What is the the Kyoto Protocol? Is it successful?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and put into effect in 2005, whereby the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has recognised the threat posed by global warming, and is advocating a reduction in the emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, noting the anthropogenic influence on climate change. On February 16th 2005, the treaty was made effective among 192 members (Figure 1) and 83 signatories (comprising of the UN members, excluding Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and The US (unratified), but including the EU, Cooke Islands and Niue).

Figure 1 shows the countries in varied stages of involvement within the Kyoto Protocol. It shows there is a general North-South Divide regarding the legally binding nature of nations targets, e.g. countries in Africa, which as underdeveloped states do not contribute largely to the world's carbon footprint, along with South America which already paves the way for an emission free model of development while Asian Tigers and India and China's industry is supported by a lack of binding targets as Non-Annex B nations. However, the most developed nations in the EU and Australia as well as the 'Stans' are bound by legal measures to adhere to the Protocol. However, leniency and bias is shown in regards to the most polluting nations in terms of Russia, who opted out for the second period of the binding targets, the non legally binding nature of agreements with the BRICS in general, the unratified nature of the US and the departure of Canada highlight the Protocol's initial criticism.

The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and other chemicals to a level which reflects a 5.2% drop from the 1990 standards between the years 2008 to 2012, putting a particular pressure on more developed, Annex 1 nations (the EU, US, Canada and the Russian Federation). In most countries, these adopted policies would include restrictions on their largest polluters, manage transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and restructure their energy mix to include more renewable energy sources, for instance, the UK has shifted towards offshore wind turbines and bio fuels.

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol have been multifaceted:

• Firstly, those who prefer the use of carbon taxing to reduce greenhouse emissions are critical of the Kyoto Protocol. One of these critics, James Hansen has claimed that not only is the Kyoto "cap and trade" system ineffective as "the developed nations want to continue with business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give a small amount of money to developing countries" but the use of carbon offsetting is also debated and may not in the long term be effective in combating climate change. 
• Another issue with the Kyoto Protocol is that it has yet to be ratified in the US, which until 2006, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world before the acceleration in growth of China.  Issues were highlighted in a conference in Doha in 2012 that the two nations hold the key to our approach to climate change. Despite China being a member of the Protocol, they have no intention of slowing down their emissions. 
• Furthermore, the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol and it's targets for improvement were demanded to be immediate and put into action by 2008, this was not deemed to be realistic, as it can take a matter of decades to show a shift in energy economy, highlighting in the words of McElroy, "a power plant lifespan may be up to 30 years" or the "average vehicle in the US is on the road for 12 years", this may be detrimental to economies and the population would not adopt these new policies.
• The Protocol also struggles with policy regarding those with large populations or rapidly growing economies such as the BRICS, which is particularly applicable to both China and India. 
• Ultimately, it's also been predicted by Robert N. Stavins that by 2050, emissions under the Kyoto Protocol will have only been reduced by around 2 to 3 percent, which is not enough to withdraw the Earth from it's tipping point in terms of global warming, rather than a strategy of adaptation, there is a consensus on the need to mitigate the threat caused by emissions.
• While it's claimed there has been a 5% drop in emissions of the 40 most developed nations from the 1990 level, this is most likely not due to the UNFCCC climate policy but the collapse of the highly inefficient energy production of the Soviet Union.

However, the framework of the Kyoto Protocol has been widely accredited for its contributions to the future of the UNFCCC's Copenhagen Accord in terms of technology transfer and monitoring, carbon markets and funding projects. The success of the Kyoto ratification is that it's also legally binding for Annex 1 states, in comparison to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which bases it's success on the willingness and good nature of the developed world to comply. The protocol has also shown huge success in nations with a large Research and Development budget such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Scandinavian region) particularly Sweden, who by the year 2006 was beating it's emissions target, with a reduction of 12.7% since the Kyoto Protocol's conception, aiming to be the first completely "oil-free" nations by 2020 in 2013, with European success discussed in Figure 2. 

The graph in Figure 2 suggests, despite other regions shortcomings, that the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were successful within the EU and other European countries which show a stabilization after the 1990's as a possible result of the pressures of the UNFCCC This has only been furthered since the ratification of the Protocol as Europe has shown a 5% decrease in emissions, mostly due to resorting to the alternative of renewable energy. These patterns are not shared in other areas of the world, emphasizing a success in the developed world which is not reflected in the underdeveloped world.

Ultimately, it has been claimed that the major accomplishment of the Kyoto Protocol is it's raising of awareness towards climate change, which up until around a decade ago was largely disregarded in the face of economic growth and industrialisation caused by supply and demand. However, the Protocol has achieved something important, forcing governments to openly recognise the ramifications of anthropogenic damage to our planet's climate and the enhanced greenhouse effect, showing an enlightenment in previously un co-operative nations such as the US and China. It's conception has also been seen as an opportunity for the possible success of the Copenhagen Accord in relation to it's contribution to technology, carbon markets and funding. However, the UN supported agenda is also a platform for the key players in developed countries governments to dominate the global system in regard to the "cap and trade" method and advantage of Research and Development and investment in renewable evident in the UK, France and Scandinavia. Also, the Kyoto Protocol's heavy number of criticism and controversies far outweigh the positives, for example the varied involvement of key players such as the US, Canada and the BRICS costs the treaty a large portion of it's legitimacy as well as it's struggle to reach targets, it has emerged that most of the reductions in greenhouse gases have occurred independently from the agenda, e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union, or the growth of energy awareness and attitudinal change within nations, e.g. the Green Party in the UK have offered change in terms of emissions which undermine the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Is Counter-Terrorism incompatible with Human Rights?

Counter Terrorism is the use of political or military activity with the motivation to prevent or thwart the threat of terrorism. This has been a mode of response adopted in the face of 'New Terrorism' in particular, as in the 21st Century we have seen an exponential growth in acts of terrorism in the Western World, from the 9/11 attacks, to the 7/7 London bombings, from the Madrid bombings in 2004, to the recent 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. The 'War on Terror' has significantly changed the way that democratic governments have responded to terrorist tactics, as we have extended beyond the boundaries of both state laws and international laws and committed acts against terror suspects that have been controversial in their breach of human rights and civil liberties.

Countering Terrorism has taken on many forms, taking a significant turn during the ongoing 'War on Terror' The United States government, under the Bush Administration, took action to eradicate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Counter Terrorism techniques adopted were various; including the use of military force and presence in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) counter-insurgence in an attempt to diffuse the threat and stabilise the governments of these nations through hard power capabilities, in efforts to install a democratic and representative leader e.g. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's election as President of Afghanistan in September 2014 as a consequence of overthrowing the Taliban before the withdrawal of troops from the nation, as well as the support of Nouri al-Maliki, the previous Shia Muslim Prime Minister of Iraq in a way that resembled soft power. However, this has created a backlash as any Western intervention in the Middle East has become one of the main concerns of these terrorist organizations that conform to 'global terrorism' in that they wish to damage the power or image of the United States and it's allies, therefore, in a sense these actions of counter-terrorism are seen as adding fuel to the fire. The strengthening of state security is also a measure taken by governments to decrease the terror threat level which has been adopted by nations such the UK, Spain, Sri Lanka and Israel, while political deals are also designed to create co-operation to reach a political end in a liberal form in place of conflict or resorting to terror tactics.

However, there are a number of ways in which we have exemplified a breach of human rights during the interrogation, detainment and punishment of terrorist suspects. A case study for this is the treatment of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the idea of 'extraordinary rendition' means that a government or intelligence agency such as the CIA, is able to transport a prisoner to another country that does not practice the same Human Rights laws as the United States, which allows these agencies to take part in torture techniques such as water boarding and mock executions, a breach of human rights as well as dismissing the right to a fair trial, detaining prisoners without charge, two prominent suspects being subjected to this were Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is considered to be controversial due to this use of counter-terrorist techniques creating a slippery slope towards becoming an authoritarian state system, giving up the moral high ground and giving the enemy morale, despite the need for intelligence or the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number in a 'Ticking Bomb Scenario'.

On the other hand, there is evidence that counter-terrorism is compatible with human rights, along with the use of soft power to influence the ideals of others, military involvement and political deals, there are examples of attempts to quash terrorism without compromising the moral high ground or depriving suspects of their human rights. If we are to maintain a liberal and democratic political system, we must look into the movement of work such as that of the "Human Rights and Terrorism Project" (2005-2008). During the project, seminars took place to develop an innovative, inclusive and just approach to the drafting of UK counter-terrorism legislation, this made steps towards an equilibrium between respect for human rights and the need for national security, which led to the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill which made sure that the interrogation and imprisonment of suspects did not infringe upon the rule of criminal procedure in the UK. The Bill was a success in relation to it's influence on post-charge questioning as well as prosecution and punishment. In 2009, it was claimed by David Miliband that "There is no military solution to terrorism." It is agreed that soft power could be significant in the issue of eliminating the terrorist threat, this has been achieved in smaller ways by establishing regional centres and forums in states such as Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on de-radicalization and the idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. In terms of highly capable terrorist groups such as ISIS, this could be important as it has emerged that most of the terror threats in the UK are from citizens which identify with the terrorist organization's ideology. When referring to groups such as ISIS, the severing of funding to the wealthy organization is vital, as they earn £28 million in ransom payments annually as of 2015. The co-operation of nations such as France with terrorist groups can encourage tactics such as hostage situations and beheadings, for this reason, another counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and US is the illegalization of funding ransom payments. This ends the dilemma of forced co-operations and funding.

Ultimately, the strategies used since 2001 by the United States in particular have been in violation of human rights and civil liberties that are not part of the claimed liberal democracies highlighted as a Western model of social framework. However, there has been movement concerning the need to limit counter-terrorism tactics to a more compatible format to create an aforementioned equilibrium between the "respect to human rights while maintaining national security."

Is conflict between Islam and the West inevitable?

The realist view that war is inevitable is difficult to deny when applied to the relationship between Islam and the West. The conflict can be traced back to it's origins in the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. The causes of past conflicts in the Middle East can be surmised as caused by the United Nation's support of a right wing Israel established by the Western World, The West's insatiable thirst for dominance of resources in an opportune area of the world cementing itself in neo-colonialism in other corners of the planet or the responsibilities of developed core countries to help those in less fortunate places in terms of human rights and humanitarian aid.

"Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington
looks at the relationship between the contrasting
civilizations, particularly Islam and the West.

In the four to five centuries, Islam has found itself in disrepair, once being the center of civilization for around 800 years in regards to philosophy, arts, medicine and technology it's a culture shock for the Middle East to find itself dominated and exploited by a unbeatable Western Civilization and left behind by the 16th Century. This is most likely the origin of the Muslim or Arab animosity towards the West.
In the post-Ottoman Empire age beginning after the events of 1918. The drawing borders between states by the victors of World War I has been considered a mistake made by England and France. Prior to World War I, the Middle East operated as a whole, but after the drawing of international borders of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria  between states conflict and domination have been rife in these areas.

A reason for the inevitable conflict between Islam and the West is ideological based, lying in religion. This creates a global culture in which Christianity or Atheism cannot co-exist with Islam without the prevalence of conflict. For centuries, this has been the reason behind wars, executions etc. This inevitability of conflict results in "Holy Wars" - a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. These can be discovered and tracked back to the Crusades. The spread of these two religions has caused a clash that reaches to one another's borders.

Western support of Israel is also an important factor in the fractured relationship between the Middle East and the West. An example of how this can cause conflict is the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Due to the US support of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict, helping by supplying weapons to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) spurring the OPEC countries to slow their oil production in an attempt to raise prices to countries in the West on the side of Israel, despite production only decreasing by 4% this caused panic buying of oil and the skyrocketing of oil prices which in effect caused tensions between the civilizations once again. However, could the oil industry be preventing an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam? despite oil production being the primary reason that the Middle East is able to compete with Western powers economically, it could be considered as a catalyst for treaties - if not peace.

Culture and customs of the two civilizations also do not mix, the values held by the West are not upheld in the Middle East which will never improve while the Middle East is not embracing a more democratic policy focused on human rights, equality (particularly that of women), freedom of both speech and religion etc. However, due to religious differences, this is feared not to be occurring anytime in the near future. Furthermore, there is a lack of willingness, almost a rebellion against the neo-colonialism of the US and other nations as their influence of capitalism and democracy is rejected in reaction to "Westernization" that can be seen in the Far East particularly. However, this is contradictory of the many Islamic or Muslim people which move to UK etc. which despite racial and cultural tensions, for the most part are encouraged to live in harmony with natives in these countries. Not only does this promote the ethnic mixing of varying cultures, it means that we are now more able to understand the more non-radical views and values that go against the stereotype of culture and religion in the Middle East.

The last point leads on to the current situation regarding ISIS and the prevalence of other Jihad extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These reactionary movements in reaction to Western intervention in the Middle East are only gaining momentum and are leading towards a situation which inevitably will end in war. Terrorist organizations, often looking to provoke nations into intervention cause tensions between states. ISIS is an example of how radicalism resorts to war crimes and killing of innocent people which coaxes the West and Islam into war time and time again - examples of this also lie in the war in Afghanistan as Taliban harboring of Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks resulted in an all out war in 2001, which only ended in October 2014. This is also a way in which the civilizations are mixing with negative consequences, with Western countries seeing thousands of their populations disappearing to fight for Islamic State. This shows how conflicting ideologies are propelling us towards conflict not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world including up to 2000 fighters from the UK, 493 from Chechnya, 3000+ from Tunisia, 930 from France and 1500 from Morocco.

The origins and targets of Terrorism map showing the countries where
terrorism effects most, particularly in the Middle East; Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Libya as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan where influence is
spreading.

Exploitation and Neo-Colonialism of the Middle East is seen in the way that the West attempts to side with and exploit countries such as Iraq and Saudi-Arabia due to their vast oil reserves by which OPEC produces oil for 60% of the globe's consumption. This is a reason for NATO and UN interest in aiding the Middle East. 61% of Americans agree at an ever increasing rate, that US intervention in the Middle East was a mistake, and most believe there was no clear plan to the 2003 War in Iraq. Questions have also been raised particularly since the US left Iraq in early 2014 and the emergence of Islamic State on the effectiveness of the US intervention. It has been theorized by realists that the war Iraq was very little about the protection of the Iraqi people and more about the protection of US national interest, primarily being the overseeing of oil production and installing a democratic government which has recently happened in Afghanistan. By intervening, the West keeps up the appearance of an increased relationship in the Middle East. However, as these terrorist organizations previously mentioned grow in power and influence, the need for them to be removed grows stronger alongside the relationships between Western and Middle Eastern countries. The coalition to remove Islamic State has seen a new found diplomacy between rich core countries such as the US, UK and Australia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (previously in political tensions with the West under the civil war led by Al-Assad's corrupt regime) the West supports countries which puts an emphasis on the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Although the coalition with these countries is unstable and the countries themselves do not support Western values, is this not a promising expression of peace?


Ultimately, the belief in who is to blame for the inevitable conflicts fought in the Middle East by the West is shifting from the stereotype of Islamic causes to the issues of US foreign policy. It explains the idea of the United States acting as the "global police" to protect national interest and finite resources which are rich in the Middle East. To answer the question "Is war between Islam and the West inevitable?" liberals would argue that with co-operation and the promotion of a harmony of interests we could end all war and conflict with the Middle East, however, in Western terms, the distance from democracy and equality in the Middle East is still too far to be embraced. In realist terms, they would argue that Islam and the West will always be heading towards a "Clash of Civilizations" and that cannot be changed while the world still maintains the same contrasts in values and culture, believing that any peace is only temporary and treaties or coalitions between these states will be illusionary and not long lasting.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.

How were the 9/11 attacks a major turning point in Global Political History?

The events of September 11th 2001 had a number of consequences both within America and internationally in both long and short term consequences, the attacks on the World Trade Center were undoubtedly a point at which the political landscape began to change regarding foreign policy, anti-terrorist legislation and social change.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out on four American Airliners which are known to have been hijacked by the Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, killing at least 3,000 people and causing $10 billion worth of damage to property and infrastructure. The devastation the attacks caused was quickly met by the American government with aggression that resulted in what George.W. Bush described as the "War on Terror", however, in recent years under the pressure of a public that no longer support the war in the Middle East, the government under President Obama has tried to stop intervention in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the US, the immediate response to the attacks was to prevent further occurrences, causing a major turning point in terms of US security measures. For instance, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set up to protect the territory and airspace of the United Space as well as response to disasters, it is responsible for the screening of cargo and baggage, preventing terrorist threats, screening passengers etc. Furthermore, The USA Patriot Act was signed by George. W. Bush and passed by Congress to change the terms of a number of laws to make it easier for the US in their counter-terrorism effort, e.g. allowing a court order to gain information on suspected criminals, helping law enforcement to track the terrorist without a tip-off as well as the use of technology and further surveillance to detect crimes of terror. Ultimately, the US undertook a tough anti-terrorism legislation to prevent further terrorist attacks, which although effective has changed political history in terms of security and surveillance.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been of global influence, particularly resulting in conflict within the Middle East. The War in Afghanistan was sparked by the belief that Afghanistan was harboring Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden under the Taliban militant group. Quickly gaining the support of UK in a bombing campaign, future support is also given by Canada, Australia, Germany and France. However, the war began to be critiqued when the US did not take an active enough role in a battle resulting in the escape of Al-Qaeda, the war has now been ongoing for 13 years and although there is a withdrawal of US and UK troops, Afghanistan is still a heavily unstable country with little reliance on government despite attempts at implementing democracy.

Since the 2001 attacks, Public trust in Government has severely declined, as seen in the Line Graph it is shown that during the Bush administration and the years following which highlight the public's doubt in the credibility of the war in the Middle East, which is still not recovering in 2014 as a permanent solution to the conflict and terrorism across the world is not eradicated with the rise of groups such as Islamic State and Al-Shabaab the effects of the terrorism can be seen to reach a tipping point in the September 11th Attacks with an increasing number of countries being targeted particularly in the West, Middle East and Africa.

In societies all over the world, attitudes have changed in regards to immigration, multiculturalism and diversity. The 9/11 attacks have ignited further issues in many countries which record more violence, hate crimes and racial profiling. For instance in the US anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 1600%, similarly, rising by around 60% in the UK. This is important in global political history as it is a measure of the public's opinion on the events and how the political implications have affected the population.

However, media has played a major part in the turning point occurring on September 11th with news articles for the past 13 years, internet and television, the influence of the attacks would inevitably be worldwide. This has both caused an awareness of the threat that terrorism of this scale poses to the rest of the globe, but it also has been shown to aid the growth of terrorist organizations in the past such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and most recently ISIS as it spreads there propaganda and widens the sphere of influence.

To conclude, the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath have been extremely influential to Global Political History and as highlighted, the consequences of the disaster are still being felt now as a tipping point at which the War in the Middle East, Global Terrorism and Social Changes based on race, religion and immigration are all contingent to bringing the effects into the modern day.