Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state

BoP My opponent argues that I have the BoP and as such he must simply negate my arguments. I am fine with this, and the framework helps determine if I meet my burden. As long as I can link into the standards presented under the framework I have upheld my burden. Framework Another problem with these criteria is that the fourth item violates the third. For nations to agree to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a country that possess legitimate sovereignty is violating that county's sovereignty. My opponent first points out that I did not provide sources for the standards, but regardless accepts the standards. Also, since he did not directly address the independent justifications for each standard and drops are concessions we can safely use these standards as measuring sticks for legitimacy or illegitimacy. But in terms of sources I did not link them all since they are scattered throughout tons of UN literature. The genocide criterion was established under the Genocide Convention which limited individual and governmental self-governance in the case of genocide. The transnational standard was established under various terrorism conventions. The aggression standard has been adopted ever since the ratification of the UN Charter. Finally the nuclear standard was established with treaties such as the NPT. [1] [2] [3] My opponent makes the argument that under these standards the U.S. could be considered non-sovereign as well. As mentioned above it is a scale ranging from legitimate to illegitimate. However the strategic problem with an argument such as this is that it assumes the opponent would intuitively reject the claim that the U.S. could have violated these standards. Thus it isn’t an argument against the standards but rather the application of those standards. The standards themselves are still applicable to Pakistan even if they are applicable to the U.S.. My opponent tries to argue that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd standard but this is untrue on two levels. First, the 4th standard under the application of the NPT dictates that nuclear technology can be traded as long as it is for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the 3rd standard is referring to aggression against another state, so blocking the exchange of nuclear technology does not amount to aggression. C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities My opponent tries to refute my genocide point by arguing that his search on the BBC yielded only one result, the genocide in Bangladesh. This is not the genocide I am referring to, but regardless this argument isn’t an argument. Prefer my sources since they are sources with direct contact to hot spot areas in Pakistan. The genocide itself is not as big as say the genocide in Sudan, but is still genocide nonetheless. I know my opponent may not be used to searching from non-western sources but throughout south eastern news networks there is coverage about it. However I will provide more sources if necessary. [4-8] My opponent further argues that my article makes no claim that the government is involved. That is not my argument. My argument is that the government is condoning this action by allowing it to persist in a disputed region under Pakistani control. Instead of taking action the Pakistani government is allowing militant forces to systematically kill Pakistani Shias. Under Article 2 e of the Genocide Convention a government has violated the terms of the Convention by being complicit in genocide. C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations My opponent again tries to implicate the U.S. as an argument against Pakistan. Again I say using the US isn’t an argument against the standards. But more importantly the argument about the Taliban is a false analogy since: (1) the Taliban wasn’t involved with transnational terrorism such as they are now with groups like AQAP, but (2) the U.S. assisted the Taliban in response to what would have been a violation of standard 3 of non-aggression. The U.S. was assisting the Afghanis in response to military aggression on the part of the Soviet Union. My opponent argues that the terror attacks were planned in Pakistan but that does not mean the government was involved in the attack. I guess my opponent did not read the whole source or is unaware that the ISI is the intelligence branch of the government but: “Last year, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan's premier spy agency, was implicated in the Mumbai plot by David Headley, an American-Pakistani LeT militant who was giving evidence in a trial in the United States. Headley told Indian intelligence services he carried out the surveillance for the Mumbai operation while working for the ISI. His claims were backed up by Kasab, who also told prosecutors during his trial that the attacks were conducted with the support of the ISI.” By conceding the argument that Pakistan aids, funds and assists terrorist organizations gives me a direct link to the 2nd standard. C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology The main problem with this section of my opponent's case is that, once again, he does not provide evidence to back up his claims. He claims that Pakistan has violated international standards on nuclear technology. The issue with the source he provides to show that Pakistan helped North Korea in the past is that the article is from 2002. He does not provide any evidence to show how or why the current Pakistani government is violating these international standards. I will also repeat what I said much earlier: It is a violation on a nation's sovereignty to tell them they are not allowed to posses a certain technology. My opponent tries to essentially refute my contention by saying “well, you know Pakistan violated international law a long time ago.” Unfortunately for my opponent this does not refute the substance nor make any impact on my contention. Pakistan by violating international law, starting the nuclear black market, and aiding North Korea in their acquisition of illicit nuclear technology has lost its legitimate sovereignty. His final argument is that telling Pakistan they can and cannot do something violates their sovereignty. Refer to the argument up top. But moreover, this argument begs the question and assumes they have legitimate sovereignty and as indicated by the first two contentions they clearly do not. . [1] http://www.preventgenocide.org... [2] http://treaties.un.org... [3] http://www.un.org... [4] http://www.presstv.ir... [5] http://abna.ir... [6] http://pakistanblogzine.wordpress.com... [7] http://www.aimislam.com... [8] http://www.gilgitbaltistan.us...