to compete with each other in a meaningful way, not just trying to attract students on the basis of better sports facilities or a superior social scene.

Funding for colleges would also improve, as colleges would no longer be faced with problems like not being able to afford books for their libraries, and redevelopment works to buildings would happen as they need to happen as opposed to being subject to long-overdue quick fixes.

Finally, the inherent value of third level education would change. If a student is paying upwards of €6,000 for a year of college they now have a financial incentive to perform better. Not only this, but it would stop people going to college purely for the sake of going to college. People will be more likely to enrol in courses that they have a genuine interest in or that could increase their employment prospects. It would be very hard to justify continuing a course that you don’t enjoy at such a high cost.

4. Student Contribution/Registration Fee – Jack Walsh

Following the UCD Students’ Union’s decision to hold a referendum on fees it is necessary to discuss and showcase all available options voters will be privy to, no more so than the choice of maintaining the way fees are currently implemented, via student contribution and registration fees, which currently sits at €2,000, excluding local levies.

This system spreads the costs of higher education between the exchequer and the student, or indeed their family. The contribution fee has been set for all those who do not qualify for its payment due to not fully meeting the requirements set out in the maintenance grant system, a system which examines the socio-economic background of a student, such as yearly household income. The aim of the contribution fee is to finance non-academic services such as student activities, health services and student support services. If the fee was discontinued universities would be required to find money for these services elsewhere, or cut them altogether. The registration fee’s origins coincide with the ‘free fees initiative’, created by then Education Minister Niamh Bhreathnach, introduced as the ‘registration fee’ in 1997, after it received approval by Dail Eireann in 1996. The Minister’s introduction of the fee was a result of heavy lobbying of Students’ Unions and other student service providers at that time. The advantages that are prevalent within this system of dealing with the situation of third level education are clear and easily visible at a glance. The means-tested maintenance grant system introduced, although competitive, ensures that those on the lower scale of socio-economic backgrounds who have been approved by the set requirements of the testing system will have the fee paid for on their behalf by the government. This maintenance grant has allowed many students to enter into college life who would otherwise not have had the opportunity to do so.

It has been speculated that should a one-hundred per cent exchequer funded system be put in place, it would leave no room for the maintenance grant, and as such would leave many out in the cold. Perhaps the most attractive method in terms of equality of access, it certainly holds regard with those who do receive the grant and perhaps those who don’t in comparison to paying upfront full fees, and it can also be argued that this system is favourable for less well-off students in comparison to the proposed idea of the student loan scheme, with students from lower income groups seen to prefer to avoid future debt, also taking into consideration the idea that graduate loans may be subject to annual interest, arguably outweighing, in monetary terms, increases in the student contribution fees.

The admittedly shocking rise in student registration fees, initially beginning at £150 (€190) with the 2012 charge is set at €2,250, in comparison to future taxes and possible loan interests observed within other available options is a serious issue that must be weighed up, and it should be considered a very real possibility that long term taxation can be a more demanding form of payment. An upfront payment may seem to be a more cost-effective approach, despite the initial and unappealing sting of paying a large sum in advance. The current system also ensures that all students pay a set amount, regardless of their course choice, and as such does not evoke the pitfalls that could potentially arise from students choosing a course that may be more expensive, as courses that may cost more will not be seen as attractive options to prospective students.

5. Fully Exchequer funded – Karl Gill

In 1997 fees for third level education were abolished and replaced with a registration fee of £150 (€190). Every year but one since 1997, this fee has gone up. Now, as most of us know, we have a registration fee of €2,250. Obviously this figure is impeding access to education for those of us who cannot afford it. So what is the solution? Some people think that because our policy is not working, we must have the wrong policy. However, I want to argue that our current policy is perfect but our strategy for achieving this is flawed.

The current UCDSU/USI policy is that the state should pay for third level education through progressive taxation. However, the aspect of ‘progressive taxation’ is often neglected in rhetoric and in our demands. Progressive taxation is when those who have larger incomes pay more tax and receive quality public services in return. We do not have progressive taxation in Ireland.

Every year there is a lobby of Students’ Union representatives who try to educate individual TDs on the benefits of free education in Dáil Éireann as a way of ensuring equal access to college is achieved. A successive line of SU reps, who are often not convinced of the arguments for publicly funded education themselves, presenting policy documents to politicians as a plea to lower our fees has failed. The student movement in this country looks weak and is not taken seriously.

Why is it that the farmers, trade unions and businesses can be taken seriously as lobby groups but the Union of Students in Ireland are simply brushed off by the powers that be? Well for one, unlike USI, representatives of other large lobby groups are mostly not members of one of the three main political parties, but also our strategy of lobbying makes us, on a national level, as students, look soft.

The Students’ Unions in this country were founded on the basis of free access to education and communicated their message through mass meetings, protest and peaceful civil disobedience in the name of not only student’s rights but also women’s rights, gay rights and plenty of other economic and social issues. USI officers in the past were people who knew about political activism and were predominately youth members of the Worker’s Party. Today SU officers can be seen posing for election pictures with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs.

So why is free education so important? Just like free primary and secondary education, third level education is a public good. Having more educated people is of great benefit to both our society and our economy. If we had fees or a loan scheme students would pick courses on the basis of cost rather than on the basis of genuine interest in a particular discipline.

Besides the fact that it is unfair to add an extra taxation onto people for simply having a degree (regardless of income), having a graduate tax in a time of high emigration is economic lunacy.
A loan scheme would leave people in huge amounts of debt before they even have a job. In other countries such as the US or UK, loan schemes have not worked and have added significantly to the gap between rich and poor.

There is pessimism within our Union. People don’t think that people power, with the right kind of leadership, can work. Some people think that within the current economic circumstances it is not possible to have people freely attending education. Strong, serious leadership is needed, not a change in policy. What we need is energy, vibrancy and to use our youthfulness and creativity to challenge unequal access to third level education.

As “KONY 2012” takes over the internet, Yvanne Kennedy looks behind the hysteria and asks how we should oppose the world’s most infamous Ugandan

There is no denying that Joseph Kony is a terrible person. He has done shocking things and for them, he deserves to be punished. The nature and execution of the punishment is what we seem to be arguing over in every spare column inch and every other Facebook post. Given that we have decided to despise him, what’s the best thing we can really do to help Ugandans and others who have been affected by his regime?

Kony stands accused of conscripting over 30,000 children into combat warfare over a twenty-year period. The plight of those affected has been brought to light by ‘Invisible Children’, the charity behind this campaign. They believe that the US military should intervene to capture him and the ‘KONY 2012′ video, which has now gone viral, intends to inform the wider world and work as a call to action so that the US government will take note.

This move has not been without backlash, as the charity has come under attack from many other aid groups and lobbyists claiming that the campaign is “at best a gross oversimplification of a really complicated situation, and, at worst, an actively unhelpful misuse of resources and attention.” Essentially, after only days of support for Invisible Children, the charity is now being accused of misusing funds, misrepresenting facts and essentially making the situation in Uganda worse. This idea has gained support from NGO workers, activists, academics and journalists but, naive as this statement may seem, how bad can they be if they are bringing attention to the crisis?

Whatever about making the situation worse, the basic fact is that while Invisible Children sells itself as a charity set up to campaign against the use of child soldiers, only one-third of money raised has gone to directly assist children and families affected by such regimes. The video seen by millions around the world may raise awareness, but what if this is awareness based on false ‘facts’? Joseph Kony isn’t actually in Uganda and hasn’t been for six years or so. Such a fact seemed to not to matter too much in the thirty minutes Invisible Children talked about stopping this warlord. If this is just the surface, where else has the charity bent the truth?

The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni is not the leader of a democracy. Ushering in a fourth term in the office last year, he has now held this position for twenty-five years. Museveni lords over a country with minimal social services and well-documented governmental human rights abuses. Invisible Children is channelling money into a corrupt country. Stopping Kony will not change any of the other facts about Uganda and if we are to support the giving of more finance and firearms to those in power, we may actually make the country’s overall problems worse.

Furthermore, the crisis in northern Uganda is not seen by its citizens as one that is the result of the Lord’s Resistance Army, of which Kony is the head. Yes, you read right. The conflict in the region is viewed as one both the Government of Uganda and the LRA have perpetrated and benefited from after nearly twenty-five years of systemic violence and displacement. In order to stop Kony, we may be looking at a larger problem, far beyond the scope of Invisible Children.

What the charity has at its core is obvious – the welfare of children, especially those who have been conscripted, but condoning violence of the sort proposed to bring down Kony and to ‘free’ the Ugandan people seems slightly counter-productive. If you’re trying to save people and safeguard children, the best way to go about it is not to storm their country with ammunition and a mission to kill one man. Those caught in the crosshairs will not be few and far between.

Where there is an argument, there is always an objection and Invisible Children have not taken their criticism lying down. Finance aside, they say that co-ordination with regional governments is vital in helping to secure the arrest they so desperately want, and promise that no money has passed from them to the Ugandan government. They say that their video is simple because their goal, at its core, is not complex, but they also state that they want to see as many people as possible coming out to support the cause and the ‘KONY 2012’ video appeared to be the best way to do it. Whatever we think about it, they’re correct about one thing: we are talking about it.

Perhaps most importantly, Invisible Children acknowledges as its ultimate goal the arrest and prosecution of Joseph Kony. They want to see him brought before the International Criminal Court as a precedent for future war criminals. It can be agreed that his crimes against humanity must be punished and that the only way to do that is for him to be located and captured.

Invisible Children’s goal is to raise awareness. If they believed that the sharing of one video would stop Joseph Kony, they’d be kidding themselves and everyone else but the idea of making Kony ‘famous’ so that maybe, just maybe a few more people might sit up and notice and potentially help change the situation of so many people is honourable, no matter how improbable we may believe it to be.

Syria is in a state of turmoil and uncertainty. Internally, there is a divided population who, aroused by the revolts of their Arabneighbours last year, are increasingly yearning for the democratic seeds of change. The grip that its President, Bashar al-Assad has on the country is tenuous, although seemingly not sufficiently so to bring about a hasty collapse of his regime. Outside of Syria, affairs are equally complicated. The vast majority of the West are staunchly anti-Assad but intervention is proving difficult. A UN Security Council resolution on the subject of an intervention was vetoed at the beginning of this month by both China and Russia, thus leaving the West temporarily impotent in the midst of the crisis.

The media coverage of the civil war in Syria is markedly different from that surrounding the events that unfolded in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia in the last two years. Rather than being an indicator of a disinterested world however, it is a reflection of a more embroiled and disordered battle that is occurring. For a start, Egypt’s Mubarak and Libya’s Gaddafi had a strong and focused opposition. In Syria however, the discordant cries of revolt are coming from the scattered collection of voices of gangs, militias, and soldiers who have defected from the regime. They are not united, no leader has prevailed among the rebels, and even if a strong opposition existed they would certainly be unable to match the Syrian army in terms of numbers or armaments. Thanks to a combination of conscripts and superior arms, Assad will likely remain in control for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, unlike in Egypt and the other countries of the Arab Spring, Assad has some key alliances that make intervention from outside the country extremely challenging. Russia’s veto of the Security Council resolution in early February was not motivated by some noble ambition to respect Syria’s sovereignty, but out of personal interest. Syria houses Russia’s only naval base outside of the country, and if the UN were to intervene and topple Assad, Russia’s possession of this base would be jeopardised.

Although trade restrictions have been put in place – American exports are no longer reaching Syria and Europe is no longer importing Syrian oil – the Russian-Chinese veto has indisputably created a hurdle for people in the West, who are demanding dramatic and immediate interference.

To add another twist to this already complex plot, Assad also has a convenient alliance with the Iranian government. Speculation abounds that Iran has piped money into Assad’s failing regime and it would be a gross understatement to say that Iran desires a free, democratic Syrian state next door to it. Without going into further detail, it is sufficient to say that the Iranian involvement creates another treacherous dimension for anyone contemplating getting involved in this mire.

It may seem like there is less political and indeed media attention being paid to the civil war in Syria, particularly when you compare it to the hype that surrounded the Arab Spring revolutions last year. However, to be under the impression that the world has grown fatigued and bored of the seemingly relentless instability in the Middle East would be misguided. While everyone knew and indeed was interested in what was going on in Egypt during the fall of Mubarak, this was thanks to a few unforgettable moments during the protests in Tahrir Square that were captured on camera phones and uploaded and shared across the internet almost instantaneously. Unfortunately for the Syrian revolutionaries, few cinematic snippets of their efforts are available to us because of the danger involved for the foreign press entering the country at the time. In other words, it is not because the press are not interested in the Syrian war, it would appear that it is just too dangerous and too difficult for them to cover it.

The lack of media coverage is forgivable to a degree, but it would appear that the absence of more forceful interference by the outside world is beyond excusable. On average fifty citizens are being killed daily by their own government in Syria. These are citizens who are fighting for some of their most fundamental democratic rights and paying for it with their lives.

Russia and China may have created a stumbling block for the UN resolution, but we need not look back far in the history books to be reminded of how little heed some of the global powers actually pay to these agreements. Some think that to ignore the Russian-Chinese veto would be dangerously absurd, but with the kind of manpower and resources at Assad’s disposal and the vulnerability of the people trapped in his regime, it seems that to leave Syria to its own devices for much longer would be equally senseless.

In politics, a week is a lifetime; three months an eternity. President Nicolas Sarkozy has three months in which to turn his record disapproval ratings around if he is to have any chance of being re-elected. While some think that he has little to no chance, it would be premature to rule him out entirely. France’s presidential campaigns are known for being volatile and susceptible to immense changes, thus at this stage it is unwise to declare Sarkozy’s campaign as dead in the political water.

Sarkozy’s first major challenge is getting his support to the level of his main opponent, the Socialist Party’s François Hollande. Although Hollande is leading in the polls, he has considerable difficultly in inspiring the French public, and as such it is likely that his approval ratings stem from the ‘anyone but Sarkozy’ mentality. The staid and lackluster Hollande is the Socialist Party’s second choice, a late replacement for their original candidate, former IMF chief Dominique Strauss Kahn, before the events of May 14th 2011 lead to his downfall. While untested and not the most dynamic of personalities, Hollande is considered by many to be a good bet in ousting Sarkozy out of the Elysee. Another key player is Marine Le Pen of the far right National Front Party. A more presentable character than her father, the former party leader Jean Marie Le Pen, Le Pen is achieving for the party a prominence that cannot be dismissed by the French political establishment. The increasing popularity of the National Front is also damaging to Sarkozy as it undercuts the conservative voter base upon which he previously relied.

It has become increasingly obvious that the difficulties Sarkozy is facing are himself, his record, and his relationship with the French public. Any race in which a sitting politician is seeking re-election is seen as a referendum by the nation on that incumbent. Here lies Sarkozy’s greatest problem: gaining popularity with the French public is personal, not political. In the words of the French Interior Minister Claude Guéant, when it comes to the national mood, the President has an “affection deficit”. This is in contrast with his American counterpart, President Barack Obama, whose personal popularity bolsters his polling numbers despite the public not liking his policies. Sarkozy is suffering due to his immense unpopularity with the French electorate, who like neither his policies nor his personality. The French are impatient and frustrated with Sarkozy; they dislike his closeness with the super rich, his courting of the extreme right and his exhibitionist soap opera life. Adding to their grievances is the downgrading of France’s credit rating, which further cements the fact that France’s economy is coming into trouble, with rising unemployment and mounting debt. Indeed, Sarkozy is quoted as having said, “I am dead” if France loses its triple A rating. Marry this with the fact that Germany has retained its credit rating; it feeds into the unpopular idea of Germany being Europe’s undisputed leader with France as its junior partner, a notion that is humiliating for the French. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s endorsement of Sarkozy is unlikely to have been entirely welcomed by the French public.

Despite the overwhelmingly negative factors that have troubled his re-election chances, Sarkozy’s campaign isn’t as hopeless as it appears. It is vital to remember that despite his limitations as a leader, he is an incredible campaigner with a record of overcoming numerous setbacks and securing surprise victories. As a talented debater and campaigner, Sarkozy may prove that he has a chance after all. His party, the Union for A Popular Majority (UMP) has been working aggressively to dent Hollande’s credibility as a candidate. Combine this with a ruthless campaigning style characterised by confrontation, blatant calculation, and a dogged determination and we see a candidate with what it takes to pull it off. In the meantime, the re-election campaign is working hard to distance the candidate from the public’s image of him. Indeed it is believed that Sarkozy announced his campaign early so as to create as much time as possible for his team to distance the President from his record and history. Already Sarkozy is trying to create and project the image of a more statesman-like President, giving off an aloof air while keeping his personal life firmly in the background. First-time candidates must seduce the electorate; incumbents must work to prove that they are the only serious option, and this is what Sarkozy hopes to convey.

Three months is a long time in politics, particularly in an unfailingly volatile race such as a French presidential campaign. Anything is possible in this time period. A skilled and canny campaigner such as Sarkozy, who thrives in adversity, may yet find himself overcoming what currently seem like very poor chances.

Apple have come under fire in the last few years for their attitude toward workers’ rights, particularly in relation to their involvement with a company named Foxconn. Foxconn assemble a large proportion of Apple’s products, with some components coming from other suppliers. Foxconn also build products for Sony, Samsung, Intel, Dell, HP, Microsoft and a large proportion of the other main industry giants, to the point where it is almost difficult to own products that have not been in part manufactured by Foxconn.

What exactly is the problem with Foxconn? Foxconn is the world’s largest manufacturer of electronic components. They employ over 900,000 people spread over three continents. Their largest complex is based in Shenzhen, China, which is where the majority of the controversy surrounding the company originates. A multiple of one hundred thousand people (exact counts are impossible to obtain) are employed in this factory. Working conditions are terrible; staff are routinely mistreated and are forced to abide by an exceptionally severe code of conduct that can result in their wages reportedly being docked for simply not walking at the right speed. Those that chose to live in the compound (and a least a quarter of them do), live in immensely cramped dormitories which often have barred windows to prevent workers from jumping out of them. Employee suicide is not an uncommon occurrence, and earlier this year a group of 300 workers threatened suicide if they did not receive a pay rise.

Apple cannot be accused of inaction in this area. They have approached Foxconn in an effort to increase the workers’ base wage, which Foxconn then raised. However, Foxconn subsequently raised daily quotas for each employee and started to place extreme controls on employee abilities to claim overtime. Apple attempted to solve the problem, and in turn, Foxconn’s greed undid any progress that appeared to have been made.

Apple’s reasoning behind operating out of China is fairly reasonable. The costs are infinitely cheaper and the supply chain is much more accommodating. If Apple were to operate out of America, the average manufacturing worker would be paid about thirty-four dollars an hour as opposed to the average manufacturing wage in China, which is approximately two dollars an hour. Operating solely out of China also allows for incredible flexibility in manufacturing. The classic example of this was the late Steve Jobs’ decision to make iPhones have glass screens. This decision was made just a month before the iPhone was actually due to launch, so it required a major overhaul of existing iPhone stocks. If this were to be done in America, the costs would have been astronomical and the turnaround time would likely have been a great deal longer.

Yet why does Apple take so much flack, while their competitors and industry colleagues receive little or no attention for their usage of the Chinese supply chain? Why does Apple have protests organised against them when others with an equal or even greater market share don’t receive any attention for the same issues? The answer almost certainly lies in the perception of the Apple brand. Apple is a computer company with a slightly hipster origin story. They have a focus on aesthetics. They seem to be honestly concerned about their environmental impact, and actually act on this concern. Their products are often seen as a fashion accessory and are highly sought after, despite cheaper and equally functional machines being readily available. They are seen as a ‘cool’ brand, and there is a daft expectation that every ‘cool’ brand must have completely ethically sound manufacturing and assembly processes. Microsoft, for example, was not a ‘cool’ brand to begin with, despite endless attempts to change their image, and as a result, no one seems to be angry that Xboxes are made in a similar way to iProducts.

A comparison can be drawn between Apple and American Apparel, and the controversy surrounding their CEO, Dov Charney. AA are a sort of ‘ethical Penneys’, manufacturing and selling low cost, high quality clothes, while operating exclusively out of America, paying all of their factory workers a fair wage and treating them well. AA is another ‘trendy’ brand and when reports surfaced that the CEO had sexual harassment lawsuits taken out against him, there was an intense backlash from the public. While this backlash probably wasn’t helped by some of the more creative advertising decisions made by the Charney over the years, the concept of boycotting a company who are renowned for treating their workers so fairly seems strange in the context of allegations of staff exploitation on the part of some competing corporations.

Are Apple evil? Not really; they are as guilty of exploiting foreign workers as almost every other electronics company. They have recently released ‘Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct’ and seem genuinely intent on improving the conditions for the workers making their goods, and considering their environmental policies and how well they treat their non-outsourced staff, it would appear that they are not such a bad Apple after all.

There is a stereotypical adage that Americans are keen to show off their greatness through size. The caricatured yank drives a big car to a bigger house to eat an enormous dinner, and is darn proud of it. The sole area that the US have never made room for the ‘bigger is better’ argument is in the size of their government bureaucracy. Since the rise of the Tea Party movement in the wake of the Wall Street Bailout, the entire American right has aggressively reasserted the centrality of the minimal state to its agenda, and it is likely to be the choice line of argument for whoever ends up opposing Obama, whether it’s Romney or not Romney.

The candidates clinging on in the race so far are all cosying up to this libertarian base, with varying levels of authenticity. Ron Paul has led a movement of radical libertarianism with the Republican Party for decades, and many voters will remember Newt Gingrich’s willingness to cause a government shutdown to coerce a balanced budget when he was Speaker of the House in the nineties. The other candidates have fewer laurels to rest on. Romney in particular is haunted by the ghost of the state-funded health insurance mandates he imposed as governor of Massachusetts that served as the basis for Obama’s health care reforms. At the time it was hailed as a model of compromised progression between private and public healthcare systems; now Romney has to declare regret for it to appease the base.

The pursuit of the small state has proved a complex one for those inside and outside of the movement to comprehend. To an extent, this apple pie minarchism is the natural, rational response to the economic climate. With US government spending reaching formidable peaks as a result of the ‘war on terror’, bailouts, stimulus and healthcare reform, dangerous debt levels and pushing for balanced budgets have become the concern of the layman as much as the policymaker. However, this penetrates far deeper into the national psyche. The founding of the union was, at its core, an experiment in guaranteeing freedom to the masses by shackling the state, an idea that sees obvious endurance in the symbolism of the Tea Party movement. The problem is that the small state in the late 1700s meant allowing a handful of civil rights to white people and not killing you because of your faith. The contemporary Leviathan is an altogether more complex beast, something that the discourse needs to reflect.

For an example, just look at the opposition to gay marriage expressed by all the Republican candidates. To hold the belief that the state should be as small as possible but still be all-encompassing enough to stop certain citizens from marrying seems to require either an infinite capacity for Orwellian doublethink or a level of stupidity that would make one question whether you can even tie your own shoelaces. In reality, it’s an indicator of the selective, agenda-serving approach that makes it incredibly easy to undermine those seeking small government.

Portraying itself as an enemy of excessive spending, the Tea Party’s rise instantly called for an explanation as to why they hadn’t opposed the huge increase in public debt that occurred in the Bush era. The obvious reason is that conservatism is innately tied to military strength, and that kind of big government didn’t count. The same could be said for the long-standing acceptance within the Republican Party, as much as among Democrats, for huge subsidies to corporations involved in everything from natural gas extraction to agriculture, even if it was a burden on the state and a complete contradiction of any free market aspiration.

The principles are gaining ground in many ways. The candidates contesting the Iowa primary, a state with a strong agricultural vote, were not harmed by their declarations of opposition to agricultural subsidies. Even now, many are happy to accept that military spending may be as much a problem as social spending. But the ideology is still distorted by who they appeal to.

The low tax agenda has led to somewhat justified criticisms that the movement has been astroturfed by corporate agendas, with particular accusation against the funding from the likes of Koch Industries to small government think-tanks and lobby groups. It is the reason why, for all the progress made, Senate Republicans still blocked a bill to remove subsidies to oil companies last summer. It is the voters who decide where the agenda is applied.

The willingness to roll back government interference ends when it contradicts the interests that are there beforehand. If they want to be taken seriously, a level of consistency is needed on a range of issues, not least on subsidies and social issues such as drug legalisation and LGBT rights, or even reconsider the Doha Development round and tackle the government’s bloated, hugely damaging tariffs on imports from the third world. As long as they aspire to please a base with vested economic interests or social views that involve government intervention, there is little reason to take the small government ideal as any more than an election strategy with a worrying stranglehold on American politics.

In January, French president Nicolas Sarkozy expressed interest in the introduction of a tax on financial transactions in the coming year, regardless of the decision by fellow European parliaments. This ‘Robin Hood’ tax, as it is commonly called, refers to a tax on financial transactions at the suggested rate of 0.1 per cent. The tax is similar to the Tobin tax, and in its current structure sets out to propose a levy on currency market transactions as well as trading in shares, bonds and derivatives, which would fundamentally raise revenues for governments.

This is one of a number of attempts by the French government to help promote job prospects in the lead-up to the country’s general election in April, in which Sarkozy is already facing a losing poll battle with Socialist party candidate Francois Hollande. The French government hopes that the introduction of the Robin Hood tax will serve as an example to be followed by other EU member states. “What we want to do is create a shock wave and set an example,” stated Sarkozy in a recent interview, “that there is absolutely no reason why those who helped bring about the crisis shouldn’t pay to restore the finances.”

With such plans, Sarkozy has already won the support of Germany’s Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble, who firmly believes that investor confidence in the Eurozone would return, despite the turmoil related to the sovereign debt crisis in recent years. Schaeuble is hoping that the Robin Hood tax will be introduced across Europe, but if not then the Eurozone is his next priority. The European Union’s executive proposed a bloc-wide tax on financial transactions, that it claims could raise €57 billion a year. Many banks denounce the plan as nonsense and Britain has stated that it would only support a global levy.

The EU’s executive European Commission formally adopted plans in September for a financial transaction tax, which will need unanimous approval from EU states. Under the plan, stock and bond trades would be taxed at the rate of 0.1 per cent, with derivatives at 0.01 per cent. The EU executive further explains that the tax would be imposed on all transactions in financial instruments between financial firms when at least one party to the trade is based in the bloc. Schaeuble favours an immediate introduction of the tax, “I don’t want to wait until such a tax is introduced worldwide. Otherwise we would risk not only the stability of our financial markets … but we would also be endangering the legitimacy in the public eye for the entire system.”

Yet several states are reluctant to introduce the tax, maintaining that Europe’s market is simply not strong enough to adopt it and that it would harm global financial centres of trade. Ireland has become a prime example of this, with many uncertain about the changing face of the markets that this tax may lead to. Under this view, should the tax be streamlined, then Dublin’s financial sector could be decimated. The fear is that foreign investors may abandon the IFSC for areas and cities that will not be subjected to the tax.

However, on the 30^th of January, Taoiseach Enda Kenny signed a new European economic treaty focused on financial discipline. The conference was attended by twenty-seven representatives of EU states, with only England and the Czech Republic refusing to sign the pact. Although the possibility of a Robin Hood tax was not discussed, European leaders’ pack mentality on economic reform has become so charged that the possibility of the introduction of the tax is certainly within reason.

In the United Kingdom, a debate has begun between those who believe that the tax will cause London to no longer be seen as a world financial market leader, and those who see the tax as only beneficial for the many who feel cheated by the economic situation. British Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed the UK’s objection to the aforementioned fiscal treaty, stating, “We are not signing this treaty. We are not ratifying it. And it places no obligations on the UK,” adding “Our national interest is that these countries get on and sort out the mess that is the euro.” In retaliation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated that the new treaty could be slotted into EU law within five years. Many public figures have come out in support of the new tax, with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams stating, “there is still a powerful sense around – fair or not – of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of impatience with a return to ‘business as usual’ – represented by still-soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.”