EXAMPLE 1

“Why are Germany and Japan not in the permanent security council of the UN?”

Data analysis

UN Resolution

In order to disclose how the UN took action against fascism, we decided to analyze the
resolutions “Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities and all other
forms of totalitarian ideologies and practices based on racial intolerance, hatred and terror”
adopted by the 43rd session of the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1988.

According to this resolution, the united nation’s intention seems to resolutely condemn fascistic
ideology including other ideologies that have consequences systematic denial of human rights
and fundamental freedoms. It is expressed in introduction as declares its resolve to oppose all
totalitarian ideologies and policies that deprive people of basic human rights, democratic
freedoms, and equality of opportunity. In the second paragraph, it calls upon all state, in
accordance with the basic principles of international law, to refrain from practices aimed at the
violation of basic human rights, particularly the right to self-determination and to pay constant
attention to educating the young in the spirit of respect for international law and fundamental
human rights and freedoms and against Fascist and other totalitarian ideologies.

Through our analysis of this resolution, we argue that the UN has a strong critique of totalitarian
ideologies, including fascism. The UN recognizes fascism as an ideology that systematically
denies human rights and fundamental freedoms. In other word, the UN perceive this ideology as
it must be eradicated. Overall, we can say the UN totally against Fascism.

Fascist Regime in History

1. Germany

The roots of fascism in Germany can be traced to the collapse of World War I and the great
political instability of the new government, the Weimar Republic, as it tried to get back on its
feet. Several groups emerged that challenged the Weimar Republic, including fascist
organizations. One such group was the German Workers' Party, led by Hitler. Hitler advocated
an ideology based on nationalism,anti-Semitism, and expansionism to increase the welfare and
power of the German people, the exact opposite of socialism and communism. As soon as Hitler
became chancellor in January 1933, he dismantled the Weimar Republic and proceeded to build
the Third Reich, a single fascist party. The Nazis focused on cleansing the national community
within the country and attempted to eliminate those who threatened the health and unity of the
state by imprisoning them in concentration camps.

2. Japan

Japan Fascism is known as Imperial Fascism. The new regime movement was influenced by the
fascist movements in Europe and led to the Great Patriotic Party. The difference between
Japanese fascism and German fascism is that Japanese fascism was based on the Emperor's
assistance and not on a oneparty dictatorship. The Imperial Rule Assistance Association was
established to promote the fascist movements in Japan. This association supported ideologies of
Japanese imperialism, Japanese militarism, Japanese nationalism, Monarchism. Japanese fascism
is an ideology that supported a series of movements during the Fifteen Years' War from the
Manchurian Incident to the end of World War II that attempted to overcome the ongoing
revolutionary movement in China, the growing social and economic crisis caused by the effects
of the Great Depression of 1929, and the intensification of class contradictions by inspiring
national chauvinism through military dictatorship and mobilizing the people for a war of
aggression through coercive control.

3. France

For a long time, the standard view was that there was no "French" fascism. The fascist
movements that existed in the interwar period were said to be politically insignificant and merely
imitations of those that existed in Italy and Germany. It is true that there was a fascist party,
although it did not become a one-party dictatorship as in Germany and Japan, where the interests
of the state were paramount.

4. Russia

Historically, Russia has never been a fascist movement or regime until the end of the World War
2. Fascist groups began to emerge in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Resentment over the loss of the Soviet empire, concern over the fate of the Russian people in the
successor states, deteriorating economic conditions, the breakdown of law and order, the desire
for a strong leader, and the lack of deep roots of democratic institutions in Russia combined to
make fascist ideology attractive to a segment of the Russian population. However, it can be said
that there is no relationship between Russian fascism and permanent membership, since Russia
was a permanent member of the Council long ago at that time.

5. China

As we searched and read a lot of historical articles, we did not reached fact that whether Fascism
existed in China or not. Only thing that we have found that Wang Jingwei of the Kuomintang, a
rightwing nationalist and anti-communist, was originally hostile to European fascism. However,
he gradually came to be in favor of fascism, mainly because of the economic policies of Nazism
in the late 1930s. After visiting Germany in 1936, Wang Jingwei changed his views on fascism
and gave a positive assessment of the fascist states in Europe. He argued that the stupid, unwise,
and cruel things done in the fascist states were actively done to bring about a tremendous change
in the political views of the German and Italian people.

6. United Kingdom

The first fascist movement in Britain is the British Union of Fascism, founded by Oswald
Moseley in 1932. Sir Oswald Moseley was a Member of Parliament after World War I, first as a
Conservative and later as a Labor Party member during the 1920s. He visited Mussolini in 1931
and, under his influence, launched "the New Party" in the general election. After his defeat, he
formed the BUF and organized the Black shirts in the style of Mussolini's National Fascist Party,
which in the late 1930s took on a more anti-Semitic banner. In the late 1930s, the BUF began to
take a more anti-Semitic stance, combining eugenics and anti-racism. The BUF march was
blocked by a large number of Jewish, socialist, and communist protesters. Violent clashes broke
out between the protesters and the police, and Moseley was forced to disperse about 2,000
demonstrators. After this, by 1939, the BUF's membership had dwindled to 20,000, the BUF was
outlawed, and Moseley and others were arrested and detained for the duration of World War II.
This is an inescapable part of the story of fascism and exclusionism in 1930s Britain.

7. United States
The United States does not have a history of fascist regimes. Under the influence of German
fascism, a fascist movement arose as in other countries, but it did not exert power and reach a
fascist government. Famously, in the 1930s, Virgil Effinger led the Black Legion, a paramilitary
group that was a violent offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan and aimed to revolutionize the United
States in order to entrench fascism. Although the Black Legion committed many incidents, it was
only a peripheral presence among the extremists. There were other extremist groups that were
influenced by Nazism, but none of them were strong enough to make a difference.

Project summary

So far, we have done both context analyze and historical approach in order to verify our
hypothesis which was "If country had fascist regimes in history, they cannot be a member of the
UNSC". We needed to clarify how the UN against towards Fascism and whether members of the
Security Council had fascist regime in their history. As we have analyzed the UN resolution, it
turns out that the UN has a strong critique of fascism. Our interpretation is that, as the UN
critiques fascism, the UN did not welcome countries like Germany and Japan, which were fascist
regimes. Also, when we look at all the past fascist regimes of the current permanent members of
the Council, we can see that in some countries, even if there was a fascist party, there were no
cases where those parties or fascist movements succeeded in dominating the country like
Germany and Japan did.

Our research indicated that we could sustain our hypothesis as the UN totally against fascist
ideology and no country in the permanent security council of the UN had fascist regime in the
history.

However, during the research, we have realized that these two researches are less to verify the
hypothesis. Because although I found out that there was a fascist regime in the history of the
current permanent members, I couldn't find out what kind of movements or even what kind of
massacres or other exclusionary activities the party carried out. This is because it was not
anticipated during the research design. Maybe the fascist party in France was also committing a
tremendous genocide behind the scenes. If this is the case, we cannot sustain our hypothesis. Our
research was a bit shallow.
It is a bit ambiguous whether the permanent members of the Council have a history of being
ruled by fascist regimes or not. If there are exclusionary massacres in the country's history, that
would be a good sign of fascism.

If we had had enough time to do the research, we would have been able to do more in-depth
research and analysis. Also, we would have determined the criteria for fascism in more detail and
conducted a narrower and deeper investigation.

EXAMPLE 2 (on why people are leaving Bosnia, I was not able to find this document,
sorry!)

EXAMPLE 3 – ON XENOPHOBIA IN EUROPE

Data Analysis

These graphs (FROM STEP 3) show the opinion of the people in different countries across
Europe. This is very showing as the crisis peaked in 2015. When over one million and three
hundred thousand asylum seekers entered the borders of EU28, not counting the ones in
transitioning countries. As we can see, at the beginning of the migrant crisis in 2014, only
countries that had migrants swarming their borders had high levels of phobia (Greece, Italy),
while countries on the periphery did not answer so negatively (Germany, UK). Tying this with
Islamism, the country of Russia has very different views on both of these cases, clearly standing
out. This may be prescribed to Russia’s past with many foreign Muslims working in office
throughout history, but a strong distaste towards anyone that doesn’t identify as Ruski. Besides
this, looking at Hungary, we can see that the Hungarians showed distaste towards migrants at
around 80% of people asked, but comparing it to Germany which also had a strong distaste
towards migrants in 2016, Hungary only approved around forty thousand asylum requests, while
Germany allowed around seven hundred and fifty thousand requests. Why is this? By our
hypothesis, there should have been only high levels of xenophobia in countries with low levels of
people’s involvement with the migrants. This is most certainly the case with Hungary, but not
with Germany, who passed many housing and welfare laws during the crisis. The UK had
relatively stable rises in xenophobia proportional to the number of immigrants allowed into the
country, but Slovakia who during the whole debacle, housed less than five thousand immigrants,
had the highest rates of xenophobia.

With that being said, by these statistics only countries of the Visegrad region show
disproportionate signs of xenophobia. Even though these graphs show some interesting evidence
pointing towards the newer EU member states, proper interviews would have given us invaluable
insight into why such percentages are on these graphs.

Conclusion

While xenophobia is present to some extent in every country in Europe, the results were not
quite the thing we expected, therefore there is much room for debate still left here. Our initial
statement that xenophobia is stronger in border countries that try to protect the Shengen zone
seems to be correct, but that does not mean that the more into the heartland of the EU you go,
that the level of xenophobia will drop. Although a lot of what I have said may be inaccurate due
to incorrect polling and last-minute surveys in some countries, the experts on this subject used a
lot of rational theories, adding religion, history and culture. If I was to have 100% accurate
statistics on the subject, I would need to have very answered polls from every country, which is
nigh-impossible, as many states have yet to do an official survey of their own, let alone publish
it. Another excellent thing would be the addition of very in-depth interviews to see why people
have such views.

Even though many of these statements can be argued, all of the evidence shows that xenophobia
was at a very fast rise during the peak of the migrant crisis. With the reduction of migrants
entering the EU and better housing being provided to them from day to day, the number of
instances in which citizens witness migrants in unfavorable conditions is also plummeting. This,
at the very least, shows as that xenophobia comes and goes, and that nothing lasts forever.
Whatever problem we may face now, something worse could always happen.

EXAMPLE 4 – ON EFFECTIVENESS OF DRONE STRIKES

These graphs illustrate the ongoing drone war occurring in Pakistan. In 2010, the CIA

deployed 128 drone strikes in Pakistan, resulting in the most deaths attributed to United States

drone strikes in Pakistan since their first year of use in 2004. Although there were a total of 875

deaths in 2010, the number of civilian casualties is not the most out of all of the years the United

States has been using drones in Pakistan. This may be attributed to the technological

advancements in drone technology; allowing those operating the drones to more accurately track

and kill the intended target. This technological advancement has, evidently, helped the United

States remove its intended target from the battlefield, as the number of children and civilians

killed since 2008 has significantly dropped.

These graphs allow for cost-benefit analysis as well as monitoring analysis. The cost of

drone strikes can be represented in the inadvertent deaths of children and civilians and the

benefits are represented in the incapacitation of a specific target resulting from a drone strike.

Therefore, in recent years, the benefits of drone strikes considerably outweigh the costs, as drone

strikes have evidently become more and more precise (in the data collected from 2013, a total of

39 were killed without harming children or civilians). In the first few years of drone use in

Pakistan, a cost-benefit analysis most likely would have suggested ending the program because

of the large percentage of casualties resulting from drone strikes were innocent bystanders, but

observing the data through the lens of a monitoring analysis suggests that the drone program is

improving year after year. Although this data suggests an improvement in the accuracy of drone

strikes, a proper program evaluation requires interviews with populations on the ground to

determine the emotions of those influenced by a drone strike.

The effectiveness of drones in terms of seeking out, targeting, and killing individual

enemy combatants who are removed from the battlefield is unmatched, yet the consequences of

drone strikes have resulted in the varying opinions of the true effectiveness of drone strikes. With

advancements in military technology since the turn of the century, many more nations will

posses drones. The information compiled in this research has shed some light on the internal

processes of terrorist organizations in reaction to drone strikes.

Though much of the research throughout this project is theory and speculation from

experts on the topic of drone strikes, it is hard to say definitively that the raw numbers are

accurate, as data regarding the lethality of drone strikes is withheld by the United States Central

Intelligence Agency. Individual journalists compiled much of the data expressing numbers of

casualties. Therefore, if given the opportunity, truly accurate research on the topic of drone

effectiveness requires classified data from the CIA as well as interviews with populations on the

ground. Interviews would allow researchers to truly understand how terrorist organizations react

to and fill their ranks after a drone strike.

Although much of the data can be disputed, the research suggests that drones do indeed

have an effect on terrorist organizations. The data obtained suggests that, over the years, drone

technology has improved, allowing for drone operators to determine who is an enemy combatant

and who is an innocent bystander. As a result of this, drone operators can better identify and kill

their intended targets and minimize collateral damage. To determine whether the effect of drone

strikes is beneficial or detrimental to the overall goals of the United States drone program,
research requires interviews with terrorists themselves. Therefore, at the very least, the expected

result of a drone strike is disruption to the inner workings and operations of terrorist

organizations.