# Datasets: Hellisotherpeople /DebateSum

Languages: en-US
Multilinguality: monolingual
Size Categories: 100K<n<1M
Language Creators: crowdsourced
Annotations Creators: expert-generated
Source Datasets: original
Dataset Preview
Full-Document (string)Citation (string)Extract (string)Abstract (string)#CharsDocument (int)#CharsAbstract (int)#CharsExtract (int)#WordsDocument (int)#WordsAbstract (int)#WordsExtract (int)AbsCompressionRatio (float)ExtCompressionRatio (float)OriginalDebateFileName (string)
O’Donnell and Baker ’13 [JOHN O'DONNELL AND LUKE BAKER, Reuters, Oct 24, 2013, Germany, France demand 'no-spy' agreement with U.S.]
Merkel demanded the U S strike a "no-spying" agreement with Berlin and Paris saying alleged espionage against EU allies had to be stopped the chancellor said she wanted action from Obama Germany and France would seek a "mutual understanding" with the United States on cooperation between their intelligence agencies, and other EU member states could eventually take part the EU's 28 leaders said they supported the Franco-German plan Merkel raised the with Obama but nothing came of it The United States has a "no-spying" deal with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, an alliance known as "Five Eyes" there has traditionally been a reluctance to make similar arrangements with other allies Merkel said an accord with Washington was long overdue The friendship and partnership between the European member states, includingGermany, and the United States is not a one-way street. We depend on it the United States also needs friends in the w As EU leaders arrived for the two-day summit there was near-universal condemnation of the alleged activities by the NSA senior officials have called for talks between the EU and United States on a free-trade agreement to be suspended because of the spying allegations The series of Snowden-based leak have left Washington at odds with a host of important allies, from Brazil to Saudi Arabia, and there are few signs that the revelations are going to dry up anytime soon
Text: The United States should offer to accede to a “no-spying” agreement with France and Germany, modeled on the “Five Eyes” pact.
3,155
132
1,416
506
22
231
0.043
0.457
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Judge Leon last week questioned the effectiveness of the government's program, asserting that federal officials did not "cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack." Judge Pauley asserted the exact opposite: "The effectiveness of bulk telephony metadata collection cannot be seriously disputed."
Cohen ’13 [ANDREW COHEN, DEC 27, 2013, The Atlantic, Is the NSA's Spying Constitutional? It Depends Which Judge You Ask, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/is-the-nsas-spying-constitutional-it-depends-which-judge-you-ask/282672/]
Pauley asserted The effectiveness of bulk telephony metadata collection cannot be seriously disputed
Unique link- judicial deference specifically on surveillance is high- NSA is a core area and the Supreme Court is crucial to clarify
367
132
100
52
22
13
0.423
0.25
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The recent leaks about government spying programs have focused attention on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its role in deciding how intrusive the government can be in the name of national security In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary Ten of the court’s 11 judges were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978. According to the analysis, 66 percent of their selections were Republican appointees, and 39 percent once worked for the executive branch. “Viewing this data, people with responsibility for national security ought to be very concerned about the impression and appearance, if not the reality, of bias — for favoring the executive branch in its applications for warrants and other action The court “is becoming ever more important in American life as more and more surveillance comes under its review in this era of big data,” said Timothy Edgar, a civil liberties adviser for intelligence issues in both the Bush and Obama administrations. “If the court is seen as skewed or biased, politically or ideologically, it will lose credibility.” Even more important, according to some critics of the court, is the court’s increasing proportion of judges who have a background in the executive branch. Senator Blumenthal, citing his own experience as a United States attorney and a state prosecutor, said judges who used to be executive branch lawyers were more likely to share a “get the bad guys” mind-set and defer to the Justice Department if executive branch officials told them that new surveillance powers were justified
Issues of national surveillance are a key issue for deference
10,386
61
2,223
1,639
10
355
0.006
0.217
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Posner 2007 (“Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts”, Eric A Posner, Oxford University Press, Pg. 1-2, 2007, https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/PosnerVermeule.pdf) When national emergencies strike, the executive acts, Congress acquiesces, and courts defer. When emergencies decay, judges become bolder, and soul searching begins. In retrospect, many of the executive's actions will seem unjustified, and people will blame Congress for its acquiescence and courts for their deference. Congress responds by passing new laws that constrain the executive, and courts reassert themselves by supplying relief to anyone who is still subject to emergency measures that have not yet been halted. Normal times return, and professional opinion declares that the emergency policies were anomalous and will not recur, or at least should not recur. Then, another emergency strikes, and the cycle repeats itself. One can identify roughly six periods of emergency during American history, each with its own paradigmatic instance of alleged executive overreaching.1 The undeclared war with France at the end of the eighteenth century produced the Sedition Act, which permitted Federalist authorities to lock up Republican critics of the John Adams administration. The Civil War from 1861 to 1865 produced Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and imposition of military rule, which included prosecutions of war critics. World War I and the Red Scare generated Espionage Act prosecutions of war critics and the harassment of immigrants and aliens.
When national emergencies strike, the executive acts, Congress acquiesces, and courts defer When emergencies decay, judges become bolder, and soul searching begins. In retrospect, many of the executive's actions will seem unjustified, and people will blame Congress for its acquiescence and courts for their deference. Congress responds by passing new laws that constrain the executive, and courts reassert themselves by supplying relief to anyone who is still subject to emergency measures that have not yet been halted One can identify roughly six periods of emergency during American history, each with its own paradigmatic instance of alleged executive overreaching
Chief Justice Roberts ensures issues of national surveillance are deferred to the executive branch
1,598
99
669
226
14
98
0.062
0.434
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Posner 2007 (“Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts”, Eric A Posner, Oxford University Press, Pg. 1-2, 2007, https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/PosnerVermeule.pdf) When national emergencies strike, the executive acts, Congress acquiesces, and courts defer. When emergencies decay, judges become bolder, and soul searching begins. In retrospect, many of the executive's actions will seem unjustified, and people will blame Congress for its acquiescence and courts for their deference. Congress responds by passing new laws that constrain the executive, and courts reassert themselves by supplying relief to anyone who is still subject to emergency measures that have not yet been halted. Normal times return, and professional opinion declares that the emergency policies were anomalous and will not recur, or at least should not recur. Then, another emergency strikes, and the cycle repeats itself. One can identify roughly six periods of emergency during American history, each with its own paradigmatic instance of alleged executive overreaching.1 The undeclared war with France at the end of the eighteenth century produced the Sedition Act, which permitted Federalist authorities to lock up Republican critics of the John Adams administration. The Civil War from 1861 to 1865 produced Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and imposition of military rule, which included prosecutions of war critics. World War I and the Red Scare generated Espionage Act prosecutions of war critics and the harassment of immigrants and aliens.
Chief Justice Roberts recently named two new judges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC This marks a stark departure from Roberts’ thirteen pre-Snowden appointments, eleven of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. The question naturally arises: does this change in composition herald a change in the FISC’s approach? The FISC is not a “rubber stamp,” as some have suggested, but it clearly sees its job as working in partnership with the executive branch to get to “yes.” Needless to say, that’s not the role courts are supposed to serve under our constitutional system of checks and balances. To be clear, less deferential rulings on these procedures would be a major step forward. After all, when the FISC approved the NSA’s 2011 minimization procedures, it approved “back door searches” — in which the government, having certified (as the law requires) that it has no interest in particular, known US persons, runs searches against the data it has collected using the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of particular, known US persons. The fact remains that the legal framework is stacked against meaningful judicial review, relegating the FISC to the role of approving general procedures that leave a great deal of discretion to the executive branch rather than applying the law to the specific facts of a particular case , a pro-government tilt in FISC proceedings is almost inevitable in light of the deference courts show in national security matters
Courts empirically defer instances of national security
7,696
56
1,482
1,201
7
238
0.006
0.198
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Despite periodic attempts to assert itself, the legislative branch over time has settled into a secondary role to the executive branch on questions of national security. The dominance of the executive branch in the nuclear age – when presidents claimed the need to act on a moment’s notice – continued into the age of terrorism with the claimed need for vast new spy powers handed over by Congress with the Patriot Act and renewed and extended ever since. Bowing to the president in the interest of protecting the nation has been commonplace for a century, ever since the U.S. became a major international player and had to react quickly to crises. “Presidents assumed power and got away with it,” “It’s the perfect example of Congress handing over power to the executive branch and failing to keep up with it The war powers act is routinely violated these days, “In recent years Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch when it comes to national security-related issues.”
National Surveillance implicates deference to the Executive Branch
5,822
67
984
899
8
167
0.009
0.186
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
As the country attacked on 9/11, the United States sprang into action¶ immediately with a twinned strategy of aggressive military action and new understandings of law. From launching wars abroad89 to developing novel¶ strategies for rendition, detention, and interrogation of suspected terrorists¶ outside the United States90 and curtailing civil liberties through widespread¶ surveillance programs at home,91 the Bush Administration, with the active¶ participation of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of¶ Justice, took a generous view of its own powers in wartime. The OLC¶ developed new legal understandings to underwrite the anti-terrorism¶ campaign.92¶ Some of the new legal understandings resulted from new law. Congress¶ quickly passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF), giving¶ the President a green light to use “all necessary and appropriate force against¶ those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,¶ committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,¶ 2001.”93 Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act with¶ nearly unprecedented speed, broadening the definitions of terrorism offenses,¶ clamping down on financial support for terrorism, increasing domestic¶ surveillance capacities of the U.S. government, and adding a toxic mix of small¶ changes in U.S. law that allowed the government to operate secretly and to¶ commandeer private resources in the anti-terrorism campaign.94
Scheppele ‘9 [KIM LANE SCHEPPELE, “The New Judicial Deference,” Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and University Center for Human Values; Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University, 2009]
As the country attacked on 9/11, the United States sprang into action¶ immediately with a twinned strategy of aggressive military action and new understandings of law From launching wars abroad89 to developing novel¶ strategies for interrogation and widespread¶ surveillance programs at home the Bush Administration , took a generous view of its own powers in wartime Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act with¶ nearly unprecedented speed increasing domestic¶ surveillance capacities of the U.S. government and adding a toxic mix of small¶ changes in U.S. law that allowed the government to operate secretly and to¶ commandeer private resources in the anti-terrorism campaign
Surveillance is a fundamental security issue in the post-9/11 security environment- it’ll spill over
1,496
100
673
213
14
101
0.066
0.474
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
New legislation to deal with the global problem of climate change may seem politically unrealistic given the current inhospitable environment in Congress, but there are reasons to think that the prospect of reaching an international agreement may be more viable now than it was in the past. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently called for world leaders to meet in anticipation of the 2015 international climate meeting in Paris and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced that humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. Although climate change denial still exists in the U.S., the international community generally accepts the science. Interestingly, this could indicate that reaching an international agreement is easier than reaching a domestic agreement. Of course, Congressional action would still be necessary to ratify any treaty, but if the enumerated shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol are addressed in the 2015 negotiations, domestic action may be facilitated, especially if the President stands behind the agreement.¶ But even if the legislature and the executive get behind an international climate change agreement, there is still the judiciary. The Supreme Court recently granted cert for Bond v. U.S., which challenges Congressional authority to enact a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention on the grounds that it intrudes on areas of police power reserved to the states. The Court found that Ms. Bond lacks standing to bring a claim that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment, thus avoiding revisiting Missouri v. Holland. However, the Court did certify one question that may have implications for international climate change agreements: “Do the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations?”¶ Although Bond may not have a direct effect on international climate change negotiations, it could provide some guidance on how to frame the scope of the treaty and the government’s treaty obligations. If an international agreement is reached, the U.S. must promulgate implementing legislation that will pass not only the political process, but also judicial review — it is possible that climate change deniers will try to undermine any climate change agreement in court. Bond, along with EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,[1] will provide some insight into how the Court determines the scope of “traditional state prerogatives” and how such considerations play out in environmental regulation.¶ Meaningful climate change regulation is inevitable; the question is when it will come. Environmentalists must be aware of not only possible political solutions, but also potential fallout of judicial determinations. If an international deal is brokered, it would be counterproductive to provide domestic dissenters with any fodder to challenge it. Hopefully the Court will rule narrowly in Bond, and not make any pronouncements that would confuse settled federal authority to regulate interstate pollution. Even if it would be preposterous for domestic dissenters to challenge federal authority on such grounds, the commerce clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act — which many commentators dismissed as irrelevant — cautions against completely ignoring the possibility.
Borden 10-1 (Theresa, "A glboal solution to climate change: the possible impact of Bond v. United States," Harvard Environmental LAw Review, www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/elr/2013/10/01/bondvus/)
New legislation to deal with the global problem of climate change may seem politically unrealistic but there are reasons to think that the prospect of reaching an international agreement may be more viable now than it was in the past UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently called for world leaders to meet in anticipation of the 2015 international climate meeting in Paris and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced that humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. the international community generally accepts the science Interestingly, this could indicate that reaching an international agreement is easier than reaching a domestic agreement , domestic action may be facilitated, especially if the President stands behind the agreement. Meaningful climate change regulation is inevitable the question is when it will come. Environmentalists must be aware of not only possible political solutions, but also potential fallout of judicial determinations. If an international deal is brokered, it would be counterproductive to provide domestic dissenters with any fodder to challenge it.
International climate agreement and domestic ratification inevitable – the only risk of derailment is judicially enforced climate action
3,638
136
1,142
544
18
170
0.033
0.313
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
However, to say that cases like American Electric Power are justiciable just because plaintiffs allege a public nuisance begs the question: Why should such claims automatically be justiciable? It contravenes the purpose and articulation of the political question doctrine to suggest that nuisances are categorically justiciable because political questions have historically excluded torts between private parties and have focused instead on governmental issues like gerrymandering, foreign policy, and federal employment. n70 Again, Baker demanded "discriminating" case-by-case inquiries, rejecting "resolution by any semantic cataloguing." n71 Similarly, the fact that other public nuisance claims have not presented political questions in the past should not preclude such a finding in the climate context. n72 Indeed, the argument for nonjusticiability rests on the notion that climate suits are unique and therefore defy classification among tort precedent. n73∂ [*271] Extending the political question doctrine to a public nuisance allegation would surpass precedent in terms of claim-category application. Yet with respect to the theory behind the doctrine, such an extension is proper because cases like American Electric Power would push existing nuisance law to embrace a complex, qualitatively unique phenomenon that cannot be prudentially adjudicated. n74 The Supreme Court has never held that torts cannot present political questions, so prudential constitutional principles should similarly apply to them. This Note simply argues that the facts, claims, parties, and relief demanded in this particular mode of litigation should fall under the nonjusticiability umbrella, wherever its limits may lie. n75 The following analysis of Baker invokes the American Electric Power situation specifically for the sake of convenience, but the arguments therein should be read to apply to injunctive climate nuisance claims generally.∂ [Continues to Footnore]∂ n75. This Note does not purport to suggest exactly where the line ought to be drawn in applying the political question doctrine to tort claims. A consideration of the potential doctrinal "slippery slope" - where courts might improperly refuse to adjudicate claims solely on the basis of complexity - is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Miller 10 (Mathew Edwin, JD – University of Michigan Law School, Associate – Latham & Watkins LLP, “The Right Issue, the Wrong Branch: Arguments against Adjudicating Climate Change Nuisance Claims,” Michigan Law Review, November, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 257, Lexis)
to say that cases are justiciable begs the question Why should such claims automatically be justiciable? It contravenes the purpose and articulation of the political question doctrine Baker demanded "discriminating" case-by-case inquiries Extending the political question doctrine would surpass precedent Yet with respect to the theory behind the doctrine such an extension is proper because cases would push existing nuisance law to embrace a complex, qualitatively unique phenomenon that cannot be prudentially adjudicated This does not suggest where the line ought to be drawn A consideration of the potential doctrinal "slippery slope" where courts improperly adjudicate claims
The plan makes war powers a justiciable issue – this case-specific exception causes a slippery slope that breaks the entire doctrine
2,308
132
681
333
21
97
0.063
0.291
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The second argument that underlies the Courts of Appeal’s holdings that climate change nuisance lawsuits present questions suitable for judicial resolution is one that seeks to minimize the importance of those lawsuits. Employing the same logic that led the Motor Fuel court astray, the Second Circuit emphasized that “[a] decision by a single federal court concerning a common law of nuisance cause of action, brought by domestic plaintiffs against domestic companies for domestic conduct, does not establish a national or international emissions policy.”43 In concluding that the plaintiffs’ modest ambitions insulate the claim from the political question doctrine, the court got it backwards. It is precisely courts’ inability to “establish a national or international emissions policy” that renders judicial relief such a conceptual and methodological mismatch with climate change, since it is litigation’s inability to grapple with climate change at a systemic level that deprives courts of “judicially manageable standards” for adjudicating climate change claims. The fact that courts are incapable, as a matter of due process, of binding anyone other than the litigants before them—even if judges were omniscient climate experts imbued with the wisdom required to trade off incommensurable values and interests—automatically makes them institutionally ill-suited to entertain lawsuits concerning problems this irreducibly global and interconnected in scope.
Tribe 10 (Laurence H., the Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School; Joshua D. Branson, J.D., Harvard Law School and NDT Champion, Northwestern University; and Tristan L. Duncan, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., January 2010, “TOOHOTFORCOURTSTO HANDLE: FUEL TEMPERATURES, GLOBAL WARMING, AND THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE,” http://www.wlf.org/Upload/legalstudies/workingpaper/012910Tribe_WP.pdf)
It is precisely courts’ inability to “establish a national or international emissions policy” that renders judicial relief such a conceptual and methodological mismatch with climate change since it is litigation’s inability to grapple with climate change at a systemic level that deprives courts of “judicially manageable standards” for adjudicating climate change claims The fact that courts are incapable, of binding anyone other than the litigants before them automatically makes them institutionally ill-suited to entertain lawsuits concerning problems this irreducibly global and interconnected in scope.
Erosion of the PQD crushes international coordination that’s necessary to solve climate change
1,464
94
609
210
13
84
0.062
0.4
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The district court decisions in Comer and American Electric Power demonstrate a misapplication of the political question doctrine.228 Since lower courts must hear cases properly before them, there may be issues that lower courts have dismissed under the political question doctrine where ―the Supreme Court has the luxury of simply denying review.‖229 Lower courts might use the doctrine to avoid deciding politically charged, cumbersome, and novel cases, such as the climate change nuisance cases. But, this would be less likely to occur if the purposes of the doctrine were enumerated by the Supreme Court and if the doctrine was narrowed in scope.230 This much-needed clarification would provide courts with guideposts upon which to apply the doctrine. Furthermore, by narrowing the doctrine, it would be clearly inapplicable to cases which previously may have been dismissed under the prudential formulations of the doctrine.
Jaffe 11(Jill Jaffe represents public utilities and agencies that provide public utility services in proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission, including rate-setting and rulemaking proceedings, "The Political Question Doctrine: An Update in Response to Climate Change Case Law," Social Science Research Network, February 6, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756484)
228 Since lower courts must hear cases properly before them, there may be issues that lower courts have dismissed under the political question doctrine where ―the Supreme Court has the luxury of simply denying review.‖229 Lower courts might use the doctrine to avoid deciding politically charged, cumbersome, and novel cases, such as the climate change nuisance cases this would be less likely to occur if the purposes of the doctrine were enumerated by the Supreme Court and if the doctrine was narrowed in scope by narrowing the doctrine, it would be clearly inapplicable to cases which previously may have been dismissed under the prudential formulations of the doctrine.
Narrowing the PQD directly results in more successful climate change litigation cases
929
85
674
141
12
108
0.085
0.766
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
In the wake of the government‘s failure to enact legislation, various private parties and states have initiated ―climate change nuisance‖ litigation for harms incurred due to climate change.5 In particular, the plaintiffs in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA filed suit against defendant energy production companies alleging that the defendants‘ emissions of greenhouse gases contributed to climate change and the intensity of hurricane Katrina.6 The plaintiffs in Comer sought monetary damages for their property loss caused by hurricane Katrina.7 In Connecticut v. American Electric Power, the plaintiffs filed suit against electric power corporations claiming that the defendants‘ greenhouse gas emissions were contributing to climate change, causing harm to the plaintiffs‘ natural ecology, residents, and property.8 The plaintiffs sought an injunction, which would place a cap on the defendants‘ greenhouse gas emissions.9 Unfortunately, these cases were dismissed at the district court level due to a flawed application of the political question doctrine.10¶ These cases exemplify the scholarly debate and discontent surrounding the current formulation of the political question doctrine, which was established in Baker v. Carr.11 Some scholars contend that the doctrine should be a prudential, or precautionary, tool that permits courts to dismiss a case when a judicial decision may impede on the province of the representative branches. Others scholars argue that the doctrine simply describes traditional Constitutional interpretation.12 Regardless of disagreement about the scope and application of the political question doctrine, scholars agree that as it stands, the doctrine is less useful in application than its lofty purpose—assuring that courts are subject to the constitutional requirement of separation of powers—suggests. Scholars also generally agree that contentious and politically charged disputes involving novel legal theories do not necessarily implicate the political question doctrine. However, due to the broad nature of the doctrine in its current form, it has been erroneously applied to politically charged, but judiciable, issues. This problem is illustrated by the district court decisions in both Comer and American Electric Power.13
Jaffe 11(Jill Jaffe represents public utilities and agencies that provide public utility services in proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission, including rate-setting and rulemaking proceedings, "The Political Question Doctrine: An Update in Response to Climate Change Case Law," Social Science Research Network, February 6, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756484)
In the wake of the government‘s failure to enact legislation, various private parties and states have initiated litigation for harms incurred due to climate change these cases were dismissed at the district court level due to he political question doctrine.10 due to the broad nature of the doctrine in its current form it has been applied to politically charged, but judiciable, issues
Broad PQD application is key to preventing climate litigation
2,261
61
386
322
9
62
0.028
0.193
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
At a deeper level, however, the two poles collapse into one. The reason emerges if one considers issues that courts are asked to address involving novel problems the Constitution’s framers, farsighted though they were, could not have anticipated with sufficient specificity to entrust their resolution to Congress or to the Executive in haec verba. A perfect exemplar of such problems is the nest of puzzles posed by human- induced climate change. When matters of that character are taken to court for resolution by judges, what marks them as “political” for purposes of the “political question doctrine” is not some problem-specific language but, rather, the demonstrable intractability of those matters to principled resolution through lawsuits. And one way to understand that intractability is to view it as itself marking the Constitution’s textual, albeit broadly couched, commitment of the questions presented to the processes we denominate “legislative” or “executive”—that is, to the pluralistic processes of legislation and treaty-making rather than to the principle-bound process of judicially resolving what Article III denominates “cases” and “controversies.” In other words, the judicial unmanageability of an issue serves as powerful evidence that the Constitution’s text reserves that issue, even if broadly and implicitly, to the political branches.5
Tribe 10 (Laurence H., the Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School; Joshua D. Branson, J.D., Harvard Law School and NDT Champion, Northwestern University; and Tristan L. Duncan, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., January 2010, “TOOHOTFORCOURTSTO HANDLE: FUEL TEMPERATURES, GLOBAL WARMING, AND THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE,” http://www.wlf.org/Upload/legalstudies/workingpaper/012910Tribe_WP.pdf)
The reason emerges if one considers issues that courts are asked to address involving novel problems the Constitution’s framers could not have anticipated with sufficient specificity to entrust their resolution to Congress or to the Executive in haec verba A perfect exemplar of such problems is the nest of puzzles posed by human- induced climate change. When matters of that character are taken to court for resolution by judges, what marks them as “political” for purposes of the “political question doctrine” is not some problem-specific language but, rather, the demonstrable intractability of those matters to principled resolution through lawsuit to the pluralistic processes of legislation and treaty-making rather than to the principle-bound process of judicially resolving what Article III denominates “cases” and “controversies.” In other words, the judicial unmanageability of an issue serves as powerful evidence that the Constitution’s text reserves that issue, even if broadly and implicitly, to the political branches.5
Climate change is a PQD issue
1,366
29
1,035
201
6
152
0.03
0.756
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
There are two basic arguments for marriage equality. The first is that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional because it treats same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples; in other words, that the denial violates principles of equality. The second argument is that denying same-sex couples the right to marry infringes on their ability to make personal decisions about important parts of their lives; in other words, that the denial violates principles of liberty. Throughout the history of same-sex marriage litigation, both arguments have consistently been raised by proponents of same-sex marriage, but the courts have been erratic in choosing between them. Some lower courts have favored the equality framework and others have preferred the liberty analysis. Supreme Court rulings based on these arguments would have different implications. For instance, a strongly-worded opinion based on equality would affect other aspects of anti-discrimination law, making it harder for the government to justify treating LGBT people differently in public housing, schools, and government services.
David S. Cohen and Leonore Carpenter. "Five Things to Pay Attention to in Tuesday’s Gay Marriage Arguments at the Supreme Court." Slate, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 June 2015
There are two basic arguments for marriage equality. The first is that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional The second argument is that denying same-sex couples the right to marry infringes on their ability to make personal decisions about important parts of their lives; in other words, that the denial violates principles of liberty
Gay marriage was a test of the constitution not a PQD
1,127
54
361
164
11
57
0.067
0.348
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Through the nuanced approach discussed above, Congress can also emphasize reforms that are mindful of the fact that costs associated with implementing new regulations are borne directly by energy consumers, businesses that rely on affordable energy to survive and compete, and energy sector workers. As indicated, any isolated decision on GHG emissions will undoubtedly increase the costs of generating electricity,205 curtail energy output,206 and cause energy producers to relocate operations outside of the reach of the new “regulations.”207 Unlike courts, Congress can find ways to reach these goals without infringing on the primary benefits of inexpensive energy, which has been a driving force in America’s economic success and led to a major increase in people’s standard of living and life spans for more than a century and a half.208¶ As advocates for the poor and elderly have expressed over the past few years, limiting GHG emissions too much too quickly, whether through litigation, legislation, or regulation, would disproportionately impact their constituents.209 Already, American households earning between $10,000 and$30,000 are estimated to allocate twenty-three percent of their 2011 after-tax income to energy—a level more than twice the national average and a sixty-five percent increase over the past ten years.210 The Affordable Power Alliance,211 an umbrella organization of several advocacy groups, issued a report in 2010 showing that potentialEPA regulations on GHG emissions could cause gasoline and residential electricity prices to increase by fifty percent and industry electricity and natural gas prices to go up by seventy-five percent by 2030.212 EPA can consider these impacts during its notice and comment rulemaking, but courts cannot. Nor can courts consider the impact of their “regulations” on government assistance programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which would need to be increased significantly if home-heating oil prices had to incorporate costs allegedly related to global climate change.213¶ Should utilities not be able to generate sufficient electricity in compliance with a court order, the brown-outs in California from a decade ago can give a glimpse as to the impact an electricity shortage could have on communities.214 During the March 2001 eight hour rolling blackouts, the average electricity shutoff period was ninety minutes, which was projected to translate into twenty hours of outage per customer if the crisis were to continue over the summer.215 This projected impact included a $4.6 billion reduction in household income for Californians, a loss of nearly 136,000 jobs, and a$21.8 billion hit to the gross state output.216 Fortunately, that crisis was avoided, in part, by the ability of energy policymakers to make adjustments. Policymakers would likely be hamstrung, though, if the brown-outs—whether more or less drastic than those projected for the summer of 2001—were caused by judicially-imposed limits that companies had to meet or be subject to massive, additional liability.¶ Any such cost increases or energy shortages would have broad ripple effects. This is why GHG emissions have been a focal point of both national and international policymakers. If American businesses, from manufacturers to service companies, had to adjust to more expensive, less available energy, then they would be significantly disadvantaged. Already, the recent rise in energy costs has taken its toll on American companies’ ability to compete internationally. Thechemical industry, for example, was once dominated by American businesses. But, as the Commerce Department has found, energy cost increases “have eroded the U.S. chemicals industry’s competitive position,”217 with the United States’ trade balance for chemicals declining from $16.8 billion in net exports in 1997 to$218 million in net exports in 2006.218 “Chemical plants are closing in the United States, as companies move their facilities and dollars to countries where natural gas is cheaper, particularly to the Middle East where natural gas prices are a fraction of prices in the United States.”219 Metal, pulp, and paper industries have had similar experiences.220¶ Other sectors would be deeply affected, regardless of international competition. Consider the energy sectors themselves, as the natural gas industry alone employs over 600,000 workers directly and helps create an estimated three million other American jobs.221 The transportation industry would also be hit hard. Rising energy costs have been a significant factor in the recent challenges facing the airline industry; and for taxi cab and truck drivers whose incomes are modest, energy costs constitute a significant part of their expenses. Here, judicially-mandated reductions in GHGs could directly determine their economic viability.222
Schwartz et al 12 (Victor, Phil and Christopher, * Victor E. Schwartz is chairman of the Public Policy Group in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. He coauthors the most widely-used torts casebook in the United States, PROSSER, WADE & SCHWARTZ’S TORTS (12th ed. 2010). He has served on the Advisory Committees of the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law (Third) Torts: Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, General Principles, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm projects. Mr. Schwartz received his B.A. summa cum laude from Boston University and his J.D. magna cum laude from Columbia University. ** Phil Goldberg is an attorney in the Public Policy Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. He has served as an aide to several Democratic members of Congress. Mr. Goldberg received his B.A. cum laude from Tufts University and his J.D. from The George Washington University School of Law, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif. *** Christopher E. Appel is an associate in the Public Policy Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. He received his B.S. from the University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce and his J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, DOES THE JUDICIARY HAVE THE TOOLS FOR ¶ REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS ¶ EMISSIONS?, Valparaiso Law Review, www.shb.com/attorneys/SchwartzVictor/RegulatingGHGEmissions.pdf)
Unlike courts, Congress can find ways to reach these goals without infringing on the primary benefits of inexpensive energy, which has been a driving force in America’s economic success Should utilities not be able to generate sufficient electricity in compliance with a court order, the brown-outs in California from a decade ago can give a glimpse as to the impact an electricity shortage could have on communities. Policymakers would likely be hamstrung, though, if the brown-outs—whether more or less drastic than those projected for the summer of 2001—were caused by judicially-imposed limits that companies had to meet or be subject to massive, additional liability.¶ Any such cost increases or energy shortages would have broad ripple effects . If American businesses, from manufacturers to service companies, had to adjust to more expensive, less available energy, then they would be significantly disadvantaged. Already, the recent rise in energy costs has taken its toll on American companies’ ability to compete internationally Thechemical industry energy cost increases “have eroded the U.S. chemicals industry’s competitive position,” Consider the energy sectors themselves, as the natural gas industry alone employs over 600,000 workers directly and helps create an estimated three million other American jobs.221 The transportation industry would also be hit hard Rising energy costs have been a significant factor in the recent challenges facing the airline industry judicially-mandated reductions in GHGs could directly determine their economic viability.222
Judicial climate action tanks the economy – also kills the chemical, transportation, and airline industries
4,861
107
1,575
725
15
231
0.021
0.319
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
President Barack Obama, sharing a breakfast of beer and pretzels with Chancellor Angela Merkel, declared the US-German relationship as “one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.”
Brown and Karnitschnig ’15 [CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN AND MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG, 6/7/15, Politico, Obama and Merkel make nice, http://www.politico.eu/article/obama-merkel-g7-alliance/]
Obama declared the US-German relationship as “one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.”
Relations resilient- spying didn’t collapse them
193
48
103
29
6
16
0.207
0.552
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Facing the National Assembly, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls asked the United States to repair the damage that the tapping has caused. "The US must recognize not only the dangers such actions pose to our liberties, but also do everything, and quickly, to repair the damage it causes to the relations between allied countries and between France and the United States," Valls said Wednesday. "The reported spying creates a discomfort, because there is a breach of trust. But, it is absolutely important and vital for both countries to maintain their partnership, given that there are many sensitive issues such as Ukraine, operations in Iraq which remained unsolved," Ulysse Gosset, journalist specialized in foreign politics told news channel BFMTV. To Edwy Plenel, French political journalist and editor-in-chief of news website Mediapart, which reported WikiLeaks revelations, it is "a real problem of loyalty in international relations between allies". French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius summoned US ambassador Jane Hartley for an explanation on "Espionage Elysee" of WikiLeaks. Urging a strong answer to United States' spying on Paris, critics from the right and left wing parties called for retaliation. But, according to the ruling Socialists, a diplomatic spat is not in the air. "In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we have to keep a perspective. We're not going to break diplomatic ties," said Stephane Le Foll, the government's spokesman after a weekly cabinet meeting. Following the allegations of US spying on French interests, which had emerged for the second time in two years, Le Foll announced a senior French intelligence official would be dispatched to the United States "to verify this spying has finished." "Between allies, this is unacceptable and incomprehensible. France does not spy on its allies," he stressed. A statement from the US National Security Council said it was not targeting and would not target Hollande's communications, but did confirm that spying had taken place in the past. However, after a phone discussion between French president Francois Hollande and his American counterpart Barack Obama, Elysee seemed much calmer but hazy. "President Obama reiterated unequivocally his firm commitment to end the practices that were allowed to happen in the past and that were unacceptable among allies," said the statement of the Elysee, without clarifying France's reaction after the phone discussion. But "the French intelligence officials will travel soon to Washington to deepen the cooperation", according to the statement.
Xinhua 6/25/15. "What's after WikiLeaks Revelations of NSA Spying on Paris?" CD. China Daily, 25 June 2015. Web. 26 June 2015. Xinhua is the official press of the People’s Republic of China(PRC)
French Minister Valls asked the U S to repair the damage that the tapping has caused. "The US must recognize dangers such actions pose and quickly, to repair the damage it causes to the relations between allied countries and between France and the United States The reported spying creates a discomfort But, it is absolutely important and vital for both countries to maintain their partnership, given that there are many sensitive issues which remained unsolved In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we have to keep a perspective. We're not going to break diplomatic ties Obama reiterated unequivocally his firm commitment to end the practices that were allowed to happen in the past and that were unacceptable among allies But "the French intelligence officials will travel soon to Washington to deepen cooperation
EU-US relations resilant; no chance of breakdown
2,609
48
853
404
7
140
0.017
0.347
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is fending off allegations that the German secret service helped the United States to spy on European partners and companies, nearly a year after Ms. Merkel expelled the top American spy in a rare display of anger over revelations of widespread United States intelligence operations in Germany. Over the past week, the German news media has reported that the country’s foreign intelligence agency, known by its German initials, B.N.D., gathered information on European companies at the behest of the United States National Security Agency for years, citing confidential documents and government experts. The aviation giant Airbus said Thursday that it had filed a legal complaint against unknown persons over acts of criminal espionage and was seeking information from the German government in the wake of the reports. On Monday, the newspaper Bild named the aviation company as a target of the American agency. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE Obama Acknowledges Damage From NSA Eavesdropping on MerkelFEB. 9, 2015 Obama Sends Aide to Soothe German AlliesJULY 22, 2014 In Rome in March, people waved at the motorcade as President Obama went to meet Pope Francis at the Vatican.A Survey Says: Eavesdropping Hasn’t Harmed Image of U.S.JULY 21, 2014 Germany Investigates Alleged NSA Merkel Phone TapJUNE 4, 2014 “We are aware that as a major player in this industry we are a target for intelligence activities. In this particular case there appears to be a reasonable suspicion of alleged industrial espionage,” Airbus said in an emailed statement. “We are alarmed by this.” Germans hold privacy in high regard, given their history of police states under the Nazis and, in the old East Germany, the Communist Party. In 2013, the country displayed a collective outrage over revelations that American intelligence agencies had been monitoring Ms. Merkel’s cellphone conversations and German telecommunications. The German news media have further said that the Merkel government knew of cooperation between the B.N.D. and the American spy services, but withheld that information from a parliamentary committee assigned to investigate the affair. The chancellor says her office, which oversees B.N.D. operations, has cooperated fully with the lawmakers’ inquiry, but one of her strongest allies, Thomas de Maizière, who was Ms. Merkel’s chief of staff from 2005 to 2009, is facing allegations that he lied to Parliament about cooperation with American intelligence agencies. “I strongly reject allegations the government did not tell the truth,” Steffen Seibert, Ms. Merkel’s spokesman said Wednesday. Mr. Maizière, now the interior minister, has consistently denied misleading Parliament.
Eddy 4/30 (Eddy, Melissa. "Germany Is Accused of Helping N.S.A. Spy on European Allies." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 24 June 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/world/europe/germany-is-accused-of-helping-nsa-spy-on-european-allies.html) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
the country’s foreign intelligence agency, known by its German initials, B.N.D., gathered information on European companies at the behest of the United States National Security Agency Germans hold privacy in high regard the country displayed a collective outrage over revelations that American intelligence agencies had been monitoring Ms. Merkel’s cellphone conversations and German telecommunications. The German news media have further said that the Merkel government knew of cooperation between the B.N.D. and the American spy services, but withheld that information
Germany spies with us – no fallout from NSA tapping German phones
2,746
65
570
420
12
80
0.029
0.19
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Davis, New York Times, 6/7 Julie Hirschfield Davis, June 7th, 2015, “Over Beer, Obama and Merkel Mend Ties and Double Down on Russia” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/world/europe/on-sidelines-of-g-7-meeting-obama-and-merkel-strengthen-ties.html?_r=0 PJL~KKF
Obama sought to smooth over tensions bonding on Sunday with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany over their shared determination to confront Russia over its aggression in Ukraine, as he declared her a “great friend and partner” during a summit meeting of world leaders “The fact that all of us are here together today is proof that conflicts can end, and great progress is possible,” townspeople He and Ms. Merkel agreed that economic sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine should not be lifted until a cease-fire accord there had been fully carried out and Moscow respected Ukraine’s sovereignty. The meetings unfolded after a period of strain between Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel. Though the two have an unusually close rapport and strong working relationship, their bond has been tested by complicated intelligence ties that have proved to be a political vulnerability for the chancellor. Those strains did not prevent her from inviting Mr. Obama to tour a historic village here before the summit meeting opened showcasing their friendship. “Although it is true we sometimes have differences of opinion today from time to time,” Ms. Merkel said, “the United States of America is our friend, our partner and, indeed, an essential partner.” But there is little doubt that Obama needs Merkel, and she needs him.
non-UQ -- Merkel and US have made up, no more in-fighting – our ev postdates
7,031
77
1,314
1,137
15
215
0.013
0.189
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Germany's top public prosecutor closed a year-long investigation into the suspected tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone by U.S. spies, saying there was a lack of evidence that would stand up in court. Dropping its probe in a case that had caused strains between Germany and the United States, the prosecutor said it could not find evidence backing allegations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that Merkel's phone was bugged. "The accusations made would not stand up in court with the means available for criminal proceedings," the federal prosecutors office in Karlsruhe said in a statement. "The vague remarks from U.S. officials about U.S. intelligence surveillance of the chancellor's cell phone - i.e. 'not any more' - are insufficient evidence". Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert declined to comment on the prosecutor dropping the probe. "The federal prosecutor has made his decision," he said. "Such a decision should not be commented on by the government." Federal Prosecutor Harald Range had launched the probe last June, saying there was preliminary evidence to show U.S. intelligence had tapped the phone. But he said at the time there was not enough clarity to bring charges. "The document presented in public as proof of an actual tapping of the mobile phone is not an authentic surveillance order by the NSA," he said in December. "It does not come from the NSA database. There is no proof at the moment which could lead to charges that Chancellor Merkel's phone connection data was collected or her calls tapped." Range also said neither a reporter for German news magazine Der Spiegel who presented the document, nor Germany's BND foreign intelligence agency, nor Snowden had provided further details to his office.
World Bulletin 6/12 June 6th, 2015, “Germany drops US spying probe over G7 friendship” http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/160586/germany-drops-us-spying-probe-over-g7-friendship PJL~KKF
Germany's top public prosecutor closed a year-long investigation into the suspected tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone by U.S. spies, saying there was a lack of evidence Dropping its probe in a case that had caused strains between Germany and the United States, the prosecutor said it could not find evidence "The accusations made would not stand up in court with the means available for criminal proceedings," there was not enough clarity to bring charges. There is no proof which could lead to charges that Chancellor Merkel's phone connection data was collected or her calls tapped."
Non-UQ – Merkel has ended investigation against US NSA spying, forgiven Obama
1,774
77
600
284
12
97
0.042
0.342
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Other analysts argue that the purported U.S. surveillance operations remain a point of friction but∂ that tensions have proven manageable and do not pose a sustained threat to the overall∂ transatlantic relationship. Those holding this view contend that much of the outrage expressed by∂ European leaders has been for domestic public consumption. They also note that while senior∂ European officials may not have been familiar with the details of U.S. surveillance activities,∂ many were well aware that their own security services conduct various surveillance operations∂ and often work closely with U.S. intelligence services to help prevent terrorist attacks and other∂ serious crimes in Europe. In addition, especially given the potential threat posed by the Islamic∂ State and returning foreign fighters, officials indicate that cooperation between U.S. and∂ European intelligence and security services has continued uninterrupted despite any loss of trust∂ at the political level.
Mix 15 (Derek, 2-3, “The United States and Europe: Current Issues”, Congressional Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22163.pdf)
U.S. surveillance operations remain a point of friction but∂ that tensions have proven manageable and do not pose a sustained threat to the overall∂ transatlantic relationship. much of the outrage expressed by∂ European leaders has been for domestic public consumption while senior∂ European officials may not have been familiar with the details of U.S. surveillance activities,∂ many were well aware that their own security services conduct various surveillance operations∂ and often work closely with U.S. intelligence services to help prevent terrorist attacks and other∂ serious crimes in Europe. cooperation between U.S. and∂ European intelligence and security services has continued uninterrupted despite any loss of trust
U.S.-EU relations remain high- NSA spying had no affect
986
55
728
144
9
105
0.063
0.729
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The consensus is that the EU leadership’s countless meetings on the issue have actually made matters worse. This is partly because of the characters of those involved. The French president, Francois Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, don’t get along. Hollande is overwhelmed by his own internal problems, particularly the evidence of corruption and rule-breaking by members of his government. Merkel is disgusted by the way Hollande runs his affairs and can barely hold her temper when they meet. Hollande’s failure has stiffened Merkel’s resolve to stick to her formula of spending cuts and austerity, which, she insists, is the only way to eliminate the EU’s enormous deficits.∂ The result has been a breakdown in Franco-German friendship, accompanied by acrimony and mud-slinging. This is a very serious matter, for the Franco-German axis is the essential mechanism that allows the EU to work. Unless it functions smoothly the Union is bound, sooner or later, to dissolve.∂ There isn’t much chance of other members bringing the French and Germans together. Spain is crippled by its floundering economy. Italy has only recently managed to form a co alition ministry and is in no position to take its eyes off its own domestic woes. The smaller states, led by Greece, are bitterly anti-German and blame Merkel for all the sacrifices their previous profligacy is now forcing them to make.∂ The Germans themselves believe that if Germany were on its own and didn’t have to bail out bankrupt states like Ireland, Portugal and Greece the banking crisis would be history by now–a pretty universal view among business leaders. Disillusionment among disgruntled voters is seen in the emergence of new and often extreme political parties, which are invading the cozy consensus that has hitherto kept countries loyal to rule by Brussels. Hence, no British leader can afford to be seen as being in favor of the EU as a working system. The Liberal Democrats remain keen but are in real danger of being wiped out at the next elections. The Labour Party, in order to solve its own disagreements, is quite capable of turning on the EU. And the Conservatives are mortally threatened by the U.K. Independence Party, which is ferociously anti-EU.∂ U.S. policy ought to take note of the general air of hostility toward Brussels. Mr. Obama faces the prospect of Britain leaving the EU and of France, Germany, Italy and Spain all weakening their links. This will have little effect on American prosperity, but it is a return to realism that Washington should welcome, if quietly. The United States is a concept that works very well, even in bad times. But that’s no reason to think its structure can be superimposed with success on any other part of the world, particularly when times are terrible.
. The French president and the German chancellor don’t get along Hollande is overwhelmed by his own internal problems Merkel is disgusted by the way Hollande runs his affairs and can barely hold her temper when they meet The result has been a breakdown in Franco-German friendship, accompanied by acrimony and mud-slinging This is a very serious matter, for the Franco-German axis is the essential mechanism that allows the EU to work. Unless it functions smoothly the Union is bound, sooner or later, to dissolve There isn’t much chance of other members bringing the French and Germans together Spain is crippled Italy has only recently managed to form a co alition ministry and is in no position to take its eyes off its own domestic woes smaller states re bitterly anti-German Germans believe that if on its own and didn’t have to bail out bankrupt states like Ireland, Portugal and Greece the banking crisis would be history by now This will have little effect on American prosperity but it is a return to realism that Washington should welcome
EU collapse inevitable- Franco-German collapse proves
2,796
53
1,048
462
6
178
0.013
0.385
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Popescu 11 (Nicu, Nicu Popescu, was senior research fellow at ECFR from 2007 to 2011, “how the Eurozone crisis affects EU power”, European Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_the_eurozone_crisis_affects_eu_power)
the euro crisis has had and will have huge implications for EU foreign policy Things can get worse the Eurozone crisis contains a push to the background of all foreign policy issues, followed by fewer foreign policy resources and a coma for EU soft power, made worse by the fact that the EU understanding of power is so unhedged. When political leaders and administrations are engaged full time in managing the economy – saving the euro, reducing public spending or stemming the tide of unemployment, foreign policy is pushed even more to the bottom of the list of priorities. Leaders simply have less time and desire to understand or strategise about how to react to foreign policy events The amount of EU spending for foreign policy is the result of a trade off between moral commitments self-interest and politicians’ accountability This will restrain EU member states’ desire to spend money internationally. The increasing number of those affected by unemployment or salary cuts might suddenly become much less altruistic internationally and put increasing pressures on elites to spend money at home. All this is a huge problem for the EU, which in the absence of hard power has relied so much on economic power, Now the EU not only has to compete for political influence with other aid donors which is debilitating in itself, but might also face the need to reduce foreign policy funding. This is EU’s foreign policy double dip: the loss of relative influence compared to the other powers supplemented now with loss of foreign policy resources not just in relative The EU has little hard power, fewer money, a half-baked External Action Service and a disparaged collection of divided national foreign ministries. foreign policy model is evaporating. Few, if any foreign policy partners of the EU are likely to aspire to be like Europe the EU had no hard power, and its ‘soft power’ is in a coma.
Eurozone crushes all other foreign policy issues- no other focus possible
6,364
73
1,900
1,075
11
321
0.01
0.299
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Rather than being the all-powerful behemoth frequently alluded to by its critics, the European Union is a fragile – indeed perhaps uniquely fragile – political system. It relies on the consent of member states without whose acquiescence decisions would neither be taken nor implemented. It remains one of the great miracles of modern day international politics that these states acquiesce in respecting and implementing decisions they may have opposed and which then take precedence over national legislation. The EU is not a normal federal system. Its central institutions are weak, whilst its constituent parts are sovereign nation states. It cannot act like the United States and call up the National Guard in the event that a member state refuses to implement European law. It rests on consensus.∂ 2. The flip side of this is that member states decisively shape what the EU can and cannot do. For all the talk of qualified majority voting, of member states being over-ridden either by their peers or by an all powerful and power hungry European Commission, the fact is that it is in no one’s interests to steamroll national governments. Even where majority voting is possible, member states prefer to seek consensus. And in the event that a national government signals that important domestic interests are at stake, a search is launched for compromise. The growing power within the EU system of the European Council – the forum within which Heads of State and Government meet to thrash out difficult decisions – bears eloquent testimony to the growing importance of national governments in EU decision making.∂ 3. Whilst member states act as a powerful check on the EU’s ability to trample over their interests, other factors militate against the Union over-reaching its authority. The most obvious of these is its limited democratic authority. The experiment of assuring democratic legitimacy via the European Parliament has failed, as voters either fail to vote or register their protests in ballots cast for insurgent parties. Member states remain the basis of democratic political accountability in Europe. As European decisions impact on more and more politically salient aspects of national political and particularly economic life, a sense of disempowerment serves to drive popular dissatisfaction with European integration. ∂ One would hope that the travails of recent years have hammered home the pertinence of the aphorism ‘integrate in haste, repent at leisure,’ but it is hard to have the requisite degree of faith in our political leaders. All of which, of course, confronts these same leaders with a significant dilemma. Whilst structurally limited, European integration remains profoundly necessary. Europe is a continent of small states with highly interdependent economies. Yet a neat solution to the paradox of stubbornly national politics coexisting with a pressing need for regional collaboration has yet to be discovered.∂ 4. Frustration at a perceived lack of control over decisions that profoundly and intimately impact on national political and economic life has played its part in stoking a surge in popular euroscepticism across the continent. So too, has the fact that European integration does not necessarily serve the interests of all its citizens. Eurosceptics and Europhiles alike make grand claims about the costs or benefits of EU membership. But these vary dramatically both between and within member states. It is not hard to understand growing resentment in southern Europe. Nor, however, is it the case that the impact of regional integration has been uniformly beneficial even in the north. Economists accept that trade liberalization may well have the effect of hastening de-industrialization. This spawns losers as well as winners. In this sense, European integration has accelerated and accentuated the impact of globalization, favouring some sections of society over others. To date, social provision at the EU has failed to compensate for this adequately. Perhaps it will do so in the future. But for the moment, there is nothing irrational about skepticism concerning the EU’s impact.∂ 5. Finally, the Union remains critically unable to address many of the most pressing challenges currently confronting it. Originally created to ensure that no European power would again wield hegemony over its partners, the EU remains lumbered with an institutional system designed to that end. We can debate later whether the EU has managed to ensure peace within Europe (it always seems to me that proponents of this view tend to overlook the role of the United States and, yes, Soviet Union in ensuring Europeans did not squabble too much amongst themselves). For now, its roots in a desire effectively to manage Europe’s internal problems severely hamper the Union’s ability to confront a world in which many of the most pressing challenges facing it are external. Whilst Russia uses military force to redraw European territorial borders in the east, the Middle East is in flames with, as a consequence, a wave of migrants seeking safety via desperately dangerous dashes across the Mediterranean. Simultaneously, the United States seeks to refocus its attentions on Asia, leaving Europeans to deal with problems in their own near abroad.∂
Menon 15 (Anand, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King's College London in the United Kingdom, “the five things that everyone should know about the European Union, http://www.socialeurope.eu/author/anand-menon/)
Rather than being the all-powerful behemoth frequently alluded to by its critics, the European Union is a fragile political system Its central institutions are weak, whilst its constituent parts are sovereign nation states. It cannot act like the United States and call up the National Guard in the event that a member state refuses to implement European law. Whilst structurally limited, European integration remains profoundly necessary. Europe is a continent of small states with highly interdependent economies. Yet a neat solution to the paradox of stubbornly national politics coexisting with a pressing need for regional collaboration has yet to be discovered the Union remains critically unable to address many of the most pressing challenges currently confronting it Originally created to ensure that no European power would again wield hegemony over its partners, the EU remains lumbered with an institutional system designed to that end. its roots in a desire effectively to manage Europe’s internal problems severely hamper the Union’s ability to confront a world in which many of the most pressing challenges facing it are external.
EU faces too many internal problems to combat global issues
5,278
59
1,145
833
10
176
0.012
0.211
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
With the demise of the Soviet Union, there has been no check on NATO’s expansion. The organization serves as the military arm of the Western powers (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States). They called themselves the G7, until they welcomed Russia into what became the G8 in 1997, when under a pliant Boris Yeltsin it seemed to have been subordinated to the U.S. agenda. (Russia has since been a less reliable member of the group.) ∂ NATO and the G8 have used their political and military power to impose their social and economic vision on the planet. Their economic agenda (neoliberalism) has tilted the social wealth of the planet toward the global 1 percent and put the interests of finance above that of social needs. This is the reason why the Global Hunger Index of 2011 finds that every year 2 million children die of chronic malnutrition (that’s four children every minute). It is the reason why one-fourth of the world’s children do not get enough nutrients to grow properly, including to develop their intellectual capabilities.∂ This combination of ideological and military power has helped deliver social wealth into the hands of the global 1 percent, which now owns 40 percent of global assets. NATO’s guns and the G8’s political power has allowed the 1 percent to push for privatization of social resources and a general austerity for the world’s peoples.∂ It is thanks to the G8 and NATO that bankers are first in line for bailouts while the people are held at bay.∂ Genuine peace and justice cannot come to the world through the agenda put forward by the G8 and NATO. We demand an alternative world, a world founded on the principles of social justice and the social good.
Prashad 12 (Vijay, Chair of South Asian History and director of International Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn, 5-15, “why Nato is bad for the world”, The Progressive, http://www.progressive.org/why_nato_bad_for_world.html)
there has been no check on NATO’s expansion NATO used their political and military power to impose their social and economic vision on the planet. Their economic agenda has tilted the social wealth of the planet toward the global 1 percent and put the interests of finance above that of social needs This is why the Global Hunger Index of 2011 finds that every year 2 million children die of chronic malnutrition one-fourth of the world’s children do not get enough nutrients to grow properly, This combination of ideological and military power has helped deliver social wealth into the hands of the global 1 percent, which now owns 40 percent of global assets. NATO’s guns and political power has allowed the 1 percent to push for privatization of social resources and a general austerity for the world’s peoples. bankers are first in line for bailouts while the people are held at bay Genuine peace and justice cannot come to the world through the agenda put forward by NATO We demand a world founded on the principles of social justice and the social good.
NATO increases conflict and prevents peace
1,726
42
1,059
296
6
183
0.02
0.618
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Admittedly, Americans are constantly tempted to intervene to “fix” foreign problems. But the U.S. has no significant interests in the region. Why put Americans’ lives, prosperity, future, and very existence on the line for the irresponsible government of another nation, no matter how worthy its people might be? Washington’s first priority should be to protect the lives, freedoms, and territory of its own people. War should be a last resort, not just another policy choice. Georgians deserve Americans’ friendship, not America’s protection. With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. can go back to being a normal country with a defense policy based on defense. That means fewer military commitments, a smaller force structure, and lower military outlays. That means leaving rather than expanding NATO. Washington should again make peace America’s principal foreign policy objective.
Bandow 12 (Doug, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. The author and editor of numerous books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire, The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington, and Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics. I am a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School, 8-13, “How Nato expansion makes America less safe”, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/08/13/how-nato-expansion-makes-america-less-safe/3/)
Americans are constantly tempted to intervene to “fix” foreign problems the U.S. has no significant interests in the region. Why put Americans’ lives, prosperity, future, and very existence on the line for the irresponsible government of another nation Washington’s first priority should be to protect the lives, freedoms, and territory of its own people. War should be a last resort, not just another policy the U.S. can go back to being a normal country with a defense policy based on defense. That means leaving rather than expanding NATO.
NATO pulls U.S. into other countries’ affairs- makes problems worse
882
67
542
136
10
88
0.074
0.647
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Going forward, this means slower European growth (which must translate into even less influence, less defense spending, and a faster U.S. pivot to Asia) and further and even more serious strain on the U.K.-EU relationship, as the EU seeks to move into the citadel of national finance that has until now remained largely the province of the nation states. In short, the U.S. vision was that the EU would provide greater European security and prosperity. But as the drive for political unity has overtaken economic sanity, it has done the reverse.∂ Even without this pressure for deeper integration, the U.K.-EU relationship will never rest easy. The fundamental incompatibility between the EU’s supranational vision of European interests and Britain’s worldwide interests and political culture can to an extent be managed, but cannot be resolved. Nor is there an easy escape in a referendum on the U.K.’s membership of the EU. The outcomes of both the Alternative Vote and Scottish referendums imply that the U.K. has a bias in favor of the status quo, but it is one thing to vote for the status quo, and entirely another to rest content with it. For the U.K., apart from everything else, the EU will always symbolize not postwar renewal, as it plausibly does for Germany, but national decline, and that is simply never going to be popular.∂ The U.K. has often understood its role in the EU as being the bridge between the U.S. and the EU. But the lands at either end of the bridge are moving, and the U.K. will find that role steadily more challenging as the U.S. looks more to Asia—which, the vicissitudes of the Obama administration aside, it will do—and as the EU focuses on its own internal rescue project in ways that will be fundamentally unacceptable to the U.K. The idea that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership can replace the deep and broad structures of U.S.-European cooperation that were built during the Cold War, with NATO at their head, is a fantasy, and the idea th at the U.K. can lead the EU through TTIP is more fantastic still.∂ Precisely because the U.S. is so reliably friendly to the U.K., the fate of the special relationship today rests with the U.K. And the fundamental problem with the relationship is that, if it is to endure, the U.K. needs to have a domestic political culture that is expansive and optimistic—in other words, traditionally liberal, because it was liberalism that created the U.K.’s understanding of its world role. But the popular bias in favor of the status quo, the establishment’s horror at the prospect of exiting the EU, and the difficulties the U.K. faced in sustaining even the modest “austerity” of the last five years imply that the U.K.’s political culture is neither expansive nor optimistic. Simply put, the U.K. is losing its liberalism.
Bromund 15 (Ted, the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation , 6-7-15, “Addressing the future of the U.S.-U.K special relationship”, The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/assessing-the-future-of-the-us-uk-special-relationship/)
the U.S. vision was that the EU would provide greater European security and prosperity. But as the drive for political unity has overtaken economic sanity, it has done the reverse. . The fundamental incompatibility between the EU’s supranational vision of European interests and Britain’s worldwide interests and political culture can to an extent be managed, but cannot be resolved The U.K. has often understood its role in the EU as being the bridge between the U.S. and the EU. But the lands at either end of the bridge are moving, and the U.K. will find that role steadily more challenging as the U.S. looks more to Asia The idea that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership can replace the deep and broad structures of U.S.-European cooperation that were built during the Cold War, with NATO at their head, is a fantasy Precisely because the U.S. is so reliably friendly to the U.K., the fate of the special relationship today rests with the U.K.
Using NATO won’t prevent conflict
2,813
33
962
476
5
163
0.011
0.342
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East - and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia - distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action.∂ That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.∂ Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution - especially by force - to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.∂ Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" according to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
Hallinan and Wofsy 6/24 (Conn and Leon, Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. A retired journalism professor, he previously was an editor of People's World when it was a West Coast publication, “toward a new foreign policy”, People’s World, http://www.peoplesworld.org/toward-a-new-foreign-policy/, June 24, 2015)
our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.∂ old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent, including like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
NATO can’t solve Afghanistan- can only make it worse
1,245
52
843
188
9
124
0.048
0.66
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Multilateralism failed to manage global imbalances, I suggest, for two different∂ and deeply political reasons. First, the failure reflected a persistent unwillingness among∂ all major countries, not just China, to accept the political costs of adjustment and a∂ related shift to different models of economic growth. I argue below that China is indeed∂ an outlier among the G-4 (consisting of the US, EU, Japan, and China), but only because∂ it is relatively poor, unusually open, and has opted for exchange rate targeting rather than∂ inflation targeting. It does resist external policy constraint, but in this regard it is little∂ different to other major countries. Second, the failure reflected the complete inadequacy∂ of the existing multilateral policy surveillance framework inherited from the era of G-7∂ dominance to facilitate the negotiation of the necessary domestic and international∂ political bargains. In order for multilateralism to become more effective in the future, these flaws would need to be resolved, but it is difficult to see how major governments will accept the constraints on domestic policy choices that this would entail.
Walter 09 (Andrew, October 13, Dr Andrew Walter is Reader in International Relations at the London School of Economics, specializing in the political economy of international money and finance, “the mismanagement of global imbalances: why did multilateralism fail?”, Department of International Relations- London school of economics, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wyattwal/images/mismanagement.pdf)
Multilateralism failed to manage global imbalances the failure reflected a persistent unwillingness among∂ all major countries to accept the political costs of adjustment and a∂ related shift to different models of economic growth the failure reflected the complete inadequacy∂ of the existing multilateral policy surveillance framework inherited from the era of G-7∂ dominance to facilitate the negotiation of the necessary domestic and international∂ political bargains it is difficult to see how major governments will accept the constraints on domestic policy choices that this would entail.
Surveillance is key to multilat- and multilat fails
1,154
51
595
176
8
85
0.045
0.483
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Michta 15 (Andrew, professor of international studies at Rhodes College and an adjunct fellow at the center for strategic and international studies, “time for some straight talk on NATO”, the American interest, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/01/time-for-some-straight-talk-on-nato/)
NATO only functions well when the United States firmly and unequivocally leads with its full attention and commitment. The fundamental problem with America’s “leading from behind” is that it all but guarantees Europe will remain adrift cleaved by competing interests and preferences And measuring NATO’s strength today in sheer numbers of forces available in Europe is not grounds for particular optimism either. there has been a steady decline of NATO’s European member-states’ military capabilities, with only the UK and to some extent France and Poland retaining some military muscle As for the spending targets agreed to at the Wales NATO summit the situation is even more dire, with only the United States and France fulfilling their pledges on military budgets unless the United States leads by example, both by articulating a new policy of permanent reinforcements and by increasing its deployments in Europe while at the same time demanding reciprocity from the largest European states, nothing∂ much will change. if the U.S. adheres to its “lead from behind Germany formula” while the latter is stuck in the “Mitte,” NATO will continue to drift, and we will continue to lose precious time to refurbish the only institution with the means to bring combined Western power to bear in a crisis. hat means also in war
EU irrelevant to NATO- only solves conflicts if U.S. alone takes the lead
6,356
73
1,321
1,015
13
214
0.013
0.211
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
A similar phenomenon is occurring with ISIS, as CNN reports. Though ISIS has secured unprecedented gains in land, resources, and support over the past year, it now seems to be losing ground as its fear tactics and ferocious tenacity falter. Make no mistake, ISIS will still be a name people talk about for years to come. However, over the past few months, it has lost nearly a quarter of its territory in Iraq. A coalition of Kurdish fighters, Iraqi troops, and American air squads have relentlessly fought ISIS, pushing it back from key cities like Kobani. Even though Kobani’s victory came at a huge cost for the coalition forces, victories like Kobani seem to be slowly pushing back the monster that is ISIS. Furthermore, U.S. airstrikes have successfully destroyed crucial oil drilling stations in the territory of ISIS. This is crucial for the battle, because ISIS used to make an approximated $2 million every day from those oil fields and refineries. With the airstrikes, the oil exports and profits collected by ISIS have decreased by a whopping 90% in some areas, and by 70% on the whole. BPR 15 (5-27, “ISIS is losing ground”, Bellarmine Political Review, http://bpr.bcp.org/?p=2780) ISIS has secured unprecedented gains in land, resources, and support over the past year, it now seems to be losing ground as its fear tactics and ferocious tenacity falter , over the past few months, it has lost nearly a quarter of its territory in Iraq. A coalition of Kurdish fighters, Iraqi troops, and American air squads have relentlessly fought ISIS, pushing it back from key cities like Kobani victories like Kobani seem to be slowly pushing back the monster that is ISIS U.S. airstrikes have successfully destroyed crucial oil drilling stations in the territory of ISIS. This is crucial for the battle, because ISIS used to make an approximated$2 million every day from those oil fields and refineries. With the airstrikes, the oil exports and profits collected by ISIS have decreased by whopping 90% in some areas, and by 70% on the whole.
ISIS is losing territory- U.S. offensives working
1,097
50
849
187
7
145
0.037
0.775
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
German 15 (Michael, Mike German is a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. Previously he was policy counsel for national security and privacy for the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. A sixteen-year veteran of federal law enforcement, German served as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he specialized in domestic terrorism and covert operations, “Our Overreaction to Terrorist Attacks Like Paris Is Only Making Things Worse”, Defense One, http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/our-over-reaction-terrorist-attacks-paris-only-making-things-worse/103857/)
troubled by what the Paris terror attacks say about our country’s continuing failure to properly understand terrorist methodologies and formulate more effective counterterrorism responses If we continue to aggrandize the violent acts of a handful of marginalized individuals into existential threats to western civilization, our over-reactions will to continue sapping our resources while empowering extremists commentators viewed the three Paris terrorists as representative of an alienated European Muslim population vulnerable to the call of terrorism selfless courage displayed by the Muslim police officer they killed and the Muslim deli employee who helped save Jewish customers were more authentic examples of a larger, law-abiding and peaceful French Muslim community No one pondered what their actions said about the nature of Islam Muslims account for only a small percentage of the terrorism in Europe over the last several years. Most politically-motivated violence there is carried out by nationalist and sectarian groups, yet the government and the media don’t treat these threats the sam The Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point documented 3,053 injuries and 670 fatalities in the United States from far right violence from 1990 to 2012. A 2014 University of Maryland survey indicates U.S. law enforcement now view Sovereign Citizens as the greatest terror threat they face. the federal government effectively treats these acts of politically-motivated violence as hate crimes or lone attacks rather than terrorism Deaths attributable to terrorism here in the U.S. are a tiny fraction of the roughly 14,000 homicides committed each year, one-third of which go unsolved. Yet we devote far more resources to uncovering potential terrorists than to finding actual killers The purpose of putting terrorist acts in context is to better understand how we might respond in a more effective manner prevalent theme in the early coverage of the Paris attacks was the tendency to exaggerate the capabilities of Muslim extremists many counterterrorism officials and policy makers didn’t hesitate to call it a “sophisticated” attack that represented a new and “more complex” threat The FBI and DHS backed this description claiming the Paris attacks “demonstrated a greater degree of sophistication and advanced weapons handling than seen in previous coordinated small-arms attack The weapons sed weren’t financed or provided by organized terrorist groups, but purchased from a known criminal Presenting Muslim terrorists as lurking super-villains generates unwarranted public fear, which benefits governments and security officials who exploit it for their own benefit accurate information about the nature and probability of threats, and the cost-effectiveness of various solutions could help correct the impulse toward the overwrought fear of remote threats like terrorism. In a perfect world, the intelligence community would provide that reliable threat information to the public, so overreaction could be avoided. We don’t live in that perfect world intelligence agencies are also incentivized to inflate threat assessments the idea that current threats compare to the possible global nuclear annihilation faced during the height of the Cold War is laughable Driving up public fear also dissuades demands for accountability for intelligence or operational failures Treating terrorism committed by Muslims as categorically different from other terrorism forfeits the ability to learn what responses are effective in other contexts The terrorists’ goal is to spread irrational fear and cause costly overreactions that divide society along the lines they choose. Our intelligence officials shouldn’t be helping them. Recognizing this is a sign of weakness rather than strength will help us build a stronger and more resilient society that fear could never defeat.
Building up the threat of terrorism exploits and categorizes all Muslims and creates fear mongering that makes counter-terror efforts less effective
9,618
148
3,872
1,465
21
574
0.014
0.392
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
MacDonald 15 (Bryan, Irish writer and commentator focusing on Russia and its hinterlands and international geo-politics, 6-25, Despite NATO propaganda, Russia not planning to invade Baltic States, RT, http://rt.com/op-edge/269746-nato-russia-baltics-invasion/)
The latest US narrative on Russia is straight from the plot of a Hollywood fantasy: US superheroes versus a Russian villain. Sadly for the Baltic States, they are being used by Uncle Sam as bait Despite the relish with which lazy Western journalism and a highly-organized NATO "information campaign" lambasts “Putin’s Russia” as a warmongering ‘rogue’ state, the facts tell another tale. During the past 15 years, the Russian army has only entered the sovereign territory of two foreign states, with Crimea counting as one of those occasions.∂ In 2008, former President sent his forces into Georgia in response to Tbilisi’s aggression against South Ossetia. within two months, the Kremlin had withdrawn all its soldiers Russian hostility is apparently focused on the goal of subjugating Eastern Europe. In order to sell the ‘Hollywood’ notion of Russia as global arch villain, the State Department needs to create targets for this imaginary Russian military jaunt around Europe. They’ve chosen the Baltic States Three countries so harmless and innocuous Unlike Crimea, which was of hugely significant strategic importance there is nothing interesting about any of the Baltic countries. All remain poor the attention currently lavished upon them from Washington and Brussels could bring with it some much needed investment capital. there is little more of economic worth than fields and forests. There is no oil, no gas and no hidden deposits of rare-earth minerals.∂ Some NATO propaganda claims that Putin’s government wishes to use the Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia as staging posts for a wider invasion of Europe. The main problem with this theory is that it’s insane; aside from that, Russia already has a Baltic exclave Western media frequently runs scare stories about Russian military drills in the region. These take place on Russian territory Almost every country in the world, even neutral Switzerland, conducts armed forces training from time to time on its own soil.∂ The reality is that the Western media is feeding readers, viewers and listeners a lazy narrative driven by the US State Department and NATO for reasons known only to themselves.
The U.S. and NATO have created the Russian threat- Russia won’t invade the Baltic States
8,073
88
2,156
1,283
15
344
0.012
0.268
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Over in Washington, supposedly the great innovator in “1984”-style surveillance, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., just spoke for 11 hours against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. A week earlier, the House overwhelmingly voted to limit the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection, which might force the agency to shut down, at least temporarily, its most controversial surveillance programs. And earlier this month, a federal appeals court unanimously declared much of the NSA’s work to be illegal.
Rampell ’15 [Catherine Rampell The Washington Post, May 24, 2015, Big Brother finds home in Europe, http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/catherine-rampell-big-brother-finds-home-in-europe/article_ecd5c6c8-a886-5b88-ad05-55eb8b5e06c0.html]
Over in Washington, the House overwhelmingly voted to limit the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection
Empirically don’t model- FREEDOM Act proves
502
43
111
76
6
16
0.079
0.211
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
President Obama said Tuesday that preserving the nation’s credibility internationally requires reevaluating the U.S. stance on Mideast peace talks and that recent comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have severely hurt chances for progress.Obama said Netanyahu’s pledge on the eve of Israeli elections last week to oppose a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians made hope for progress “very dim.” Netanyahu later backed off the comment, but Obama appeared to remain unconvinced that the prime minister is serious about negotiating with the Palestinians. “What we can't do is pretend that there's a possibility of something that's not there,” Obama said during a news conference. “We can't continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years.... For the sake of our own credibility, we have to be able to be honest.”
Memoli 3/24 (Memoli, Michael. "Obama Says U.S. Credibility Requires Reevaluation of Mideast Stance." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 June 2015. <http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-israel-spying-20150324-story.html>.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
preserving the nation’s credibility internationally requires reevaluating the U.S. stance on Mideast peace talks We can't continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years.... For the sake of our own credibility, we have to be able to be honest
Link is non-uq - Mideast policy is alt cause to credibility loss
931
64
334
146
12
55
0.082
0.377
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The administration did not disclose at the time how many foreign leaders would be removed from routine eavesdropping, but Mr. Obama said in a January 2014 speech on surveillance policy that he had put significant new curbs in place. “The leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance,” Mr. Obama said in the speech. He added, “Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies.”
Rubin 6/24 (Rubin, Alissa. "France Denounces Revelations of Spying by N.S.A." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 June 2015. Web. 24 June 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/world/europe/wikileaks-us-spying-france.html?_r=0>) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
“The leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance,” , I have made clear to the intelligence community that we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies.
SQ solves - Obama has vowed to not spy on allies
745
48
351
127
11
64
0.087
0.504
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The Hindu 1/19 ("U.S. Will Continue to Spy on Foreign Govts: Obama." The Hindu. 18 Jan. 2014. Web. 24 June 2015. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/us-will-continue-to-spy-on-foreign-govts-obama/article5592931.ece>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Obama said as he assured Merkel that he would not allow surveillance to harm their bilateral relations Seen as the first step to win back trust of its allies Obama defended spying as necessary to safeguard the security of America and its allies, including Germany Our intelligence agencies will continue to be interested in the government intentions of countries around the world. Obama had asked to balance between civil liberties of Americans and people across the globe and meeting the US security and intelligence needs The President, however said he would not allow the surveillance to harm his relationship of “friendship and trust” and ordered that telephone and Internet surveillance will be carried out abroad only if US security threats are involved and to extend US rules on privacy protection to foreign citizens. He had also ordered restrictions on the use of the metadata collected by the intelligence services.
SQ restrictions and security needs solve foreign relations
2,756
58
925
441
8
149
0.018
0.338
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
“The American government’s posture did change. The [U.S.] president made it clear in his last conversation with Rousseff in Panama that if he wanted to know something about Brazil or the president, he will call her and not use other means,” he said. “And we have to trust in the word of the head of state.” “She communicated that it was central that she couldn’t [again] be surprised by revelations that the U.S. is spying Brazil,” he added, noting that Obama may not have been able to apologize or make public promises due to internal political concerns. The Obama administration has been pushing a modest intelligence reform agenda in Washington. Earlier this month, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which reversed some of the more invasive provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act. But experts on U.S.-Latin America relations note that the White House has not publicly mentioned anything about the NSA changing the way it deals with citizens of foreign countries. Nevertheless, many believe that the reconciliation with Brazil could provide an opportunity to work more productively with the region’s largest power.
Bevins 6/16 ("Why Did Brazil’s President Change Her Tune on Spying?" Foreign Policy Why Did Brazils President Change Her Tune on Spying Comments. Web. 24 June 2015. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/16/brazil-nsa-spying-surveillance-economy-dilma-rousseff-barack-obama/>)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
“The American government’s posture did change. The president made it clear that if he wanted to know something about Brazil or the president, he will call her and not use other means And we have to trust in the word of the head of state many believe that the reconciliation with Brazil could provide an opportunity to work more productively with the region’s largest power
Allies trust Obama and want to cooperate on privacy
1,115
51
372
182
9
65
0.049
0.357
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Larison 14 (Larison, Daniel. "The “Credibility” Scam." The American Conservative. 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 June 2015. <http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-credibility-scam/>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
“credibility” hawks’ haven’t ever been right Warning about “credibility” is a giveaway that the person issuing the warning has run out of persuasive arguments “credibility” hawks are always invoking credibility in order to justify more aggressive policies but because the reliance on the “credibility” argument is confirmation that these policies can’t be defended on the merits “Credibility” hawks exaggerat the significance of the commitment that the U.S. made in the past to pretend that the supposed “credibility” gap is far greater than it is the U.S. had made no commitments to defend Ukraine, but by pretending that the U.S. was ignoring its commitments in the Budapest memorandum “credibility” hawks insisted on taking a harder line in the crisis so that real American security commitments elsewhere wouldn’t be undermined. . The “credibility” argument is nothing more than a scam, and we are the marks.
Credibility is a false justification for interventionist policies
3,094
66
911
512
8
143
0.016
0.279
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Walt 12 (Walt, Stephen. "Why Are U.S. Leaders so Obsessed with Credibility?" Foreign Policy Why Are US Leaders so Obsessed with Credibility Comments. 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 June 2015. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/11/why-are-u-s-leaders-so-obsessed-with-credibility/>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
U.S. leaders have continued to believe that our security depends on convincing both allies and adversaries that we are steadfast . And while it might have made some degree of sense during the Cold War, it is increasingly counterproductive today. the United States is both very powerful and very secure, and that there’s hardly anything that could happen in the international system that would alter the global balance of power overnight Weaker states who would like U.S. protection need it a lot more than we need them, which means our "credibility" is more their problem than ours. Instead of obsessing about our own "credibility," , we ought to be asking them what they are going to do for themselves, and also for us it is a call for greater imagination and flexibility in how we deal with friends and foes alike. I’m not saying that we should strive for zero credibility, we’d be better off if other states understood that our credibility was more conditional. In other words, allies need to be reminded that our help is conditional on their compliance with our interests (at least to some degree) and adversaries should also be reminded that our opposition is equally conditional on what they do.
Credibility is counterproductive and contingent on allies- not U.S. policy
3,292
74
1,206
554
10
205
0.018
0.37
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Both Obama and Merkel stressed the importance of working together. "There may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements. There may not be. But the broad principle that we have to stand up for ... the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is one where we are completely unified," he said. Western leaders cannot stand idly by "and simply allow the borders of Europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun," Obama said. Merkel said the strong alliance between Europe and the United States would thrive despite any differences. Russia's incursions on Ukraine's borders, she said, are too dangerous for Europe to tolerate. "I can only say that if we give up on this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we've been able to achieve," she said.
Yan et al. 15 (Yan, Holly, Catherine Schoichet, and Michael Pearson. "Obama, Merkel Pledge Alliance on Ukraine - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 June 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/09/europe/ukraine-conflict/>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Both Obama and Merkel stressed the importance of working together. "There may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements. There may not be. But the broad principle that we have to stand up for ... the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is one where we are completely unified," he said. Merkel said the strong alliance between Europe and the United States would thrive despite any differences. Russia's incursions on Ukraine's borders, she said, are too dangerous for Europe to tolerate.
Despite spying scandals EU wants unified approach to Russia
843
59
513
144
9
82
0.063
0.569
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Merkel came to the White House Monday for talks with Obama on a wide range of issues. Topping their agenda are the fighting in Ukraine and the international coalition against the Islamic State group.
VOA News ("Obama, Merkel Opt for Diplomacy in Ukraine Crisis." VOA News. 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 June 2015. <http://www.voanews.com/content/german-chancellor-to-hold-talks-monday-with-obama-on-ukraine/2634472.html>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Merkel came to the White House Monday for talks with Obama on a wide range of issues. Topping their agenda Ukraine
US and EU working to diplomatically deescalate Russia
199
53
114
34
8
21
0.235
0.618
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The United States and the European Union agreed on Wednesday to work together to prepare possible tougher economic sanctions in response to Russia's behavior in Ukraine, including on the energy sector, and to make Europe less dependent on Russian gas. U.S. President Barack Obama said after a summit with top EU officials that Russian President Vladimir Putin had miscalculated if he thought he could divide the West or count on its indifference over his annexation of Crimea. Leaders of the Group of Seven major industrial powers decided this week to hold off on sanctions targeting Moscow's economy unless Putin took further action to destabilize Ukraine or other former Soviet republics. "If Russia continues on its current course, however, the isolation will deepen, sanctions will increase and there will be more consequences for the Russian economy," Obama told a joint news conference with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. In the keynote address of his European trip, Obama later told an audience of 2,000 young people that the West would prevail if it remained united, not by military action but by the power of its values to attract ordinary Ukrainians. Russia would not be "dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force. But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve security, prosperity, and the status they seek through brute force," he said. In the speech in a Brussels concert hall, which resembled a point-by-point rebuttal of Putin's March 18 Kremlin speech announcing the annexation of Crimea, Obama voiced respect for a strong Russia but said "that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors". He also said NATO would step up its presence in new east European member states bordering on Russia and Ukraine to provide reassurance that the alliance's mutual defense guarantee would protect them. Russian forces in Crimea captured the last Ukrainian navy ship after firing warning shots and stun grenades, completing Moscow's takeover of military installations in the Black Sea peninsula. Kiev has ordered its forces to withdraw.
Mason&Kelly 14 (Mason, Jeff, and Lidia Kelly. "U.S., EU to Work Together on Tougher Russia Sanctions." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 June 2015. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA2P0VB20140327>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
The United States and the European Union agreed on Wednesday to work together to prepare possible tougher economic sanctions in response to Russia's behavior in Ukraine, "If Russia continues on its current course, however, the isolation will deepen, sanctions will increase and there will be more consequences for the Russian economy," Russia would not be "dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force. But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve security, prosperity, and the status they seek through brute force," He also said NATO would step up its presence in new east European member states bordering on Russia and Ukraine to provide reassurance that the alliance's mutual defense guarantee would protect them.
U.S. and EU working together on Russia sanctions
2,218
48
805
353
8
126
0.023
0.357
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
And despite their sometimes-rocky relationship, the chancellor even won a laugh from David Cameron as she strolled with him and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper before the hilltop summit. Today the Group of Seven (G7) industrial nations focused mainly on the international security threat posed by ISIS, 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine and climate change. Speaking on the issue of Russia, Ms Merkel, who was recently voted the world's most powerful woman, said Europe 'could toughen the sanctions if the situation requires us to do so.' The leaders want Russia and Ukraine to comply with a February 12 ceasefire agreed in the Belarus capital Minsk that largely halted fighting in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government forces.Speaking in a press conference, President Obama added: 'As we've seen again in recent days, Russian forces continue to operate in eastern Ukraine, violating Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. 'Russia is in deep recession. So Russia's actions in Ukraine are hurting Russia and hurting the Russian people. And the G7 is making it clear that if necessary we stand ready to impose additional significant sanctions against Russia.'Speaking on the same matter, Mr Cameron said the world should remember that the Ukrainians are 'the victims, not the aggressors', adding: 'Existing sanctions must remain in place until the Minsk agreements are fully implemented.'
Crone 6/9 (Crone, Jack. "The Hills Are Alive with the Sound of Merkel: Angela Looks like She's about to Burst into Song for Obama as World Leaders Celebrate G7 Deal." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 9 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3115473/The-hills-alive-sound-Munich-Angela-Merkel-looks-like-s-burst-song-Obama-world-leaders-celebrate-G7-deal.html>.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Today (G7) focused mainly on the international security threat posed by 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine Merkel , said Europe 'could toughen the sanctions if the situation requires us to do so.' The leaders want Russia and Ukraine to comply with a February 12 ceasefire Obama added the G7 is making it clear that if necessary we stand ready to impose additional significant sanctions against Russia.'
G7 nations focused on deescalating Russia through sanctions
1,436
59
399
218
8
65
0.037
0.298
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Calamur 13 (Calamur, Krishnadev. "4 Things To Know About Spying On Allies." NPR. NPR, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 June 2015. <http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/10/28/241384089/four-things-to-know-about-spying-on-allies>.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Everybody spies on everybody, including friends on friends.” Foreign leaders likely knew the NSA was spying on citizens in their countries, but they are less tolerant of the fact that they were targets themselves. Much of their anger is faked for public consumption, there will be "very little" damage even if the U.S. stops spying on its allies. , friends do not mean harm to friends," he says. "The United States would have somewhat less information in its diplomatic quiver, but we could certainly live if there were to be an agreement with our friends to cut this out."
No loss of relations from spying - foreign leaders were aware of the spying
2,224
75
573
386
14
99
0.036
0.256
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
On a closed session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a high-ranking Ukrainian official just shared the Ukrainian government's current view of its conflict with Russia: Fighting has resumed after a three-week ceasefire. The administration sees signs that Putin is escalating his forces, albeit in a limited way. The administration does not currently see Putin amassing force for a major invasion.. The official applauded support from China. The Ukrainian government believes time is working against Putin. The combination of economic sanctions, plunging oil prices, and the backlash against Putin's aggression is putting Putin in an increasingly isolated position. Putin is responding by escalating his forces. The Ukrainian government says it does not know what Putin wants. The administration believes that even Putin does not know what he wants. Putin's tone changes on every phone call with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, the official said. The last time Putin spoke with President Poroshenko was 11 days ago.
Blodget 1/21 (Blodget, Henry., editor-in-chief of Business Insider,. "UKRAINE OFFICIAL: Putin Is Escalating And Emotional - And Hasn't Spoken To President Poroshenko For 11 Days." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 21 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 June 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-official-putin-is-escalating-the-conflict-2015-1#ixzz3e0BwNLJI>) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Fighting has resumed after a three-week ceasefire. Putin is escalating his forces economic sanctions and the backlash against Putin is putting Putin in an isolated position Putin is responding by escalating his forces administration believes that Putin does not know what he wants. Putin's tone changes on every phone call with Poroshenko
Russian escalation is inevitable, Putin reacts irrationally --Ukraine crisis proves
1,037
83
338
157
10
52
0.064
0.331
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor staff writer, 6/9 Anna Mulrine, June 6th, 2015, “NATO and Russia aren't talking to each other. Cold war lessons forgotten?” http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0609/NATO-and-Russia-aren-t-talking-to-each-other.-Cold-war-lessons-forgotten-video PJL~KKF
Though many of the details of how war was averted remain undisclosed, experts on both sides say the world came to the very brink of nuclear Armageddon through a chain of preventable misunderstandings. "Not just communications, but other mechanisms that used to exist are simply not working anymore," says Viktor Baranets, a former Russian defense ministry spokesman. "I don't want to sound alarmist, but judging by the rapid pace of events and growing aggressiveness on all sides, we may be moving toward disaster. It's like we're all priming a bomb, but no one knows when or how it will explode. Gradually, we are moving from cold to hot war." The disconnect between the Russian and American militaries is in part a natural result of the end of the cold war But as NATO and Russia broke off relations last year amid the escalating spat over Ukraine, communications at lower echelons virtually ended. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno says "I’ve actually tried to meet to meet with my Russian counterpart on two separate occasions, and both times they’ve refused to do that in neutral settings
Russia and G7/NATO ALREADY aren’t working together – impx should have happened already
7,367
86
1,100
1,204
13
186
0.011
0.154
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
THE pens were on the table in Minsk, Belarus’s capital, for the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine to sign a deal to end a year-long war fuelled by Russia and fought by its proxies. But on February 12th, after all-night talks, they were put away. “No good news,” said Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president. Instead there will be a ceasefire from February 15th. A tentative agreement has been reached to withdraw heavy weaponry. But Russia looks sure to be able to keep open its border with Ukraine and sustain the flow of arms and people. The siege of Debaltseve, a strategic transport hub held by Ukrainian forces, continues. Russia is holding military exercises on its side of the border. Crimea was not even mentioned. Meanwhile the IMF has said it will lend Ukraine $17.5 billion to prop up its economy. But Mr Putin seems to be relying on a familiar Russian tactic of exhausting his negotiating counterparts and taking two steps forward, one step back. He is counting on time and endurance to bring the collapse and division of Ukraine and a revision of the post-cold war world order. Nearly a quarter-century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West faces a greater threat from the East than at any point during the cold war. Even during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, Soviet leaders were constrained by the Politburo and memories of the second world war. Now, according to Russia’s chief propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev, even a decision about the use of nuclear arms “will be taken personally by Mr Putin, who has the undoubted support of the Russian people”. Bluff or not, this reflects the Russian elite’s perception of the West as a threat to the very existence of the Russian state. In this view Russia did not start the war in Ukraine, but responded to Western aggression. The Maidan uprising and ousting of Viktor Yanukovych as Ukraine’s president were engineered by American special services to move NATO closer to Russia’s borders. Once Mr Yanukovych had gone, American envoys offered Ukraine’s interim government$25 billion to place missile defences on the Russian border, in order to shift the balance of nuclear power towards America. Russia had no choice but to act. Even without Ukraine, Mr Putin has said, America would have found some other excuse to contain Russia. Ukraine, therefore, was not the cause of Russia’s conflict with the West, but its consequence. Mr Putin’s purpose is not to rebuild the Soviet empire—he knows this is impossible—but to protect Russia’s sovereignty. By this he means its values, the most important of which is a monopoly on state power. Behind Russia’s confrontation with the West lies a clash of ideas. On one side are human rights, an accountable bureaucracy and democratic elections; on the other an unconstrained state that can sacrifice its citizens’ interests to further its destiny or satisfy its rulers’ greed. Both under communism and before it, the Russian state acquired religious attributes. It is this sacred state which is under threat. Mr Putin sits at its apex. “No Putin—no Russia,” a deputy chief of staff said recently. His former KGB colleagues—the Committee of State Security—are its guardians, servants and priests, and entitled to its riches. Theirs is not a job, but an elite and hereditary calling. Expropriating a private firm’s assets to benefit a state firm is therefore not an act of corruption. When thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets demanding a Western-European way of life, the Kremlin saw this as a threat to its model of governance. Alexander Prokhanov, a nationalist writer who backs Russia’s war in Ukraine, compares European civilisation to a magnet attracting Ukraine and Russia. Destabilising Ukraine is not enough to counter that force: the magnet itself must be neutralised. Russia feels threatened not by any individual European state, but by the European Union and NATO, which it regards as expansionist. It sees them as “occupied” by America, which seeks to exploit Western values to gain influence over the rest of the world. America “wants to freeze the order established after the Soviet collapse and remain an absolute leader, thinking it can do whatever it likes, while others can do only what is in that leader’s interests,” Mr Putin said recently. “Maybe some want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we do not.” Russia has taken to arguing that it is not fighting Ukraine, but America in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army is just a foreign legion of NATO, and American soldiers are killing Russian proxies in the Donbas. Anti-Americanism is not only the reason for war and the main pillar of state power, but also an ideology that Russia is trying to export to Europe, as it once exported communism. Anti-Westernism has been dressed not in communist clothes, but in imperial and even clerical ones (see article). “We see how many Euro-Atlantic countries are in effect turning away from their roots, including their Christian values,” said Mr Putin in 2013. Russia, by contrast, “has always been a state civilisation held together by the Russian people, the Russian language, Russian culture and the Russian Orthodox church.” The Donbas rebels are fighting not only the Ukrainian army, but against a corrupt Western way of life in order to defend Russia’s distinct world view.
Economist 2/14/15 February 14, 2015, “Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is part of a broader, and more dangerous, confrontation with the West” http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21643220-russias-aggression-ukraine-part-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation PJL~KKF
Nearly a quarter-century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West faces a greater threat from the East than at any point during the cold war. Now, according to Russia’s chief propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev, even a decision about the use of nuclear arms “will be taken personally by Mr Putin, who has the undoubted support of the Russian people”. Bluff or not, this reflects the Russian elite’s perception of the West as a threat to the very existence of the Russian state. In this view Russia did not start the war in Ukraine, but responded to Western aggression. Even without Ukraine, Mr Putin has said, America would have found some other excuse to contain Russia. Ukraine, therefore, was not the cause of Russia’s conflict with the West, but its consequence. Mr Putin’s purpose is not to rebuild the Soviet empire—he knows this is impossible—but to protect Russia’s sovereignty. By this he means its values, the most important of which is a monopoly on state power. Behind Russia’s confrontation with the West lies a clash of ideas. Russia has taken to arguing that it is not fighting Ukraine, but America in Ukraine. American soldiers are killing Russian proxies in the Donbas. Anti-Americanism is not only the reason for war and the main pillar of state power, but also an ideology that Russia is trying to export to Europe, as it once exported communism. The Donbas rebels are fighting not only the Ukrainian army, but against a corrupt Western way of life in order to defend Russia’s distinct world view.
Alt causes -- The key to stopping Russia is to solve the ideological clashes between Eastern and Western politics, or at least to pacify these concerns of misperception
5,308
169
1,518
882
28
259
0.032
0.294
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that Moscow supports the Minsk peace agreements ratified in February in Ukraine, but blamed Kiev for stalling the truce efforts. "Russia is interested in and will strive to ensure the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements," Putin told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on Saturday, according to Reuters. He called the deal between the two countries “right, just and feasible.” An uneasy ceasefire saw hostilities between warring factions in eastern Ukraine cool off for a few months, but a spate of fighting in recent weeks has thrown the peace accord into uncertainty. An unknown number of fighters were killed on Wednesday when clashes broke out between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russia rebel forces in the Donetsk region. Putin blamed the fresh hostilities on Kiev, saying that separatist forces had fulfilled their promise of withdrawing heavy weapons from the fight. "It is time to begin implementing the Minsk Agreements," Putin reportedly told the paper. He called on Kiev to undertake constitutional reforms -- as part of the agreement -- that would allow the rebel breakaway regions in the country’s east to become autonomous, and implement municipal elections and amnesty. "The problem is that the current Kiev authorities don't even want to sit down to talks with them. And there is nothing we can do about it," he reportedly said. "Only our European and American partners can influence this situation." He also dismissed the worries of the European countries regarding Moscow as unfounded. "As for some countries' concerns about Russia's possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO," he said, Radio Free Europe reported, citing Corriere della Sera. "I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people's fears with regard to Russia," he added. "Let me tell you something - there is no need to fear Russia." He called Kiev’s economic severance from the rebel territories a humanitarian crisis and urged the European Union to provide more financial relief to the region. "Since we are talking about what can or must be done, and by whom, I believe that the European Union could surely provide greater financial assistance to Ukraine," he reportedly said. Moscow has maintained that Kiev has instigated the conflict, and that there are no Russian troops, except private forces, fighting in the country. It has defended the right of the breakaway regions, including the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, to secede from Ukraine.
Tejas, 6/6/15 Aditya Tejas, International Business Times, June 6th, 2015, “Putin Blames Ukraine For Stalling Peace Deal, Says Russia Wants Peace” http://www.ibtimes.com/putin-blames-ukraine-stalling-peace-deal-says-russia-wants-peace-1955346 PJL~KKF
Putin supports the Minsk peace agreements ratified in February in Ukraine, but blamed Kiev for stalling the truce efforts. "Russia is interested in and will strive to ensure the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements," He called the deal “right, just and feasible.” Putin blamed the fresh hostilities on Kiev, saying that separatist forces had fulfilled their promise of withdrawing heavy weapons from the fight. "It is time to begin implementing the Minsk Agreements," Putin reportedly told the paper. He called on Kiev to undertake constitutional reforms as part of the agreement "The problem is that the current Kiev authorities don't even want to sit down to talks with them. And there is nothing we can do about it," I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO," he said "Let me tell you something - there is no need to fear Russia." Moscow has maintained that Kiev has instigated the conflict, and that there are no Russian troops, except private forces, fighting in the country.
Russia is currently pursuing peace with Ukraine
2,625
47
1,070
418
7
179
0.017
0.428
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Six months ahead of a landmark U.N. climate summit in Paris, the Group of Seven of the world’s largest advanced economies, or G7, reaffirmed their commitment Monday to keeping the globe’s average temperature from rising past 2 degrees Celsius, widely seen as the benchmark for averting catastrophic global warming. The countries’ plans for cutting heat-trapping carbon emissions, released over the past year, come nowhere close to achieving that target. Yet in pledging to reduce greenhouse gases while also expanding their economies, world leaders once again signaled their view that environmental action and economic growth – once widely seen as inherently at odds – are now inextricably linked by the consequences of climate change. “Urgent and concrete action is needed to address climate change,” the G7 leaders said in a joint statement released Monday at the end of their two-day 2015 summit in Germany. There is “strong determination” to adopt an agreement, one “that is ambitious, robust, inclusive and reflects evolving circumstances.” . We continue to make progress toward a strong global climate agreement this year in Paris," Obama said in a press conference Monday in Germany. "All the G7 countries have now put forward our post-2020 targets for reducing carbon emissions, and we’ll continue to urge other significant emitters to do so as well." The G7 declaration did call for “binding rules” that would “enhance transparency and accountability” as nations work toward achieving their carbon-reduction targets.
Neuhauser, Alan. "We Continue to Make Progress toward a Strong Global Climate Agreement This Year in Paris," Obama Said in a Press Conference Monday in Germany. US News. U.S.News & World Report, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.
Six months ahead of a U.N. climate summit in Paris the G7, reaffirmed their commitment keeping the globe’s average temperature from rising past 2 degrees Celsius seen as the benchmark for averting catastrophic global warming world leaders once again signaled their view that environmental action and economic growth – once widely seen as inherently at odds – are now inextricably linked by the consequences of climate change. Urgent and concrete action is needed to address climate change,” the G7 leaders said in a joint statement There is “strong determination” to adopt an agreement, one “that is ambitious, robust, inclusive and reflects evolving circumstances We continue to make progress toward a strong global climate agreement this year in Paris Obama said All the G7 countries have now put forward our post-2020 targets for reducing carbon emissions, and we’ll continue to urge other significant emitters to do so The G7 declaration did call for “binding rules” that would “enhance transparency and accountability” as nations work toward achieving their carbon-reduction targets
Climate Agreement will happen, G7 proves
1,525
40
1,087
236
6
168
0.025
0.712
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers, however, roundly welcomed the State Department's submission, known by negotiators as "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions." "The president has again demonstrated leadership in addressing the threat posed by climate change," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in a statement. "Today’s announcement confirms that the United States is doing its part to reduce dangerous carbon pollution, and this effort will continue to bring other countries along the path to a strong agreement in Paris.” Natural Resources Defense Council president Rhea Suh said she agreed, declaring the commitment "sends a powerful message to the world." A report published earlier this month by DBL Ventures, a venture capital firm that supports clean energy projects, found states that generate the greatest share of electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar experience lower energy prices than states with the smallest share of green power.
Neuhauser, Alan. "We Continue to Make Progress toward a Strong Global Climate Agreement This Year in Paris," Obama Said in a Press Conference Monday in Germany. US News. U.S.News & World Report, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.
The president has again demonstrated leadership in addressing the threat posed by climate change the United States is doing its part to reduce dangerous carbon pollution, and this effort will continue to bring other countries along the path to a strong agreement in Paris the commitment "sends a powerful message to the world
U.S. leadership makes climate agreement a for sure deal
981
55
325
143
9
53
0.063
0.371
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
France will produce its own text for a global climate change agreement if countries taking part in UN negotiations fail to cut the current 90-page documentdown to size. The host of this year’s UN summit, where an emissions cutting pact between nearly 200 countries is set to be finalised, wants a shorter document by the end of the summer. “We have to get a simpler text by June or the latest by the end of August to work with it,” France’s top climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana told RTCC, speaking at the Carbon Expo event in Barcelona. “If this does not proceed from the normal process of course that will rely on the presidency of the COP in the summer to produce a new document. “We don’t want that so we will push and press for everyone to deliver a shorter text by the end of August – really defining what needs to be decided in Paris, what will be decided after and what are the core principles in the agreement.” Tubiana said France wants the main elements of the deal ready by October to ensure there were “no surprises” that could stymie the process. Laurence Tubiana talks about the need for a simpler text for climate negotiations. The last time the UN attempted to secure a global climate solution ended in farce just under six years ago at a summit in Copenhagen, with a small group of major emitters stitching together a hurried voluntary deal after negotiations over a huge set of proposals stalled. Advertisement Three sessions of negotiations have been allocated for envoys to slim down the text between now and December, with the first starting next month in Bonn. Decisions this UN forum need to be decided by consensus, meaning it only takes a small group of countries to block suggested additions to agreements. Tubiana admitted the demand for an early resolution to the negotiating text added a level of pressure on countries that could slow talks further, but insisted it was essential work sped up. “A logical result of this is countries are beginning to be tougher – because they don’t want to show their cards – and that’s what will happen at this summit, to show this is time to really agree on a compromise,” she said. “Nuances and positions are very diverse, so it’s difficult to align everybody, and there are strong views from different views, but I’m confident because countries want to agree in Paris.” Since UN climate talks started in 1991 greenhouse gas emissions have swelled to record levels. Scientists now say the world has under 30 years before dangerous levels of warming, causing droughts, floods and rising sea levels are guaranteed. France will ensure that plans to help countries adapt to future climate extremes are an integral part of any deal, Tubiana stressed, acknowledging that on current form emission cuts will not limit warming to the internationally agreed 2C above pre-industrial levels ceiling. The role of Paris will be to “accelerate” the trajectory of carbon reductions, she stressed, and also to allow the most climate vulnerable countries a chance to make their case for greater ambition
King, Ed. "France Ready to Step in If UN Climate Talks Fail, Say Top Diplomat." Guardian Environment Network. The Guardian, 28 May 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.
France will produce its own text for a global climate change agreement if countries taking part in UN negotiations fail We have to get a simpler text by June or the latest by the end of August to work with it If this does not proceed from the normal process of course that will rely on the presidency of the COP in the summer to produce a new document. “We don’t want that so we will push and press for everyone to deliver a shorter text by the end of August – really defining what needs to be decided in Paris, what will be decided after and what are the core principles in the agreement it was essential work sped up. “A logical result of this is countries are beginning to be tougher – because they don’t want to show their cards – and that’s what will happen at this summit, to show this is time to really agree on a compromise,” she said. “Nuances and positions are very diverse, so it’s difficult to align everybody, and there are strong views from different views, but I’m confident because countries want to agree in Paris The role of Paris will be to “accelerate” the trajectory of carbon reductions, she stressed, and also to allow the most climate vulnerable countries a chance to make their case for greater ambition
France won’t allow the climate talk to fail
3,051
43
1,228
524
8
227
0.015
0.433
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The latest round of UN climate talks have made slow progress on refining a negotiating text for the Paris summit in December, the focal point for efforts to agree curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries. Despite two weeks of talks at an interim meeting in the German city of Bonn, most of the contradictory proposals that littered the previous 90-page document remain, meaning that the next few rounds of talks in August and October will have to shoulder the burden of distilling a negotiating text by December. France’s climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana said that the tough, painstaking work of refining the document could still deliver real benefits in time for Paris. “It’s like having a baby, sometimes you don’t know exactly when the baby will be born,” she told a press conference. Tubiana added: “Everyone is feeling the frustration, but we should not be frustrated or disappointed because these are really necessary conditions for Paris.” Familiar disputes blocked progress at the mainly technical meeting in Bonn, which was being held around 500km away from this week's G7 summit in Bavaria. G7 leaders announced a long-term, but non-binding, decarbonisation targetand increased insurance for countries most vulnerable to climate change. But in Bonn rich nations failed to give greater clarity on how rich economies will deploy US$100 billion of climate finance a year from 2020. Major rifts also remained on the legal basis of a future agreement, and the extent that large fast-developing economies such as China and India will be accountable for planned curbs on GHG emissions. McGarrity, John. "UN Climate Talks Fail to Clear Obstacles to Paris Deal."UN Climate Talks Fail to Clear Obstacles to Paris Deal. China Dialogue, 11 June 2015. Web. 24 June 2015. The latest round of UN climate talks have made slow progress the focal point for efforts to agree curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries Despite weeks of talks he contradictory proposals remain, meaning that the next few rounds of talks in August and October will have to shoulder the burden of distilling a negotiating text Everyone is feeling the frustration rich nations failed to give greater clarity on how rich economies will deploy US$100 billion of climate finance a year from 2020. Major rifts also remained on the legal basis of a future agreement, and the extent that large fast-developing economies such as China and India will be accountable for planned curbs on GHG emissions.
Recent talks have shown climate talks fail in status quo
1,622
56
723
260
10
119
0.038
0.458
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
But Der Spiegel reports that the IPCC is shying away from such claims and gives no concrete numbers for how many plant and animal species could be at risk if global temperatures increased. While the IPCC does say that the pace of global warming is making it hard for some species to adapt, the lack of basic data makes it impossible for there to be any hard evidence to back up this claim. Zoologists actually fear that the focus on global warming has drawn attention away from issues that actually cause extinctions, like destruction of natural habitats.? “Monoculture, over-fertilization or soil destruction destroy more species than several degrees temperature rise ever assets,” University of Rostock zoologist Ragnar Kinzelbach told Der Spiegel. The UN’s final climate report that will include its analysis on extinctions is set to be released in late March. Scientists and government representatives from around the world are meeting this week in Japan to hammer out a summary for policymakers on the UN’s key findings.
Bastasch 15, Michael. "IPCC Runs from Claims That Global Warming Will Cause Mass Extinctions." IPCC No Longer Claims That Global Warming Causes Mass Extinction. The DC, 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 June 2015.
no concrete numbers for how many plant and animal species could be at risk if global temperatures increased the lack of basic data makes it impossible for there to be any hard evidence to back up this claim. Zoologists actually fear that the focus on global warming has drawn attention away from issues that actually cause extinctions, like destruction of natural habitats Monoculture, over-fertilization or soil destruction destroy more species than several degrees temperature rise ever
No evidence supports warming causes extinction
1,025
46
488
167
6
76
0.036
0.455
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Less dramatic changes are more likely. Abrupt transformations in climate would probably cause few deaths. Many scientists have remarked that climate change would increase the spread of disease, 74 and seasonal weather changes are associated with outbreaks of many diseases, including meningococcal meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa and rotavirus in the US. Moreover, stronger El Nino events have been linked to the prevalence of cholera in Bangladesh, the spread of Rift Valley fever in East Africa, and malaria incidences on the Indian subcontinent. However, while the spread of disease is influenced by the weather, the connection between global climate change and the spread of disease has not yet been established. 75 One point is clear: as Rees notes, "Not even the most drastic conceivable climate shifts could directly destroy all humanity." 76
Barrett 6 – Professor of International Policy @ Johns Hopkins Scott, Professor and Director of International Policy, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 2006, “CATASTROPHE: The Problem of Averting Global Catastrophe,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Lexis
Abrupt transformations in climate would probably cause few deaths Many scientists have remarked that climate change would increase the spread of disease However, while the spread of disease is influenced by the weather, the connection between global climate change and the spread of disease has not yet been established One point is clear Not even the most drastic conceivable climate shifts could destroy all humanity
851
34
419
131
5
65
0.038
0.496
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
BOULDER—Even if all greenhouse gases had been stabilized in the year 2000, we would still be committed to a warmer Earth and greater sea level rise in the present century, according to a new study by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The findings are published in this week's issue of the journal Science. The modeling study quantifies the relative rates of sea level rise and global temperature increase that we are already committed to in the 21st century. Even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere, globally averaged surface air temperatures would rise about a half degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) and global sea levels would rise another 11 centimeters (4 inches) from thermal expansion alone by 2100. “Many people don’t realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere,” says lead author Gerald Meehl. “Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level rise. The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future.”
Climate Change Inevitable in 21st Century - News Release." Climate Change Inevitable in 21st Century - News Release. UCAR, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 17 Mar. 2005. Web. 24 June 2015.
Even if all greenhouse gases had been stabilized we would still be committed to a warmer Earth and greater sea level rise in the present century The study quantifies the relative rates of sea level rise and global temperature increase that we are already committed to in the 21st century. Even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere, globally averaged surface air temperatures would rise about a half degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) and global sea levels would rise another 11 centimeters (4 inches) from thermal expansion alone by 2100 Many people don’t realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will continue to warm
Impacts are inevitable, Temperature rises regardless
1,229
52
833
204
6
138
0.029
0.676
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed in a phone call with his French counterpart Francois Hollande on Wednesday Washington's commitment to end spying practices deemed "unacceptable" by its allies. The presidents' conversation, announced by Hollande's office, came after transparency lobby group WikiLeaks revealed on Tuesday that U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents. The latest revelations of espionage among Western allies came after it emerged that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on Germany and that Germany's own BND intelligence agency had cooperated with the NSA to spy on officials and companies elsewhere in Europe. "President Obama reiterated unequivocally his firm commitment ... to end the practices that may have happened in the past and that are considered unacceptable among allies," the French president's office said. Hollande had earlier held an emergency meeting of his ministers and army commanders and the U.S. ambassador was summoned to the foreign ministry. "France will not tolerate actions that threaten its security and the protection of its interests," an earlier statement from the president's office said, adding it was not the first time allegations of U.S. spying on French interests had surfaced. A senior French intelligence official will travel to the United States to discuss the matter and strengthen cooperation between the two countries, Hollande's office said. "We have to verify that this spying has finished," Stephane Le Foll, government spokesman, told reporters, adding that ministers had been told to be careful when speaking on their mobile phones.
Irish, John. "Obama Reassures France after "unacceptable" NSA Spying."Reuters US Edition. Reuters, 24 June 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.
Obama reaffirmed with his French counterpart on Washington's commitment to end spying practices The latest revelations of espionage among Western allies came after it emerged that the NSA) had spied President Obama reiterated unequivocally his firm commitment ... to end the practices that may have happened in the past and that are considered unacceptable among allies A senior French intelligence official will travel to the United States to discuss the matter and strengthen cooperation between the two countries
US working on relations in light of new leaks.
1,659
46
515
251
9
78
0.036
0.311
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Don't expect too much from the global climate-change accord that's expected to emerge from high-stakes international talks in Paris next year. A new MIT study concludes that even if negotiators reach a deal at the United Nations conference, it probably won't be enough to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That's the level many scientists say would help stave off some of the most dangerous and disruptive effects of climate change. Here's the study's bottom line on what to expect from the so-called Conference of the Parties 21 in Paris: "Based on our expectations for the architecture of a COP-21 agreement, and our predictions about the national contributions likely to come forth under it, our analysis concludes that these international efforts will indeed bend the curve of global emissions. However, our results also show that these efforts will not put the globe on a path consistent with commonly stated long-term climate goals," states the paper by economics professor Henry Jacoby and Y-H Henry Chen, who both work with MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The 2°C ceiling has been highly optimistic for a while, as global greenhouse-gas emissions continue to soar. In a major report last year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change modeled the impact of a series of possible emissions trajectories. Runaway emissions growth could further boost temperatures, at the high end of the estimates, by up to 4.8 °C by 2100, the IPCC estimated.
Geman, Ben. "Why a Global-Warming Pact Won't Stop Global Warming." Www.nationaljournal.com. The National Journal, 7 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 June 2015
Don't expect too much from the global climate-change accord that's expected to emerge from high-stakes international talks in Paris next year. A new study concludes that even if negotiators reach a deal at the United Nations conference, it won't be enough to limit global temperature increases to the level scientists say would help stave off the most dangerous and disruptive effects of climate change Here's the bottom line on what to expect in Paris that these international efforts will indeed bend the curve of global emissions. However ur results also show that these efforts will not put the globe on a path consistent with long-term climate goals The 2°C ceiling has been highly optimistic Runaway emissions growth could further boost temperatures , by 4.8 °C
Even if talks succeed their impacts are still going to happen
1,550
61
767
249
11
125
0.044
0.502
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The U.N.'s Paris climate conference, designed to reach a plan for curbing global warming, may instead become the graveyard for its defining goal: to stop temperatures rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Achieving the 2C (3.6 Fahrenheit) target has been the driving force for climate negotiators and scientists, who say it is the limit beyond which the world will suffer ever worsening floods, droughts, storms and rising seas. But six months before world leaders convene in Paris, prospects are fading for a deal that would keep average temperatures below the ceiling. Greenhouse gas emissions have reached record highs in recent years. And proposed cuts in carbon emissions from 2020 and promises to deepen them in subsequent reviews - offered by governments wary of the economic cost of shifting from fossil fuels - are unlikely to be enough for the 2C goal. "Paris will be a funeral without a corpse," said David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, who predicts the 2C goal will slip away despite insistence by many governments that is still alive. "It's just not feasible," said Oliver Geden, of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. "Two degrees is a focal point for the climate debate but it doesn't seem to be a focal point for political action." But as officials meet in the German city of Bonn from June 1-11 to lay more groundwork for the Paris summit, the United Nations says 2C is still within reach. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate change official, acknowledges that national plans for emissions curbs - the building blocks for the Paris accord - won't be enough for 2C.
Doyle, Alister, and Bruce Wallace. "U.N. Climate Deal in Paris May Be Graveyard for 2C Goal." Reuters.com. Reuters, 1 June 2015. Web. 26 June 2015
The U.N.'s Paris climate conference designed for curbing global warming, may instead become the graveyard for its goal to stop temperatures rising more than 2 degrees Celsius . But six months before world leaders convene in Paris, prospects are fading for a deal that would keep average temperatures below the ceiling. Greenhouse gas emissions have reached record highs in recent years. And proposed cuts in carbon emissions from 2020 and promises to deepen them in subsequent reviews - offered by governments wary of the economic cost of shifting from fossil fuels - are unlikely to be enough for the 2C goal Paris will be a funeral without a corpse who predicts the 2C goal will slip away despite that is still alive. "It's just not feasible the U.N.'s top climate change official, acknowledges that national plans for emissions curb won't be enough for 2C.
Paris won’t solve; 2 degree rise is inevitable
1,701
47
859
281
8
144
0.028
0.512
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Efforts spearheaded by the United Nations to reach a global deal to fight climate change are "inadequate", a French minister said on Monday in a sign of growing frustration before Paris hosts a major meeting later this year. Governments will try on Monday to streamline an 89-page draft text of a U.N. deal to fight climate change due to be agreed in the French capital in December, hoping to avoid the acrimony of the last failed attempt. "The U.N. negotiations are totally inadequate for the climate emergency we are facing," Environment Minister Segolene Royal said in an interview published in Le Monde. "In private everybody is saying it ... but the weight of the process means it is carrying on as if there was no problem." The 190-nation talks among delegates in the German city of Bonn from June 1-11 will try to narrow down vastly differing options, ranging from promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 to vague pledges to curb rising emissions. "This gap between UN procedure and the climate emergency is starting to pose a real problem and exasperating the countries that are the biggest victims of climate change," she said. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is presiding December's talks, told Reuters on May 26 a deal in Paris was within reach, but that the hurdles remained and getting a consensus between 196 parties was very difficult. Royal, a senior French Socialist known for being outspoken, blamed negotiators for past failures. "Bonn must obey the political instructions of heads of state and governments. Otherwise, the negotiators, who have been there for 15 years, if not 20 years, will just continue going through the motions," she said
Irish, John. "U.N. Climate Efforts Not Good Enough: French Minister." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 01 June 2015. Web. 26 June 2015
Efforts spearheaded by the United Nations to reach a global deal to fight climate change are "inadequate", a French minister said in a sign of growing frustration before Paris The U.N. negotiations are totally inadequate for the climate emergency we are facing In private everybody is saying it ... but the weight of the process means it is carrying on as if there was no problem." This gap between UN procedure and the climate emergency is starting to pose a real problem and exasperating the countries that are the biggest victims of climate change,
UN talks fail regardless
1,685
24
551
282
4
94
0.014
0.333
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
Summing up, we are making progress, but slowly and partially. Success in Paris is indispensable in view of the mounting evidence that the climate is deteriorating faster than expected, but the international community must avoid the temptation of declaring victory and departing the field. If successful, the conference will only help put mankind on a better track. Many more conferences and many more efforts will be needed to reach the goal of preserving the climate.
Pisani-Ferry 6/23(Jean Pisani-Ferry, 6-23-2015, [Jean Pisani-Ferry teaches at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin and serves as commissioner-general for Policy Planning in Paris. He is a former director of Bruegel, the Brussels-based economic think tank] "Four Roadblocks to a Global Climate Agreement," No Publication, http://english.caixin.com/2015-06-23/100821714.html)
we are making progress, but slowly and partially the international community must avoid the temptation of declaring victory and departing the field the conference will only help put mankind on a better track. Many more conferences and many more efforts will be needed to reach the goal of preserving the climate.
Climate agreement is important, but not key—much more needs to be done afterward
468
80
312
75
13
51
0.173
0.68
Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5
The parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, are meeting in Bonn, Germany, June 1 through June 11 to continue negotiating a new international climate agreement. They will reconvene in Paris in December to finalize it. A key aspect of the eventual agreement—which will apply to both developed and developing countries—will be a set of national targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With little time remaining to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, there is tremendous pressure on negotiators to usher in an era of effective international climate cooperation. Yet as the contours of the agreement come into focus, it is increasingly apparent that the emissions reduction targets—which will be nationally determined rather than internationally negotiated—will be collectively insufficient to curtail dangerous climate change. It also is becoming clear that the agreement will not legally require countries to meet the targets. Paradoxically, these results would not entail the failure of the agreement. An insufficient set of national targets is compatible with a successful overall outcome in Paris, and a nonbinding set of national targets may actually be necessary for it. An inadequate first wave of emissions reduction targets but a potentially effective climate regime Over the past year, world leaders have shown a new political will to address climate change. The United States, for example, announced an aggressive but achievable emissions reduction target—26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025—and is working to implement the Clean Power Plan, which will dramatically reduce emissions from the power sector. China, to take another example, committed to peak carbon emissions by around 2030 in a historic announcement this past November. There has been significant progress on climate finance as well, with 33 countries pledging more than $10 billion to the nascent Green Climate Fund, which will help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition to pathways of low-carbon growth. Despite these developments, which have provided momentum toward a strong agreement in Paris, it is anticipated that the national emissions reduction targets submitted to the UNFCCC this year will be collectively inadequate to deliver climate safety. The Paris agreement, however, can still be successful. This is because the parties have the opportunity to ensure that the national emissions reduction targets—which have end dates of 2025 or 2030—are only a first wave in a succession of increasingly ambitious national targets to rein in global warming. Time, of course, is dwindling. According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels—which is the U.N.-agreed target—would entail a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in emissions from 2010 levels by midcentury and net-zero emissions by 2100. To facilitate a new climate regime that is effective, the Paris agreement should set frequent cycles for improving national targets. It also should establish frequent and thorough reviews of national progress. These are among the issues set for discussion in Bonn—and in the run-up to Paris—that will help determine the ultimate success of the final agreement. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who will preside over the Paris meeting, has referred to the agreement not as a destination but as a “springboard.” It is within the power of the parties to make it a springboard to adequate climate action, rather than one to the failure of the UNFCCC. A legally binding agreement, potentially with nonbinding national emissions reduction targets Miguel Arias Cañete, EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, has joined Foreign Minister Fabius in his effort to manage expectations of what the first wave of national targets can achieve. Despite this pragmatism, however, the European Union has been publicly idealistic on the issue of whether the national targets should be legally binding. It is generally held that the core agreement will be binding under international law, but the European Union maintains that the national targets should be legally binding as well. Although well intentioned, this is a potentially self-defeating position. An agreement with legally obligatory targets for emissions reductions could threaten the participation of some of the world’s major emitters. It also is possible that such an agreement would encourage conservative rather than ambitious targets. In the case of the United States, an agreement with legally binding targets would likely require the consent of a supermajority in the Senate, which is doubtful in the current political environment. Given this conspicuous legislative reality, there has been little need for other countries to publicly oppose legally binding targets as the Paris meeting approaches. Both India and China, however, have a record of resisting emissions reduction targets that are obligatory under international law. Taraska 6/1(Gwynne Taraska, 6-1-2015,[Gwynne Taraska is a Senior Policy Advisor at the Center for American Progress, where she works on climate and energy policy.] "The Paradox of Paris: How a Successful Climate Agreement Could Have Inadequate and Nonobligatory Emissions Reduction Targets," name, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2015/06/03/114333/the-paradox-of-paris-how-a-successful-climate-agreement-could-have-inadequate-and-nonobligatory-emissions-reduction-targets/) A key aspect of the eventual agreement will be a set of national targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions there is tremendous pressure on negotiators to usher in an era of effective international climate cooperation it is increasingly apparent that the emissions reduction targets will be collectively insufficient to curtail dangerous climate change Despite developments it is anticipated that the national emissions reduction targets submitted to the UNFCCC this year will be collectively inadequate to deliver climate safety the core agreement will be binding under international law In the case of the United States, an agreement with legally binding targets would likely require the consent of a supermajority in the Senate, which is doubtful in the current political environment India and China have a record of resisting emissions reduction targets that are obligatory under international law. Climate agreement will fail for three reasons—national targets, the US senate, and countries resisting emissions reductions 5,047 123 902 768 16 136 0.021 0.177 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 The past four years have seen successive annual U.N. conferences (Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010, Durban in 2011, and Doha in 2012) frantically trying to reach agreement among nearly 200 countries on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. In essence, these conferences have succeeded only in wresting vague pledges from developed countries to reduce emissions, contribute funds to help developing countries adapt to climate change, and meet again to try to negotiate a binding treaty by 2015. The problem is that the basic approach is unworkable. International negotiations have centered on placing the economic burden of addressing climate change on a few dozen developed countries while asking nothing from more than 150 developing countries. But the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly the developing world. Any approach to effectively address increasing emissions of greenhouse gases must capture emissions from developed and developing countries. This notion was the central feature of the 1997 Byrd–Hagel Resolution, which unanimously passed the Senate, establishing conditions for the U.S. becoming a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and remains the primary reason why the U.S. never ratified that treaty. But developing countries, primarily India and China, have made it quite clear that they have no appetite to slow economic growth or curb use of conventional fuels to control emissions. For this reason, Canada, Japan, and Russia refused to sign onto a new agreement committing them to emissions reductions unless major developing country emitters were also included. Until and unless this issue is resolved, the U.S. would be foolish to consider unilateral restrictions on the U.S. economy that, in the end, would be merely symbolic without significant effect on global emissions reductions. Heritage Foundation 13(About The, 1-24-2013, "Climate Change: How the U.S. Should Lead," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/climate-change-how-the-us-should-lead) The past four years have seen successive annual U.N. conferences frantically trying to reach agreement among nearly 200 countries on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol these conferences have succeeded only in wresting vague pledges from developed countries to reduce emissions, contribute funds to help developing countries adapt to climate change, and meet again to try to negotiate a binding treaty by 2015. the basic approach is unworkable. International negotiations have centered on placing the economic burden of addressing climate change on a few dozen developed countries while asking nothing from more than 150 developing countries developing countries, primarily India and China, have made it quite clear that they have no appetite to slow economic growth or curb use of conventional fuels to control emissions The approach countries take to solving climate change is fundamentally flawed 1,825 77 819 278 11 125 0.04 0.45 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 The need, then, is to generate a technological revolution. The paper (named after the successful mission to the moon of the 1960s) argues that this will require rapid technological advances. Progress is happening, notably the collapse in the price of photovoltaic panels. But this is not enough. The sun provides 5,000 times more energy than humans demand from industrial sources. But we do not know how to exploit enough of it. Martin Wolf 1 Despite the evident need, publicly-funded research and development on renewable energy is under 2 per cent of all publicly-funded R&D. At just$6bn a year, worldwide, it is dwarfed by the $101bn spent on subsidies for renewable production and the amazing total of$550bn spent on subsidising fossil fuel production and consumption. This is a grotesque picture. Far more money needs to go to publicly funded research. The public sector has long played a vital role in funding scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this case, that role is particularly important, given the agreed goal of reducing emissions and the fact that the energy sector spends relatively little on R&D. The envisaged programme would have a single purpose: “To develop renewable energy supplies that are cheaper than those from fossil fuels.” The authors suggest that to do this, research should focus on electricity generation, storage and smart grids. The suggested programme would amount to 15bn a year, still a mere 0.02 per cent of world output. That is indeed a minimal amount, given the goal’s importance. Wolf 6/23(Martin Wolf, 6-23-2015,[associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times.] "A moonshot to save a warming planet," Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ffc2b8ae-166f-11e5-b07f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3e0DuHSaz) The need, then, is to generate a technological revolution. . Progress is happening, notably the collapse in the price of photovoltaic panels. But this is not enough. The sun provides 5,000 times more energy than humans demand from industrial sources. But we do not know how to exploit enough of it. Far more money needs to go to publicly funded research. The public sector has long played a vital role in funding scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this case, that role is particularly important, given the agreed goal of reducing emissions and the fact that the energy sector spends relatively little on R&D. to do this, research should focus on electricity generation, storage and smart grids. An agreed goal of reducing emissions is not enough—there has to be a tech revolution 1,535 84 706 249 15 116 0.06 0.466 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 Nations have jointly promised to keep the global temperature rise below the 2C danger threshold. They are informing the UN how they will each cut their domestic emissions of greenhouse gases. But key countries are refusing to discuss whether the sum of these cuts will do the job. The EU, supported by African nations, wants to make countries face up to the fact that their collective cuts won't keep the climate within the 2C threshold. But China, India and Brazil are insisting that the national contributions should not be discussed at the UN until the main summit in Paris in December, by which time it will be too late for countries to negotiate any increase in ambition. 'Too slow' The Chinese chief negotiator, Su Wei, said talks about the procedure for a new UN climate regime were going so slowly there was no time to discuss whether the emissions cuts added up. "It has taken us 10 days here discussing procedural matters and we have made hardly any progress," he told the BBC. "We cannot add any more items to the agenda to be discussed before Paris." Delegates from around the world have been meeting in Bonn. Other nations blame China for orchestrating moves to slow progress in Bonn. Tasneep Essop from the World Wildlife Fund said the situation was "bizarre". "The aim of this process is to stabilise the climate, yet delegates are being prevented from even talking about it," he told the BBC. "We want a full science-based review of all the countries' intended contributions so the world's public can see whether politicians are keeping their promises. It is clear already that countries need to do more." Harrabin 6/10(Roger Harrabin, 6-10-2015,[BBC environment analyst] "UN climate conference: Silence over emissions targets," BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33089496) Nations have jointly promised to keep the global temperature rise below the 2C danger threshold But key countries are refusing to discuss whether the sum of these cuts will do the job China, India and Brazil are insisting that the national contributions should not be discussed at the UN until the main summit in Paris in December, by which time it will be too late for countries to negotiate any increase in ambition. The Chinese chief negotiator, Su Wei, said talks about the procedure for a new UN climate regime were going so slowly there was no time to discuss whether the emissions cuts added up. "It has taken us 10 days here discussing procedural matters and we have made hardly any progress, The aim of this process is to stabilise the climate, yet delegates are being prevented from even talking about it, Climate agreement moving too slow—there’s too much on the agenda 1,621 64 815 279 10 143 0.036 0.513 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 In 1992, governments met in Rio de Janeiro and forged the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That agreement, still in force, bound governments to take action to avoid dangerous climate change, but did not specify what actions. Over the following five years, governments wrangled over what each should do, and what should be the role of developed countries versus poorer nations. Those years of argument produced, in 1997, the Kyoto protocol. That pact required worldwide cuts in emissions of about 5%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2012, and each developed country was allotted a target on emissions reductions. But developing countries, including China, South Korea, Mexico and other rapidly emerging economies, were given no targets and allowed to increase their emissions at will. Al Gore, then US vice president, signed up to the protocol, but it was quickly apparent that it would never be ratified by the US Congress. Legally, the protocol could not come into force until countries representing 55% of global emissions had ratified it. With the US – then the world’s biggest emitter – on the outside, that was not going to happen. So for most of the following decade, the Kyoto protocol remained in abeyance and global climate change negotiations ground to a near-halt. But in late 2004, Russia decided to pass the treaty – unexpectedly, and as part of a move to have its application for World Trade Organisation membership accepted by the European Union. That made up the weight needed, and the protocol finally came into force. Harvey 6/2(Fiona Harvey, 6-2-2015,[Fiona Harvey is an award-winning environment journalist for the Guardian. Prior to this, she worked for the Financial Times for more than a decade. She has reported on every major environmental issue, from as far afield as the Arctic and the Amazon, and her wide range of interviewees include Ban Ki-moon, Tony Blair, Al Gore and Jeff Immelt] "Everything you need to know about the Paris climate summit and UN talks," Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks) In 1992, governments met in Rio de Janeiro and forged the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That agreement bound governments to take action to avoid dangerous climate change years of argument produced the Kyoto protocol. Al Gore, then US vice president, signed up to the protocol, but it was quickly apparent that it would never be ratified by the US Congress. So for most of the following decade, the Kyoto protocol remained in abeyance and global climate change negotiations ground to a near-halt. The Kyoto Protocol proves that climate agreements do not work 1,555 61 520 255 10 85 0.039 0.333 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 The difference between these two approaches is significant. When we conceptualize the international financial system as a network, we see that the U.S. has become more central since 2007, not less. Rather than shift from West-to-East, global financial actors have responded to crisis by reorganizing around American capital to a remarkable extent. This is partially due to proactive responses to the crisis by policymakers such as the Federal Reserve, but it is also the result of factors outside the U.S. Above all, American capital markets remain attractive because complex networks contain strong path dependencies, which reinforce the core position of prominent countries while keeping potential challengers in the periphery. That is to say, policymakers and market players were limited in the decisions they could take because of factors that had already been locked in. As a result, the structure of the global financial system keeps the U.S. at the core and will continue to do so unless the entire network is fragmented, as it was during the 1930s when Great Britain lost its dominance. Some who do see continuing U.S. financial resiliency contend that American power serves to the disadvantage of smaller countries. Indeed, they are correct that when a crisis occurs in the core – where the U.S. remains — the effects are felt throughout the system. But they miss the fact that American prominence also provides important stabilization mechanisms that can contain crises. To explain this, we need to look at what network scientists call “topology,” which refers to the organization of the components of a network, whether we are looking at a computer system or a financial system. Once we view the international financial system in this context, we see that it is robust when facing crises in peripheral countries, but fragile when facing crises occrring in the core. This explains why the U.S. subprime crisis destabilized the global economy, while upheavals such as the 1990s East Asian crisis did not. Even the euro zone crisis has remained localized, to this point. A network perspective also explains how policy interventions by the U.S. prevented the collapse of the global system, thus ensuring that U.S. centrality persists. Finally, a network model should make us more cautious about promoting policies meant to erode U.S. financial hegemony. In fact, American centrality contained crises in peripheral countries from spreading globally, and the U.S. government demonstrated both the capacity and the willingness to pursue monetary and fiscal policies to moderate crises emanating from its own banking system. Returning to a world in which the structure of global financial relationships devolves outside the U.S. would therefore reintroduce a type of systemic risk not seen since the 1930s. Danzman and Winecoff 13 (Sarah Bauerle Danzman and W. Kindred Winecoff, Why U.S. Financial Hegemony Will Endure, Symposium Magazine, an innovative digital publication that provides a central address for academics to talk with the broader public, and with each other across disciplines, October 7th, 2013) we see that the U.S. has become more central since 2007, not less Rather than shift from West-to-East, global financial actors have responded to crisis by reorganizing around American capital to a remarkable extent. it is also the result of factors outside the U.S. , American capital markets remain attractive because complex networks contain strong path dependencies, which reinforce the core position of prominent countries while keeping potential challengers in the periphery. , the structure of the global financial system keeps the U.S. at the core and will continue to do so unless the entire network is fragmented, American prominence also provides important stabilization mechanisms that can contain crises the international financial system in this context is robust when facing crises in peripheral countries, but fragile when facing crises occrring in the core. This explains why the U.S. subprime crisis destabilized the global economy, while upheavals such as the 1990s East Asian crisis did not In fact, American centrality contained crises in peripheral countries from spreading globally, and the U.S. government demonstrated both the capacity and the willingness to pursue monetary and fiscal policies to moderate crises emanating from its own banking system. The US will remain the financial hegemon because of interdependency – a fragmenting crisis is required to break that – internet freedom not key 2,809 143 1,276 444 24 193 0.054 0.435 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 To date, there has been no comprehensive study of great power retrenchment and no study that defends retrenchment as a probable or practical policy. Using historical data on gross domestic product, we identify eighteen cases of "acute relative decline" since 1870. Acute relative decline happens when a great power loses an ordinal ranking in global share of economic production, and this shift endures for five or more years. A comparison of these periods yields the following findings: Retrenchment is the most common response to decline. Great powers suffering from acute decline, such as the United Kingdom, used retrenchment to shore up their fading power in eleven to fifteen of the eighteen cases that we studied (61–83 percent). The rate of decline is the most important factor for explaining and predicting the magnitude of retrenchment. The faster a state falls, the more drastic the retrenchment policy it is likely to employ. The rate of decline is also the most important factor for explaining and predicting the forms that retrenchment takes. The faster a state falls, the more likely it is to renounce risky commitments, increase reliance on other states, cut military spending, and avoid starting or escalating international disputes. In more detail, secondary findings include the following: Democracy does not appear to inhibit retrenchment. Declining states are approximately equally likely to retrench regardless of regime type. Wars are infrequent during ordinal transitions. War broke out close to the transition point in between one and four of the eighteen cases (6–22 percent). Retrenching states rebound with some regularity. Six of the fifteen retrenching states (40 percent) managed to recapture their former rank. No state that failed to retrench can boast similar results. Declining great powers cut their military personnel and budgets significantly faster than other great powers. Over a five-year period, the average nondeclining state increased military personnel 2.1 percent—as compared with a 0.8 percent decrease in declining states. Likewise, the average nondeclining state increased military spending 8.4 percent—compared with 2.2 percent among declining states. Swift declines cause greater alliance agreements. Over a five-year period, the average great power signs 1.75 new alliance agreements—great powers undergoing large declines sign an average of 3.6 such agreements. Declining great powers are less likely to enter or escalate disputes. Compared to average great powers, they are 26 percent less likely to initiate an interstate dispute, 25 percent less likely to be embroiled in a dispute, and markedly less likely to escalate those disputes to high levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS From the analysis above, three main implications follow for U.S. policy. First, we are likely to see retrenchment in U.S. foreign policy. With a declining share of relative power, the United States is ripe to shift burdens to allies, cut military expenditures, and stay out of international disputes. This will not be without risks and costs, but retrenchment is likely to be peaceful and is preferable to nonretrenchment. In short, U.S. policymakers should resist calls to maintain a sizable overseas posture because they fear that a more moderate policy might harm U.S. prestige or credibility with American allies. A humble foreign policy and more modest overseas presence can be as (if not more) effective in restoring U.S. credibility and reassuring allies. Second, any potential U.S.-Sino power transition is likely to be easier on the United States than pessimists have advertised. If the United States acts like a typical retrenching state, the future looks promising. Several regional allies—foremost India and Japan—appear capable of assuming responsibilities formerly shouldered by the United States, and a forward defense is no longer as valuable as it once was. There remains ample room for cuts in U.S. defense spending. And as China grows it will find, as the United States did, that increased relative power brings with it widening divisions at home and fewer friends overseas. In brief, policymakers should reject arguments that a reduction in U.S. overseas deployments will embolden a hostile and expansionist China. Sizable forward deployments in Asia are just as likely to trap the United States in unnecessary clashes as they are to deter potential aggression. Third, the United States must reconsider when, where, and how it will use its more modest resources in the future. A sensible policy of retrenchment must be properly prepared for—policymakers should not hastily slash budgets and renounce commitments. A gradual and controlled policy of reprioritizing goals, renouncing commitments, and shifting burdens will bring greater returns than an improvised or imposed retreat. To this end, policymakers need to engage in a frank and serious debate about the purposes of U.S. overseas assets. Our position is that the primary role of the U.S. military should be to deter and fight conventional wars against potential great power adversaries, rather than engage in limited operations against insurgents and other nonstate threats. This suggests that U.S. deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan should be pared down; that the United States should resist calls to involve itself in internal conflicts or civil wars, such as those in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa; and that the Asia-Pacific region should have strategic priority over Europe and the greater Middle East. Regardless of whether one accepts these particular proposals, the United States must make tough choices about which regions and threats should have claim to increasingly scarce resources. CONCLUSION Retrenchment is probable and pragmatic. Great powers may not be prudent, but they tend to become so when their power ebbs. Regardless of regime type, declining states routinely renounce risky commitments, redistribute alliance burdens, pare back military outlays, and avoid ensnarement in and escalation of costly conflicts. Husbanding resources is simply sensible. In the competitive game of power politics, states must unsentimentally realign means with ends or be punished for their profligacy. Attempts to maintain policies advanced when U.S. relative power was greater are outdated, unfounded, and imprudent. Retrenchment policies—greater burden sharing with allies, less military spending, and less involvement in militarized disputes—hold the most promise for arresting and reversing decline MacDonald and Parent 11 (Paul K. MacDonald, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Willians College and Joseph M. Parent, Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Miami, "Resurrecting Retrenchment: The Grand Strategic Consequences of U.S. Decline," POLICY BRIEF, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, 5--, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/macdonald-parent-may-2011-is-%20brief.pdf) Retrenchment is the most common response to decline The faster a state falls, the more likely it is to renounce risky commitments, increase reliance on other states, cut military spending, and avoid starting or escalating international disputes Compared to average great powers, they are 26 percent less likely to initiate an interstate dispute, 25 percent less likely to be embroiled in a dispute, and markedly less likely to escalate those disputes to high levels we are likely to see retrenchment in U.S. foreign policy. the United States is ripe to shift burdens to allies, cut military expenditures, and stay out of international disputes. retrenchment is likely to be peaceful and is preferable to nonretrenchment. A humble foreign policy and more modest overseas presence can be as effective in restoring U.S. credibility and reassuring allies. Second, any potential U.S.-Sino power transition is likely to be easier Several regional allies—foremost India and Japan—appear capable of assuming Great powers may not be prudent, but they tend to become so when their power ebbs Yes retrenchment – decline means no US intervention, Heg does not check 6,527 71 1,082 989 12 170 0.012 0.172 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 Google employees told Reuters that the company has seen no significant impact on its business, and a person briefed on Microsoft's business in Europe likewise said that company has had no issues. At Amazon, which was not named in Snowden's documents but is seen as a likely victim because it is a top provider of cloud computing services, a spokeswoman said global demand "has never been greater." There are multiple theories for why the business impact of the Snowden leaks has been so minimal. One is that cloud customers have few good alternatives, since U.S. companies have most of the market and switching costs money. Perhaps more convincing, Amazon, Microsoft and some others offer data centers in Europe with encryption that prevents significant hurdles to snooping by anyone including the service providers themselves and the U.S. agencies. Encryption, however, comes with drawbacks, making using the cloud more cumbersome. On Thursday, Brazil's president called for laws that would require local data centers for the likes of Google and Facebook. But former senior Google engineer Bill Coughran, now a partner at Sequoia Capital, said that even in the worst-case scenario, those companies would simply spend extra to manage more Balkanized systems. Another possibility is that tech-buying companies elsewhere believe that their own governments have scanning procedures that are every bit as invasive as the American programs. MENN 13 (Menn, Joseph. "How The NSA Revelations May Actually Be Helping The US Tech Industry." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 15 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 July 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-nsa-revelations-may-actually-be-help-the-us-tech-industry-2013-9>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve At Amazon a spokeswoman said global demand "has never been greater." There are multiple theories for why the business impact of the Snowden leaks has been so minimal. cloud customers have few good alternatives, since U.S. companies have most of the market and switching costs money Amazon, Microsoft and some others offer data centers in Europe with encryption that prevents significant hurdles to snooping by anyone including the service providers themselves and the U.S. agencies. Another possibility is that tech-buying companies elsewhere believe that their own governments have scanning procedures that are every bit as invasive as the American programs. Snowden revelations prove –NSA spying has minimal impact on tech industry 1,435 73 659 224 11 100 0.049 0.446 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 Zuckerberg played down the potential impact that fear of government surveillance might have on Internet.org’s mission — and indeed argued the reverse, saying that he thought it might make the goal easier because of a new spirit of collaboration in a post-Snowden tech world. “The NSA issues have industry working together better than ever before,” he said, adding: “Historically we’ve had issues working with some of our competitors aligning on policy issues that even help the whole industry – Internet policy issues – but now it’s such an important thing, because of how extreme some of the NSA revelations were, I do feel that a lot of the industry is a lot more aligned.” Zuckerberg did not name any names, in terms of who exactly used to be hostile to his overtures and is now less so, but one likely candidate here is (presumably) Google. In further comments on the NSA issue, Zuckerberg added that the agreement, secured from the U.S. government, for Facebook to be able to share “everything the government’s asking of us” — in terms of requests for user data — has also been “helpful” to dissipating people’s fears about the extent of government data-mining of Facebook. Lomas 14 (Lomas, Natasha. "Zuckerberg: Snowden NSA Revelations Have Brought The Tech Industry Closer." TechCrunch. 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 2 July 2015. <http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/24/zuck-on-snowden/>.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve Zuckerberg argued The NSA issues have industry working together better than ever before,” Historically we’ve had issues working with competitors aligning on policy issues that help the whole industry but now it’s such an important thing, because of how extreme some of the NSA revelations were, I do feel that a lot of the industry is a lot more aligned. TURN - NSA spying unifies the tech industry 1,178 43 354 200 8 60 0.04 0.3 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable. Robert Jervis 11, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425 a worsening of current economic difficulties, could produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies While these dangers are real it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence could not be reversed Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited it is hard to see how leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or attacking others While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis an optimist could reply (correctly that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict it will not make war thinkable. Even massive economic decline has zero chance of war 1,792 53 1,019 295 9 164 0.031 0.556 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 In the wake of our Snowden stories, a group of senators form both parties who had long been concerned with surveillance abuses began efforts to draft legislation that would impose real limits on the NSA’s powers. But these reformers, led by Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, ran into an immediate roadblock: counter efforts by the NSA’s defenders in the Senate to write legislation that would provide only the appearance of reform, while in fact retaining or even increasing the NSA’s powers. As Slate’s Dave Weigel reported in November: Critics of the NSA’s bulk data collection and surveillance programs have never been worried about congressional inaction. They’ve expected Congress to come up with something that looked like reform but actually codified and excused the practices being exposed and pilloried. That’s what’s always happened – every amendment or reauthorization to the 2001 USA Patriot Act has built more back doors than walls. “We will be up against a ‘business-as-usual brigade’ – made up of influential members of the government’s intelligence leaderships, their allies in think tanks [sic] and academia, retired government officials, and sympathetic legislators,” warned Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden last month. “Their endgame is ensuring that any surveillance reforms are only skin-deep…Privacy protections that don’t actually protect privacy are not worth the paper they’re printed on.” The “fake reform” faction was led by Dianna Feinstein, the very senator who is charged with exercising primary oversight over the NSA. Feinstein has long been a devoted loyalist of the US national security industry, from her vehement support for the war on Iraq to her steadfast backing of Bush-era NSA programs. (Her husband, meanwhile, has major stakes in various military contracts). Clearly, Feinstein was a natural choice to head a committee that claims to carry out oversight over the intelligence community but has for years performed the opposite function. Thus, for all the government’s denials, the NSA has no substantial constraints on whom it can spy on and how. Even when such constraints nominally exist – when American citizens are the surveillance target – the process has become largely hollow. The NSA is the definitive rogue agency: empowered to do whatever it wants with very little control, transparency, or accountability. Glenn Greenwald, 2014, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State. p. 130-131, mm reformers ran into an immediate roadblock counter efforts by the NSA’s defenders that would provide only the appearance of reform while in fact retaining or even increasing the NSA’s powers – every amendment or reauthorization has built more back doors than walls for all the government’s denials, the NSA has no substantial constraints on whom it can spy on and how Even when such constraints nominally exist the process has become largely hollow The NSA is the definitive rogue agency: empowered to do whatever it wants with very little control, transparency, or accountability Reforms fail – the NSA is a rogue agency that can’t be constrained 2,354 66 579 367 13 93 0.035 0.253 Bulk Data Collection Negative - JDI 2015.html5 The Trump Administration has been quietly funding the Mexican government’s ongoing drug war, intensifying a conflict that claimed nearly 20,000 lives in 2017, a new record. Administration officials rarely speak about their involvement in the war, preferring to keep their role hidden. Their silence and the lack of media attention have allowed the Trump team to hide U.S. involvement without having to answer for the increase in violence. The Mexican government launched the drug war in December 2006, when it began deploying tens of thousands of military troops to confront drug cartels and drug traffickers. The military operations sparked a steady rise in drug-related violence, quickly transforming Mexico into one of the most violent countries in the world. Since the war began, more than 100,000 Mexicans have died in drug-related violence. In Washington, U.S. officials have been steadily supporting the war with the Mérida Initiative, a multi-billion dollar program that provides the Mexican military with equipment and training. Although the Obama Administration withheld5 million in program aid in 2015 due to human rights violations by the Mexican military, it preserved the overall program, ensuring that the U.S. remained involved in the war. When the Trump Administration entered office, President Trump indicated that he wanted to increase U.S. involvement. During a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Trump called for a tougher approach. “You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with, and we are willing to help you with that big-league,” Trump said, according to a leaked transcript. After suggesting that the Mexican military has been “afraid” to go after the cartels, Trump argued that U.S. military forces should get more directly involved. At the time, many administration officials agreed they should do more to help the Mexican government confront the drug cartels. They began pressuring the Mexican government to intensify the military operations. During a meeting with Mexican officials in May 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson repeated some of Trump’s demands. “I told my Mexican counterparts it’s time to stop playing small ball, we’ve got to start playing large ball,” Tillerson later acknowledged before Congress. In 2017, Congress contributed to the effort by providing the Mexican government with another $130 million through the Mérida Initiative, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.In addition, the Department of Defense increased military funding for the Mexican military, providing nearly$60 million in assistance for the drug war. “Despite DOD’s limited role in the Mérida Initiative, bilateral military cooperation has been increasing,” the report concluded. “Listen, I know how tough these guys are,” Trump said. “Our military will knock them out like you never thought of.” The U.S. military has been using much of the additional Department of Defense funding to provide more training for the Mexican military. In 2017, the U.S. military brought at least a thousand Mexican military forces to the United States for training. “We open our schoolhouses for them,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis explained in September. “We have lessons learned that we share with each other based on various operations.” Earlier this year, General Lori J. Robinson, commander of NORTHCOM, told a congressional committee that U.S. Marines “provided small-unit training to over 1,500 Mexican Marines to help prepare those troops for the fight against the cartels.” U.S. officials insist this approach is working. Although drug-related violence is now at peak levels, they say their programs are helping the Mexican government disrupt the cartels and provide security throughout the country.“ Our cooperation is making citizens on both sides of our border safer,” State Department official John Sullivan said in December 2017.partnership with Mexico has “paid significant dividends for both our nations’ security.” Others disagree. They say the U.S. military assistance is a major factor behind the increase in drug-related violence. And they have long called on the U.S. government to halt its military sales to the Mexican government. “The U.S. role in the militarization of Mexico’s drug war has exacerbated many of Mexico’s problems,” wrote Christy Thornton, a board member at the North American Congress on Latin America, in 2014. “It is time now to accept our responsibility for helping to reverse them.” Trump is clearly disinclined to take such advice, as he continues to rail against Mexico, condemning the country for the growing violence while insisting that the best solution is to build a wall. He recently tweeted, “They must stop the big drug and people flows or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!” At the same time that he is quietly helping the Mexican government intensify the drug war, Trump is working to ensure that the people who suffer unfairly from it will never be able to find refuge inthe United States.
Hunt 18 Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William and Mary, “Trump’s Hidden Hand in Mexico’ Drug War,” April 7, 2018, https://progressive.org/dispatches/trumps-hidden-hand-in-mexicos-drug-war/)
The Trump Administration has been quietly funding the Mexican government’s ongoing drug war, intensifying a conflict that claimed nearly 20,000 lives in 2017 Administration officials rarely speak about their involvement in the war, preferring to keep their role hidden. Their silence and the lack of media attention have allowed the Trump team to hide U.S. involvement without having to answer for the increase in violence. The military operations sparked a steady rise in drug-related violence, quickly transforming Mexico into one of the most violent countries in the world. Since the war began, more than 100,000 Mexicans have died in drug-related violence. In Washington, U.S. officials have been steadily supporting the war with the Mérida Initiative, a multi-billion dollar program that provides the Mexican military with equipment and training. Although the Obama Administration withheld $5 million in program aid in 2015 due to human rights violations by the Mexican military, it preserved the overall program, ensuring that the U.S. remained involved in the war. When the Trump Administration entered office, President Trump indicated that he wanted to increase U.S. involvement. After suggesting that the Mexican military has been “afraid” to go after the cartels, Trump argued that U.S. military forces should get more directly involved. many administration officials agreed they should do more to help the Mexican government confront the drug cartels. They began pressuring the Mexican government to intensify the military operations the Department of Defense increased military funding for the Mexican military, providing nearly$60 million in assistance for the drug war They say the U.S. military assistance is a major factor behind the increase in drug-related violence. And they have long called on the U.S. government to halt its military sales to the Mexican government. At the same time that he is quietly helping the Mexican government intensify the drug war, Trump is working to ensure that the people who suffer unfairly from it will never be able to find refuge inthe United States.
This file was produced by the following students from the 2019 rKs lab in conjunction with and under the instruction of Dr. Shanara Reid Brinkley.
5,041
147
2,106
788
25
326
0.032
0.414
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
The border between the United States and Mexico is a heavily guarded panopticon of surveillance devices designed to control illegal Mexican immigration. Yet, it is evident in the failure to stop undocumented Mexicans from entering the United States, that even after billions of dollars have been poured into militarizing the border, people will stop at almost nothing to feed themselves and their families. Without an ounce of compassion, federal and state agents torture and sometimes gun down undocumented Mexicans as they attempt to enter the United States, and in some cases, they shoot first and investigate later. Murder is made acceptable under the guise of the federally funded war on drugs and war on terror. It is also evident, however, that the attempt to curb Mexican immigration, even with all the funding that has gone into the narco-terror border patrol industry, is merely a symbolic gesture. Only a third of the 2000-mile border dividing Mexico and the United States has an actual fence that obstructs passage. Mexicans endure a host of possible deadly scenarios while crossing the border into the United States in the hope of a better life, including being shot, physically abused and tortured, and even raped at the hands of coyotes who promise safe passage for exorbitant fees. Many also must endure dehydration in the dessert heat or dash perilously across the freeway between speeding cars, their families in tow. Interestingly, although the border patrol became part of the Department of Homeland Security, not one terrorist up to this point in time has been apprehended, nor has any terrorist activity been evidenced, at the U.S.-Mexican border. The militarization of the border patrol is a billion dollar hoax from which numerous national and transnational corporations hugely profit. Karlin (2013a) recounts how both government agencies and private corporations are introducing new surveillance equipment, weapons, and other products to enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. border agents at keeping terrorists out of the United States and winning a war on drugs that U.S. involvement has only intensified, particularly as suppliers of the guns used in this murderous rampage against predominantly Mexican people. Indeed Dawn Paley (2014) chronicles the functions of a drug war capitalism that strategically aims to terrorize the entire region of Latin America in both rural areas and cities in order to secure the capital interests of transnational corporate interests, especially those of extractive industries. Where squatters’ rights as well as the right to own property were once protected in Mexico, entire communities might be razed in a day as narco soldiers identify areas needing tighter control and then fiercely descend on them, armed with U.S. guns. Those who do not want to die either leave or pay for protection. According to McDougal, Shirk, Muggah, and Patterson (2013), the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexico suggests a conservative count of 253,000 guns on average that are taken across the border to Mexico each year, and increas- ingly, these include military-style semi-automatic weapons. We quote Parakilas (2013) in full: Of primary interest to drug traffickers are the so-called assault weapons. These rifles are effectively identical to the standard arms of infantry soldiers the world over, lacking only the provision for automatic or burst fire. Most modern assault weapons fire intermediate cartridges with effective ranges of 300 yards or more, and can be equipped with magazines holding between 30 and 100 rounds, allowing extended fire without reloading—a massive tactical advantage. Other favoured weapons for Mexican drug trafficking organizations include large-calibre sniper rifles and anti- materiel rifles, particularly the .50 caliber Barrett models, which are reputed capable of destroying a car’s engine block with a single shot from a mile away. Semi-automatic personal defense weapons (the civilian versions of submachine guns such as the Heckler and Koch UMP and FN P90) are also frequently recovered by Mexican security forces, along with a wide range of shotguns and semi-automatic pistols. The cost of acquiring such weapons are negligible for trafficking groups whose profits are estimated in the billions of dollars: variants of the AR-15 rifle (the civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16) can be bought brand new for a little over $1000, pistols and shotguns for a few hundred dollars, and the hugely powerful Barrett M82 for about$10,000. Even factoring in the labor cost of the straw purchaser (an individual with a clean criminal record who legally purchases the weapons at an American firearms dealer), the cost of procuring ammunition and the cost of moving the weapons across the border, for traffickers the cost is still incredibly worth it. Combined with the benefits of being able to bulk-purchase weapons in brand-new condition, it is easy to see why buying American is so popular amongst Mexican drug trafficking groups. An exact estimate is difficult to come by, but the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) found in 2011 that 20,504 of 29,984 firearms (68%) recovered in Mexico from 2009-2010 were either manufactured in or imported into the United States before being moved into Mexico. (The Weapons of Choice, paras. 1-5) McDougal et al. (2013) suggest that revenues of legitimate gun sales in the United States would be significantly reduced without this Mexican market. Further corroborating this evidence is the fact that on average, there are more than three licensed gun dealers for every mile along the U.S.-Mexico border. Indeed, the most popular guns used among the drug cartels in Mexico are both manufactured and bought in the United States. It is virtually impossible for the Mexican citizenry to purchase guns in Mexico, and they have only one store that sells guns operated by the Defense Secretariat in Mexico City that serves the military. It bears emphasizing that Mexican citizens are strictly mon- itored in terms of gun ownership. Mexican gun laws pro- hibit the possession of weapons that can fire military-caliber ammunition. Legally, Mexican citizens are restricted to small-caliber handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. Although attempts to keep Mexican migrants out of the United States intensifies, little seems to be done to squelch the straw sales that create this iron river gun trade to Mexico. In a system in which capital accumulation takes priority, the Mexican people become merely collateral damage and expendable. We cite Parakilas (2013) again: The results of this trade are nothing less than horrific. While these arms may be marginally less effective than purpose-built military equipment on account of their lack of selective-fire capability, they are infinitely more dangerous than the small- calibre revolvers and bolt-action rifles available on Mexico’s civilian market. Semi-automatic weapons with high magazine capacity allow for much more indiscriminate fire, and the military-calibre ammunition fired by such weapons are more than capable of penetrating cover and causing casualties unseen or unintended by the shooter. These capabilities increase violence at both the high and low ends of the market: professional sicarios (hit men) become emboldened by their ability to take on police and military forces, while the many who are not are far more dangerous for both their targets and anyone else nearby. This is important because violence in Mexico is not simply an internecine war between drug traffickers. Targeted victims of the conflict have included police officers, journalist, peace activists, and migrant workers. The dead have also included civilians who were either misidentified or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. In all of these cases, the scope and lethality of these attacks are vastly enhanced by easy access to military-grade small arms. (The Weapons of Choice, paras. 6, 7) Sting operations described as “Gunwalking” or “letting guns walk” were part of the tactics of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran some of these operations out of the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF purposely allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers whom they hoped to track inside Mexico to cartel leaders. However, during Operation Fast and Furious, the largest of the “gunwalking” probes, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000 weapons and recovered only 710 of them. And many of the guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the U.S.- Mexican border and at scenes of mass murder inside Mexico. The war on drugs, spawned at the urging and financial backing of the United States has resulted in more than 50,000 mostly civilian deaths, more than 10,000 persons missing, and more than 180,000 people displaced from their homes. This tsunami of pain and destruction can be consid- ered a lucrative business for the United States because it provides the means for expanding military presence, train- ing, and other measures to enable the United States to keep vigilance over an often volatile political arena in Latin America and in this way ensure the “national interests” of the U.S. transnational corporations. That is, securing political stability and power in the hands of U.S. friendly govern- ments ensures open markets and flexible regulations for U.S. corporations. Furthermore, the war on drugs also aids in keeping a citizenry in fear and more willing to acquiesce to authority. Indeed, in some cases, U.S. government offi- cials have aligned themselves and even assisted the drug cartels when it has served the interests of the United States—defined in truth as the interests of the transnational capitalist class.
Monzo et al 17. Lilia D. Monzó, associate professor of education in the College of Educational Studies at Chapman University. Peter McLaren, distinguished professor of education in the, College of Educational Studies, at Chapman University; fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and Commerce (England); and professor emeritus of urban education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Arturo Rodriguez ,associate professor in the Department of Bilingual Education at Boise State University. “Deploying Guns to Expendable Communities,” Cultural Studies, Critical Methodlogies, Volume 17, Issue 2, 201, p. 91-100. CW: mentions of sexual violence) ipartman
The border between the United States and Mexico is a heavily guarded panopticon of surveillance devices designed to control illegal Mexican immigration. ithout an ounce of compassion federal and state agents un down undocumented Mexicans as they attempt to enter the United States, the attempt to curb Mexican immigration even with all the funding that has gone into the narco-terror border patrol industry is a symbolic gesture Mexicans endure possible deadly scenarios including being shot physically abused and tortured and government agencies and private corporations are introducing new surveillance equipment, weapons, and other products to enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. border agents at keeping terrorists out of the United States and winning a war on drugs that U.S. involvement has only intensified as suppliers of the guns used in this murderous rampage against predominantly Mexican people. drug war capitalism strategically aims to terrorize the entire region of Latin America in both rural areas and cities in order to secure the capital interests of transnational corporate interests, especially those of extractive industries. the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexico suggests a conservative count of 253,000 guns on average that are taken across the border to Mexico each year, and increas- ingly, these include military-style semi-automatic weapon assault weapons are effectively identical to the standard arms of infantry soldiers the world over . Most modern assault weapons fire intermediate cartridges with effective ranges of 300 yards or more Other favoured weapons for Mexican drug trafficking organizations include large-calibre sniper rifles and anti- materiel rifles, particularly the .50 caliber Barrett models, which are reputed capable of destroying a car’s engine block with a single shot from a mile away. Semi-automatic personal defense weapons are also frequently recovered Combined with the benefits of being able to bulk-purchase weapons in brand-new condition McDougal et al suggest revenues of legitimate gun sales in the United States would be significantly reduced without this Mexican market the most popular guns used among the drug cartels in Mexico are both manufactured and bought in the United States. It is virtually impossible for the Mexican citizenry to purchase guns in Mexico, and they have only one store that sells guns operated by the Defense Secretariat in Mexico City that serves the military. It bears emphasizing that Mexican citizens are strictly mon- itored in terms of gun ownership. Mexican gun laws pro- hibit the possession of weapons that can fire military-caliber ammunition. Legally, Mexican citizens are restricted to small-caliber handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. these arms are infinitely more dangerous than revolvers and rifles available on Mexico’s civilian market professional sicarios violence in Mexico is not simply an internecine war between drug traffickers Targeted victims of the conflict have included police officers, journalist, peace activists, and migrant workers. The dead have also included civilians who were either misidentified or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. In all of these cases, the scope and lethality of these attacks are vastly enhanced by easy access to military-grade small arms. Sting operations described as “Gunwalking” or “letting guns walk” were part of the tactics of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives many of the guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the U.S.- Mexican border and at scenes of mass murder inside Mexico. The war on drugs spawned at the urging and financial backing of the United States has resulted in more than 50,000 mostly civilian deaths, more than 10,000 persons missing more than 180,000 people displaced from their homes This can be a lucrative business for the United States because it provides the means for expanding military presence, train- ing, and other measures to enable the United States to keep vigilance over an often volatile political arena in Latin America and in this way ensure the “national interests” of the U.S. transnational corporations. securing political stability and power in the hands of U.S. friendly govern- ments ensures open markets and flexible regulations for U.S. corporations. the war on drugs also aids in keeping a citizenry in fear and more willing to acquiesce to authority.
Imperialism in Mexico is not just a one-off investment in the sapping of military aid but the lifeforce of drug war capitalism – the supply of American arms aids in intensifying the stakes for both sides of the drug war. Under the cloak of “democracy”, the US exports racism, patriarchy, capitalism, and other antagonisms to the Global South in order to squash dissent and defends its international position as world’s superpower.
9,849
431
4,481
1,559
71
693
0.046
0.445
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Helland and Lindgren 16 Leonardo E. Figueroa Helland, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Westminster College, M.A. Arizona State University, Ph.D. Arizona State University Westminster College, Tim Lindgren, Research Assistant at Westminster College, What Goes Around Comes Around: From The Coloniality of Power to the Crisis of Civilization, Journal of World-Systems Research, 2016, Vol 22 Issue 2, p. 431-438) ipartman
The will of dominion over Mexico is supplanted by a logic of exportation of Western civilization to the global south. The fungibility-machine of neoliberal economics is forced down the throats of the third world, enforcing a rule of law maintained through slavery, conquest, and dominance. The emphasis on top-down solutions to the supposed crisis is the generative point of modern crisis – peak oil, economic instability, regional disputes, the displacement of ecologies and social configurations, and the metabolic rift of extinction arise from a logic of universality that valorizes the US as the locus of expertise. The only response to such is critical decolonization of American rule of law.
20,340
698
8,956
2,660
109
1,200
0.041
0.451
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Lystrup 15. Lauren; University of California, Irvine, Doctor of Law (JD), 2015 – 2018. DePaul University Master's degree, Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, 2013 – 2015. University of California, Santa Cruz B.A. Feminist Studies, Education Minor, Law, Politics and Social Change, 2007 – 2011. "Decolonial Futures and the Law: Reflections on Mitigating Projects of Coloniality" (2015). http://via.library.depaul.edu/soe_etd/77~~) ipartman
Death is not a symptom or consequence of modernity, but rather its intrinsic and foundational nature. Bringing decolonial political dissent to the acceptable terms of negotiation is oxymoronic and only serves to expand the authority of the colonist. Coloniality is not merely a power relation but makes normal and necessary war, imprisonment, and exploitation. Reasonable political desires of decolonality will never be met.
8,774
425
4,818
1,272
63
701
0.05
0.551
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Lystrup 15. Lauren, University of California, Irvine, Doctor of Law (JD), 2015 – 2018. DePaul University Master's degree, Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, 2013 – 2015. University of California, Santa Cruz B.A. Feminist Studies, Education Minor, Law, Politics and Social Change, 2007 – 2011. "Decolonial Futures and the Law: Reflections on Mitigating Projects of Coloniality" (2015). http://via.library.depaul.edu/soe_etd/77) ipartman
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its Foreign Military Arm Sales and Direct Commercial Sales to Mexico to decolonize Mexico.
6,955
161
3,522
1,023
23
510
0.022
0.499
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Collard 15. Rosemary-Claire Collard, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment (Concordia University, Montreal), Jessica Dempsey, Assistant Professor in the School of Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria, & Juanita Sundberg, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, “A Manifesto for Abundant Futures,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 105, Issue 2, 2015, p. 322-330) ipartman
What would Mexico look like without the omnipresent shadow of US imperialism? Responding to such an impossible proposition requires us to take up the possibility of an abundant future: a framework for decolonizing transformation grounded in and understood by the pluriverses of grassroots indigenous struggles from Mexico to Ethiopia to Bolivia. The prospect of an abundant future is a dirty one, one that confronts wildness in order to remember the autonomy of Others – this changes the question in the debate to subjective decolonization that works to break down settler power dynamics.
14,113
589
5,981
2,114
92
880
0.044
0.416
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Pinkard 13. 2013, Lynice Pinkard, “Revolutionary Suicide: Risking Everything to Transform Society and Live Fully”, Tikkun 2013 Volume 28, Number 4: 31-41, http://tikkun.dukejournals.org/content/28/4/31.full
Only being willing to risk total extinction for an ethic of revolutionary suicide can create a life that’s worth living, prevent the inevitable destruction of our society, and mobilize us as subjects towards revolutionary change. Because the violence of consumer society is structured around distancing ourselves from sacrifice you should factor in your own subject position when assessing impacts and overcompensate in favor of preventing violence against the third world.
39,279
474
9,065
6,298
70
1,490
0.011
0.237
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Santos 3. 2003, Boaventura de Souza Santos is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Coimbra, “Collective Suicide?”, Bad Subjects, Issue # 63 ,http://www.ces.fe.uc.pt/opiniao/bss/072en.php
According to Hinkelammert the West has been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was in Stalinism, with the Gulag and in Nazism, with the holocaust this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the western illusion destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion that is manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to its ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures it is the outcome of the market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge and on the radical rejection of alternatives it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to infinitely reproduce the status quo. the West has experienced three versions of this logic Stalinism Nazism and neoliberalism At all these moments a death drive, a catastrophic heroism predominates, the idea of a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations" referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians Is it possible to fight this death drive? sacrificial destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. is as though hegemonic powers both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where there is no room for what must be destroyed period of primitive accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.
Your ballot should refuse to validate a moralizing politics of sacrifice that makes the extinction of all life inevitable.
5,141
123
3,555
836
19
580
0.023
0.694
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Carlos 14 Alfredo, Q. A. Shaw McKean Jr. Fellow at the Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine “Mexico “Under Siege”: Drug Cartels or U.S. Imperialism?,” March 2014, Latin American Perspectives, 41(2): 43-59) ipartman
The original U.S. discourse on Mexico dates back to the 1800s when Mexicans were depicted as an “uncivilized species This discourse set the stage for the creation of a “culture of empire,” in which the United States made a concerted effort to dominate Mexico economically and subordinate it to U.S. corporate interests Sometimes this is done with the help of Mexican politicians as in Calderón’s extension of the discourse of the “war on drugs.” Mexico is suffering much more from extreme economic inequality caused by U.S. economic imperialism and capital extraction the N A F T A , the I M F , the World Bank than from drug-related violence While some people may leave Mexico out of fear of violence the vast majority of the millions of emigrants left because of the necessity to feed their families. The discourse about drug-related violence detracts from the recognition of this fact skewed coverage is just another example of how the U.S. media , and their representatives in Congress increasingly subscribe to a tabloid view of Mexico drug and corruption stories have increased every year The D o D statement is noteworthy because it goes on to lay the groundwork for potential military intervention in the event that Mexico descends into chaos The problem here is who gets to define “chaos.” The D E A is already preparing for such an event maintaining a presence in Mexico Representing Mexico as a potential “failing state” in the midst of violent anarchy provides the U.S. justification for continued economic paternalism The U.S. media and government have become effective in manufacturing consent necessary for action in Mexico whether neoliberal development or military intervention
Securitized representations of Mexican cartels like <<insert cartels they talk about>> and instability are covers for violent US military and economic colonialism
8,134
163
1,694
1,282
22
278
0.017
0.217
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Correa-Cabrerac 12 Guadalupe, Professor-researcher and director of the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Brownsville.“The Spectacle of Drug Violence: American Public Discourse, Media, and Border Enforcement in the Texas-Tamaulipas Border Region During Drug-War Times,” http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1870-35502012000200007&script=sci_arttext)
the media influence and manipulate public opinion media images play a powerful role in shaping national discourse the mainstream corporate media today in the United States process events, news, and information in the form of media spectacle by technologically mediated events the corporate media in the U.S. has been exploiting fear for decades in their excessive presentation of murder and violence and dramatization of a wide range of threats from foreign enemies This tendency has intensified since September 11 The perception of the existence of a continuing terrorist threat and the incorporation of this idea into U.S. American public discourse have created a media spectacle the idea of a terrorist strike from the south has combined with the unprecedented levels of drug violence in Mexico and the perception that this violence could soon spill across the U.S.-Mexico border this media spectacle is fed by exaggerated -and inaccurate statements about the situation in Mexico To say kidnappings and mass assassination of migrants are being perpetrated only by the Zetas is an oversimplification of the problem the claim that this phenomenon is occurring nationwide is misguided When talking about the Zetas, we need more analysis and fewer exaggerated assertions that quickly become part of the media spectacle we would need to further explain the Zetas' practices, motivations, and origins, as well as their impact on the current situation of drug violence in Mexico That Mexico is becoming a "failed state," is a common theme reiterated in periodicals The argument does not have to do with the consequences of this critical problem for Mexico. What matters are the negative effects the Mexican drug war could have on the United States spillover violence is an important concern for U.S. citizens But it has been negligible U.S. Americans are still concerned about the phenomenon one that barely exists Concern about this almost non-existent situation is driven by the alarming and exaggerated statements made by .S. officials who present a spectacular view of how drug violence in Mexico is spiraling out of control and is an imminent threat to U.S. national security
Zetas scenario is a link – be skeptical of their spectacular impacts that exaggerate the Zeta threat based on US interests
8,018
122
2,176
1,275
21
346
0.016
0.271
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Is there drug violence in Mexico? Yes, but this does not make Mexico a “failing state.” While people are victims of drug violence in Mexico, in the United States they are also victims of drug, gang, or random violence and more recently of mass shootings. Both countries experience senseless violence that stems from complex societal and political dynamics that cannot be easily simplified. It is essential that the dominant narrative be deconstructed in order to see why such narratives are perpetuated to begin with, which in the case of Mexico brings us back to continued economic domination. Implications of the Dominant Discourse The importance of the drug-related violence story lies in its masking the nature of U.S. involvement in Mexico’s social and economic problems. It perpetuates a relationship of imperialism between the United States and Mexico that manifests itself in NAFTA, International Monetary Fund and World Bank lending policies, and direct intervention in Mexico’s “sovereign” internal politics disguised as economic development and military assistance to help bring order to Mexico. Mexican politicians have bought the story and have been willing collaborators with economic development to “help” Mexico. Former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and his Institutional Revolutionary Party vigorously pursued NAFTA as a mechanism for injecting foreign capital into Mexico’s ailing economy (Castañeda, 1993). Jaime Serra, a former secretary of trade, and J. Enrique Espinoza, an economist formerly on the council of economic advisers to the president of Mexico, have fervently proclaimed NAFTA a resounding success (Serra and Espinoza, 2002a), pointing to increased foreign direct investment as evidence. However, free trade has led only to the enrichment of a few monopolistic corporations in the United States while the economic situation of Mexico’s people deteriorates (Robledo, 2006). Gilbert Gonzalez and Raul Fernandez (2003: 54) argue that “NAFTA is just one of the most recent examples of U.S. domination over Mexico and how it continues to misdevelop and tear apart the socioeconomic integrity of that society.” They describe NAFTA as having two purposes: to “guarantee a free hand to U.S. enterprises willing and able to invest in Mexico to take advantage of that country’s cheaper wages” and to “deny in various forms and degrees to other economic powers the advantage of operations in and exporting from Mexico.” In effect this means continuing Mexico’s long history as a U.S. economic colony, providing cheap labor, raw materials, and manufactures for consumption in the United States while restricting Mexico’s access to the U.S. market. NAFTA called for the privatization of state companies and the flexibilization of the labor market through “restrictions on wage increases, curtailment of vacations and sick-leave time, extensions of workweek, and increased management powers” (Gonzalez and Fernandez, 2003: 55). This process was supposed to lead to an opening for investment, economic growth, and access to diversified export markets for Mexico. The effects of NAFTA on Mexico have, however, been overwhelmingly negative. While foreign direct investment has increased from US$3.5 billion to about US$13 billion annually, as Serra and Espinoza point out, this does not necessarily translate into growth for the Mexican economy. This is in part because money invested in Mexico comes mainly in the form of loans that have to be repaid, often with high interest, and is invested with the aim of extracting capital rather than allowing it to circulate within the Mexican economy—a concept known to economists as the multiplier effect, also considered a major factor for growth. So while foreign direct investment has in fact increased, it is not an accurate measure of the impacts of NAFTA on the Mexican economy because it does not automatically translate into Mexican economic growth. Mexico has the largest trade deficit in Latin America, a mediocre annual growth rate of 1.1 percent of its gross domestic product, and inflation of 15 percent from 1994 to 2003, placing it sixteenth out of thirty-two countries in Latin America in annual growth (Arroyo-Picard, 2005). Since the passage of NAFTA, Mexico has averaged 10 percent inflation annually while having a growth rate of 0.76 percent from 1994 to 2013 (Trading Economics, 2013a; 2013b). As far as opening its markets is concerned, Mexico remains the least diversified exporter in Latin America, with 89 percent of its exports going to the United States (Arroyo-Picard, 2005). NAFTA has largely led to deindustrialization. Of Mexico’s 1,100 capital-goods plants, 396 have closed down, while 17,000 enterprises of all kinds went bankrupt shortly after the crisis (Gonzalez and Fernandez, 2003: 57). The impact of NAFTA on Mexican agriculture has been greater because agricultural production was once the foundation of Mexico’s national development. State investment in agriculture was reduced by 95.5 percent and credit made available to the rural sector by 64.4 percent (Quintana, 2004: 251). Disinvestment in Mexican agriculture has meant that agricultural enterprises are unable to compete with subsidized U.S. commodities. The United States maintains domestic subsidies that allow it to export corn at 30 percent below the cost of production, wheat at 40 percent below, and cotton at 57 percent below—a practice known as “asymmetrical trading” and “dumping” and deemed illegal in world commerce (Fernandez and Whitesell, 2008). Serra and Espinoza (2002b) suggest that this is a nonissue because of NAFTA’s tariff-rate quota system, which charges tariffs for exceeding the import quotas. However, Cavanaugh and Anderson (2002) point out that under NAFTA the tariffs were mandated to be phased out in 2008, and even while they were intact the Mexican government declined to collect them. The outcome has been the disappearance of profitability for Mexican national agricultural producers. Five years after NAFTA, corn had lost 64 percent of its value and beans lost 46 percent while at the same time prices of staple consumer goods rose 257 percent (Quintana, 2004: 256). Despite these figures the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR, 2006) points to the growth of Mexican agricultural exports to the United States by US$5.6 billion during the past 12 years as proof of the success of NAFTA. However, producers continue to abandon agricultural endeavors en masse, vacating 1.6 million previously cultivated hectares (3.95 million acres) in the first eight years of NAFTA (Quintana, 2004: 256). Peter Goodman (2007) tells the story of Ruben Rivera, "who sat on a bench in a forlorn plaza, rather than working on his seven-acre farm. He used to grow tomatoes and onions, hiring 150 workers to help at harvest. Now he doesn’t even bother to plant. He can buy onions in the supermarket more cheaply than he can grow them. A crop of tomatoes yields less than the taxes. He lives off the$800 sent home monthly by his three sons, who run a yard work business in Macon, Ga." Stories like this have become all too common. As Quintana (2004: 256) puts it, “One of the historically great agricultural civilizations of the world [now places] its food supplies in foreign hands.” Mexico now imports 95 percent of its edible oils, 40 percent of its beef, pork, and other meat products, 30 percent of its corn, and 50 percent of its rice. NAFTA has resulted in the “complete inability of the Mexican nation to produce the food required to feed its own people” (Gonzalez and Fernandez, 2003: 57). In the end, “free trade” has made Mexico a completely open market for U.S. products while U.S. producers are guarded against Mexico’s products by subsidies and tariffs. NAFTA was never meant as a development policy for Mexico or a policy to help cure its social ills. It was a policy of U.S. economic expansion for the purpose of deepening U.S. hegemony while allowing the continued extraction of capital. It was promoted by huge U.S. multinational corporations as benevolent economic development to allow them to integrate themselves into the Mexican market without having to deal with that country’s requirements and legislative issues. Mark Weisbrot (2004) of the Center of Economic Policy Research in Washington suggests that, had Mexico’s economy "grown at the same pace from 1980 to the present as it did in the period from 1960 to 1980, today it would have the same standard of living as Spain. . . . To have 25 years of this rotten economic performance, you’d have to conclude something is wrong. . . . It is hard to make the case that Mexico’s aggregate economic performance would have been even worse without NAFTA." Not only has NAFTA not accomplished the growth propulsion its supporters promised in Mexico but it has had devastating social costs for Mexican society. Poverty in rural areas has risen significantly from 37 percent in 1992 to 52.4 percent in 2002, with 86.2 percent of rural inhabitants living in poverty (Quintana, 2004: 257). NAFTA has left nearly half of Mexico’s 106 million people, 51 percent of the total population in 2010, living in poverty, causing the mass displacement of workers and forced migration (Dickerson, 2006; World Bank, 2013). Since 1994 an average of 600 peasants a day (at least 1.78 million people) have migrated from rural areas, many to northern cities along the U.S.-Mexican border and others into the United States (Quintana, 2004: 258). Migration means family disintegration and the destruction of the social fabric of Mexico. Many of these jobless displaced workers will try their luck at crossing a militarized border into the United States. Peter Goodman (2007), interviewing Luz Maria Vazquez, a tomato picker from Jalisco, reports that six of her brothers and sisters are in the United States, most of them without papers. More than 11 million Mexicans (a conservative estimate) now live in the United States without documents, and 7 million of them immigrated after NAFTA, between 1994 and 2005 (Passel, 2006).4 Clearly the politics in Mexico are much more complex than the drug story in the United States makes them out to be. Conclusion The dominant discourse about Mexico in the United States has a long history and has affected the way Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Chicanos are viewed and treated. While much has changed since the 1800s, the current discourse about Mexico serves the same basic purpose. The United States legitimizes its expansionist economic foreign policy in terms of the burden of civilizing, uplifting, and promoting development in less developed countries, beginning with its neighbor to the south (Gonzalez, 2004: 185). It employs a foreign policy that advances its imperialist interests. U.S. government and media agencies generate a representation of Mexico that has provided avenues for very specific courses of action. Promoting a discourse of a “chaotic,” “unruly,” “failing state” has provided justification for direct U.S. military intervention, especially along the border, now potentially with armed drones (O’Reilly, 2013), and legitimized the penetration of U.S. capital interests in Mexico at the expense of Mexico’s own economy and, more important, its people. Even at its most basic level, we can only call this imperialism. While Mexico has an ineffective justice system, government corruption, and crime and drug-related violence, these are problems that most modern nation-states also face. In fact, the United States is itself heavily implicated in the drug trade, holding by far the largest stocks of cocaine in the world and being Mexico’s primary market (INCB, 2008). It is also the largest supplier of arms not just to Mexico but to all of Latin America (Chomsky, 2012). Latin American countries are working together toward the decriminalization of drugs, which has produced very promising results in Portugal, while, in stark contrast, ”the coercive procedures of the 40-year U.S. drug war have had virtually no effect . . . while creating havoc through the continent” (Chomsky, 2012). But the conversation doesn’t revolve around what the United States can do to clean up its own act; it is about “othering” Mexico. The United States has had a tremendous impact on Mexico’s internal dynamics regarding migration, unemployment, poverty, and crime. Its economic imperialism has contributed to the weakness of Mexico’s economy and as a result its internal politics. NAFTA has stunted Mexican economic growth and led to the mass displacement of workers, forcing them into job markets that they would not have considered had they had access to jobs with dignity. For many it has led to migration to the United States, while for others it has meant lives of crime and violence. But no one discusses this, and it gets no media coverage because the focus is not on the failed U.S.-imposed neoliberal economy but on drug-related violence. This is done purposefully, since the story does specific work and is perpetuated because it benefits U.S. economic interests and works as a mechanism of justification for continued U.S. imperialism. For the most part, the concerns that the vast majority of people experience the vast majority of the time on a daily basis are not about these drug-violence outrages. Instead they are economic—how they will pay their bills and clothe, shelter, and feed their families. Even in the conversation about immigration reform, no one discusses the fundamental right that people have to live and grow in the place they consider home. No one discusses that people choose to migrate only when they have no other options. U.S. imperialism has led to people’s having no other option. Representing Mexico as a “failing state” allows the United States to evade responsibility for creating many of these problems in Mexico while also providing a powerful story to convince American citizens and Mexican politicians that U.S. economic intervention in Mexico is necessary. The irony of it all is that NAFTA continues to be justified through a narrative of a chaotic and violent Mexico needing economic programs of development to solve its social problems, when in fact it is the penetration of U.S. capital that has caused many of those problems. The meta-narrative helps to perpetuate an asymmetrical power relationship between Mexico and the United States. The dominant discourse provides the veil for this “imperial encounter” to become a mission of salvation rather than of economic conquest. In the end, the way Mexico is represented in the United States has little to do with its actual internal political or social dynamics, instead it is a means to expand and maintain U.S. imperialism in Mexico. Over the past 150 years, one thing that has stayed the same is Mexico’s position as an economic colony of the United States, a place to go for cheap labor, raw materials, and cheap manufactures for consumption at home. Focusing on drugs and violence obscures this. While Mexico does have serious issues of drug-related crime, this crime is not the most severe of Mexico’s problems. Those problems are poverty and unemployment and the country’s inability, for the first time in its history, to feed its own people. Mexico is indeed “under siege”—not by drug lords but by U.S. economic interests—and this has had disastrous social costs for the Mexican people. This is not, however, the discourse we engage in. That discourse is purposefully absent.
Carlos 14 Alfredo, Q. A. Shaw McKean Jr. Fellow at the Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine “Mexico “Under Siege”: Drug Cartels or U.S. Imperialism?,” March 2014, Latin American Perspectives, 41(2): 43-59) ipartman
Mexican instability discourse is a neoliberal ruse – differentiating US drug violence from Mexico is not neutral but continues a legacy of economic imperialism that is a larger internal link to violence
15,472
202
4,462
2,469
32
701
0.013
0.284
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
I agree with their assessments, but would also add that what we see here, as we can with the many other examples of these forms of identity appropriation, is that the work of settler memory is fundamental to the reproduction and legitimation of settler colonial assemblage through a relationship to the past that is not about forgetting. It is a powerful form of national remembering. In the contemporary era, I would include politics itself as among the facets of existence that settler colonialism colonizes. That is, settler colonial assemblage defines and seeks to bound that which is legitimately subject for debate and contestation as it concerns the distribution and role of power, identity, interest and institutions. Before one can even ask the question of settler colonial violence, dispossession, and appropriation, the question may be rendered moot, outside the bounds of legitimate, or realistic, politics. In this light, my suggestion here is that the response to such appropriations as that of Geronimo's name should not be to ask the White House for an apology, and thus concede the status of this statist institution. Instead, the association should be embraced, in one key respect. To embrace the association is not to stand in alliance with Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda at all or the US military, but rather to re-assert the fact that Geronimo was, indeed, an enemy of American statism and settler colonialism. It is to maintain the political posture of friend versus enemy, and to render as important and necessary the status and actions of what political theorist Joel Olson called the zealot or fanatic as an important political category that holds out the possibility for more radical transformation of the political order.27 It is to say that the use of Geronimo's name is not simply the sign of an absence of respect or sensitivity for Indigenous people, but is more evidence of the active presence of settler colonial assemblage in the specific form of US liberal colonialism. In sum, in critiquing the problem with the Codename Geronimo case, we should seek to avoid either reproducing a politics of recognition and multicultural discourse or diagnosing it as a sign of collective amnesia, as if only people knew all the ‘facts’ of history things would be fine, or better. Rather, in this regard, LaDuke and Harjo get it right I believe in emphasizing the persistent posture of American warfare against Indigenous people. While this is a difficult framework to ponder, it is the appropriate one for a decolonizing, unsettling politics which insists on drawing clear lines for and against settler colonialism. In this sense, the unsettling response here is to put settler memory front and center as an active contemporary practice, in which Geronimo's name is utilized by the US military because the invocation of his legend habitually calls forth – possibly unlike any single figure in US-Indigenous history – the appropriative violence of settler colonial conquest that fundamentally shapes, as an active verb in the twenty-first century, the political development and status of American liberal colonialism.
Bruyneel 15. Kevin, professor of history @ Babson College ‘Codename Geronimo: settler memory and the production of American statism,’ Settler Colonial Studies, Special Issue on Globalizing Unsettlement) ipartman
the work of settler memory is fundamental to the reproduction and legitimation of settler colonial assemblage through a relationship to the past that is not about forgetting. It is a powerful form of national remembering. settler colonialism defines and seeks to bound that which is legitimately subject for debate and contestation as it concerns the distribution and role of power, identity, interest and institutions. Before one can even ask the question of settler colonial dispossession the question may be rendered moot, outside the bounds of legitimate realistic, politics the response should not be to concede the status of institution. Instead to re-assert It is to maintain the political posture of friend versus enemy possibility for more radical transformation of the political order. emphasizing the persistent posture of American warfare against Indigenous people this is a difficult framework to ponder it is the appropriate one for a decolonizing, unsettling politics which insists on drawing clear lines for and against settler colonialism. unsettling response here is to put settler memory front and center as an active contemporary practice, in which the US military habitually calls forth the appropriative violence of settler colonial conquest that fundamentally shapes liberal colonialism.
Argumentation is not neutral but pre-committed to systems of American memory. Settler colonial assemblages define and set the terms for what may be “legitimately” subject for contestation by granting primacy to settler institutions and state-forms – the impact is the death-making regime of liberal colonialism.
3,136
312
1,311
507
45
196
0.089
0.387
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Livingston 12 Alex, prof of govt @ Cornell. Avoiding Deliberative Democracy? Micropolitics, Manipulation, and the Public Sphere, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 45, No. 3 (2012), pp. 269-294, Project MUSE)
extant accounts of communicative politics are insufficient Intellectualism is the grand failing of deliberative democracy To say that deliberative democracy is guilty of intellectualism is not to say that it is blind to questions of power, or identity, or difference but rather that deliberative models of democracy are working with a faulty conception of thinking They have been captured by the image of thought the idea that thinking is an autonomous, linguistically mediated process of mind that is oriented toward coherence and truth Deliberative thinking takes place at one relatively transparent register where our reasons for action can be compared, reasoned about, and revised through the force of the better argument. This image of thought fails to see how thought is a layered process of neural, perceptual, and embodied activity not reducible to conceptual ratiocination alone Attempts to give priority to the highest and conceptually most sophisticated brain nodules in thinking and judgment,” may encourage those invested in these theories to underestimate the importance of body image, unconscious motor memory, and thought-imbued affect thinking is distributed across multiple registers that make possible “visceral modes of appraisal It is these deep, intensive, and reactive visceral modes of thinking and judgment that the deliberative image of thinking overlooks Disgust is a visceral response that makes your stomach turn. It seems to well up inside you without your willing it The values and beliefs of others can sometimes stimulate this kind of feeling, We're unable to provide defensible reasons for our responses visceral and embodied responses like disgust, shame, and hatred come to play a role in political decision making and that a deliberative approach is poorly equipped to deal with them. Deliberative democrats either require that these sorts of affective feelings are purged from the public sphere as unfortunate distortions of real communication or they suggest that they can be subject to deliberation and argument just as any other sort of belief, interest, or prejudice can be. both of these approaches are bound to fail. Visceral reactions are not conceptually sophisticated thoughts and as such are not amenable to deliberation, argumentation, or verbal persuasion Deliberative democrats need to learn “how much more there is to thinking than argument” and to begin experimenting with alternative forms of political engagement Because political judgment is so often carried out at the level of this visceral or virtual register, deliberation cannot provide a privileged or efficacious form of participation, justification, or transformation recent findings in neuroscience that suggest a more intimate relationship between reason, the emotions, and the body than the intellectualist account assumes a closer engagement with neurology and cognitive science will provide grounds for a more adequate account of subjectivity, reason, and ethics The kind of thinking that intellectualists privilege—sophisticated, conceptual, reflective, deliberative, and linguistically mediated thought—pertains to the activity of the largest part of the brain, the cerebral cortex It is through the rich and complex layers of neural activity in the cortex that we can perform intricate activities like planning, speaking, reasoning, and arguing. cortical activity is not autonomous and is in fact in some ways subservient to the parts of the brain that control emotions, memory, and affect. the cortex responds to information from the limbic system the limbic system enables the fast, intensive, and reactive action of affects. this is not to say that the limbic system is entirely thoughtless. It is not concerned with sophisticated, conceptual, and deliberative thinking, but its actions certainly are symbolically mediated or “thought imbued” in some sense These intense affective responses are not entirely biologically determined but instead take a fair deal of cultural learning. The limbic system in a sense learns or records cultural standards of what is dangerous and what is disgusting and then habituates them as automated response human reason is not pure and autonomous but rather is shaped in a complex way at the neural level by the influence of the emotions and affects what this means for politics is that the emotions and affects that shape and guide thinking are themselves deeply influenced by values and opinions that we may or may not actually want to endorse valid and sound argumentation is at a loss to dislodge them and the force of the better argument may be powerless to persuade us to respect, tolerate, or trust each other in the ways that democratic cooperation require. Culturally preorganized charges shape perception and judgment in ways that exceed the picture of the world supported by the models of calculative reason, intersubjective culture, and deliberative democracy. the inability of practical reason to influence these potentially dangerous or hateful “culturally preorganized charges” points to its undoing Connolly's objection to the deliberative turn in democratic theory boil down to his belief that too much focus on the terms of justification and legitimation ignores the everyday sensibilities expressed and reproduced in the actions of citizens the sensibility that determines how it is that we hold our beliefs or “creed” is unreflectively informs this visceral register of judgment and thinking the failing of the left in America today is due in no small part to its resistance to accepting the role of the visceral register in it is still caught up in a potentially antiquated search for some better argument that would bring reason and truth together to serve the ends of justice Neoliberals and neoconservatives on the American right have overcome their traditional antagonism to draw on this resentment and channel it into a shared spirituality of revenge that vilifies foreigners, immigrants, nonwhites, women, queers, liberals, and secularists Twenty-four-hour news shows, aggressive and partisan pundits, and the constant fluctuation of terror alerts all combine to excite, code, and steer visceral fear and anxiety. Marketers and advertisers have long drawn on findings in psychology, neurobiology, and related fields to manufacture the desires their commodities satisfy the manipulation of intensive reactions and affect has been crucial in sus-taining consent for America's open-ended “war on terror.” Techniques of affective persuasion that function through “sub-discursive modes of communication” are ubiquitous and powerful in the modern world (2008, 66). T
Their model of debate presumes that rationalist communication can provide us with proximate truths. This ignores that how we come to think and act is formed primarily by affective associations that are instantiated through discursive repetitions. It’s not through logical reason that settlers attach themselves to emotional communities associated with belonging, nor is it through rational dialogue that the settler state recruits and incorporates new subjects. Only a focus on disrupting the affective formations that constellate how we think and act can solve. Neuroscience proves.
13,698
584
6,645
2,079
85
1,010
0.041
0.486
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Chow 12. Rey, Professor and Director of the Program in Literature at Duke, “Sacrifice Mimesis, and the Theorizing of Victimhood (A Speculative Essay).”
In the discussions of colonized existence, mimesis has likewise played a significant role in theorists’ attempts to configure a breathing space for those who have been subjected to injustice. cross-cultural encounters entail the imposition and enforcement of one group’s (typically, Westerners’) superiority over another (typically, the “natives” of African, Asian, American, Australian, and New Zealand cultures), mimesis is a routine rite of initiation: those from the so-called “inferior” group, the colonized or semi-colonized, are bound to want to imitate their “superior” aggressors as part of their strategy for social survival and advancement. Under these circumstances, the question is how agency can be assessed: must agency be understood to lie only with the so-called original the “superior” group, the one being imitated), or can it also be understood to reside in the act of imitation—in those who imitate? What kind of agency? various levels of mimesis traverse this kind of situation. a direct legacy of Western imperialism and colonialism of the past few hundred years—the mimesis with the white man as the original. The logistics involved are time-proven: the white colonizer, his language, and his culture stand as the model against which the colonized is judged; the colonized must try her best to become like her master even when knowing full well that her efforts at emulation will be deemed less than satisfactory the values involved—“superior” and “inferior”—are hierarchically determined and tend to work in one direction only: the “original,” so to speak, exists as the authentic standard by which the imitator is judged but not vice versa. The colonized subject, condemned to a permanent inferiority complex, must nonetheless try, in vain, to become that from which she has been excluded in an a priori manner. Try as she may, she will always remain a poor copy; yet even as she continues to be debased, she has no choice but to continue to mimic. as theorists no longer feel comfortable dismissing the colonized as merely inadequate, mimesis on a more complex set of connotations As Fanon writes, for the person of color (in his case, the black man) “there is only one destiny. And that is white.” The ambivalent identification of the racist world … turns on the idea of man as his alienated image; not Self and Other but the otherness of the Self inscribed in the perverse palimpsest of colonial identity” desire in this instance serves as the very grounds on which to reappraise the value of dominated subjecthood Instead of being written off as the inferior partner in an asymmetrical historical encounter with the West, the colonized is now understood, with much more suppleness and sympathy, in terms of a desire to be white that exists concurrently with the shame and resentment accompanying the inferior position to which she has been socially, culturally, and racially consigned Whereas at the first level of mimesis, relations between the colonizer and the colonized remain immobilized in a static hierarchy, the introduction of desire transforms the entire question of mimesis into a fluid, because vacillating, structure, in which the entangled feelings of wanting at once to imitate the colonizer and to eliminate him become the basis for a new kind of analysis, with the tormented psychic interiority of the colonized as its center. By focusing on the colonized person as an indeterminate, internally divided subject, a subject that is not self-identical critics enable what may be called a poststructuralist redemption of colonial victimhood that is thoroughly humanistic in implications The question remains as to how this liberalist rendering of victimhood can ultimately distinguish itself from the productivity of colonial power much as this survival kit of mimetic tricks has been greatly influential in contemporary cultural criticism, as a coping mechanism it still by and large leaves in place the inequities of the situation—one that remains governed by man or the white man as the original, with the important proviso that the playful imitation by women or the not-quite-right imitation by colonized subjects is now deemed, at least by some, to be equally deserving of critical attention Insofar as it is a coping mechanism, moreover, mimesis seems to have retained the quality of a secondary phenomenon whose raison d’être is derived from something external to itself. mimesis continues to be accorded a subaltern and instrumentalist status.
Mimesis DA: Even in retreat, the colonized must always try to become like the master. The suppleness of colonization adds another insidious dimension to this mimetic dynamic—the colonized is tolerated as shameful and resentful, but only insofar as they feelings are repressed, leaving behind the structural inequity of the situation, tormenting the colonized subject at the very center.
8,547
387
4,494
1,327
58
713
0.044
0.537
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Hammersmith 7 (Jerome, PhD in Education from U South Africa CONVERGING INDIGENOUS AND WESTERN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR TERTIARY EDUCATION, http://iportal.usask.ca/docs/Hammersmith/Hammersmith.pdf) ipartman
In this study Indigenous knowledge is treated as an integral aspect of the ontological theory held by Indigenous people. Knowing is relational and participatory. Through participation, Indigenous students come to understand knowledge as a means of strengthening ecological balance. Indigenous knowledge is gained from a way of living and being in the world; learning is understood as participation, and it is in this forum that human beings influence the manifestation of the physical reality. Indigenous epistemology is explored through engaging and participating in a process that is a reflection of Indigenous ways of building knowledge Recurring negative feedback in the relationships with the external knowledge systems brought to bear on Indigenous Nations and peoples, (relationships which have not always effectively addressed many of their special needs, languages, learning styles and cultures), have resulted in extensive marginalization of their knowledge systems. This has, in turn, contributed to the marginalization of cultural integrity. In considering the cross-cultural knowledge systems in Saskatchewan, this study reviews observations made by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians (FSI), the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), R . It points out that attempts at ‘bridging’ between cultures often suffered, and continues to suffer, from a colonial ‘one-way bridge’ perception that assumes that change is required only in respect of Indigenous people. Often when attempting to include Indigenous content within Western knowledge systems curricula in Canada, educators have ignored the fact that such content is only meaningful within an Indigenous context and process the humanities and fine arts have all been presented and evaluated primarily from Western perspectives Ermine’s paper points out that Poole (1972: 3-7) earlier suggested the idea of ‘ethical space’ in seeing that an ‘ethical space’ is formed when two different kinds of space created by different worldviews intersect each other. Ermine’s paper conceives this intersection taking shape when the Western world meets the Indigenous mind. He finds this intersection, where the two worlds meet, an interesting and significant location for theorizing appropriate research and development solutions. He says that the confluence of Indigenous and Western worlds and the encounter between two worldviews can theoretically represent a space of flux where nothing is yet formed or understood. the encounter of cultures at a space where no definitive rules exist to guide an interaction can appropriately represent an opportunity for understanding and the place for negotiation of intercultural activity. He points out that this will entail the examination of structures and systems in attempts to remove all vestiges of colonial and imperial forms of knowledge production in any research and development that contemplates crossing cultural borders. He concludes that the ‘ethical space’ or place of convergence of two societies with two worldviews can also represent a location from which meaningful dialogue between communities can take place, enabling a new research and development order that ethically engages different knowledge systems. He observes that these are knowledge systems embedded in communities characterised by distinct and different political, historical, linguistic, cultural, social and economic realities Ermine’s paper says that although there have been many good attempts by sincere people trying to build bridges, these undercurrents are powerful and keep washing away good intentions. He continues that when we have had breaches and ruptures in the past, it is because we have failed to look at the area in between our two worlds. It is in this ‘ethical space’ that we can understand one another's knowledge systems Ermine’s paper observes that this misunderstanding has very often resulted in violence and the urge to dominate or change the others’ existence to a more discernable form, more easily predictable, or fitted into modes of thought more familiar, more palatable. This is a global phenomenon, wherever worldviews/cultures have collided. The cultural tensions looming over the Indigenous/West relations, in their historical dimension, are particularly magnified on the contested ground of knowledge production and validation, in particular in its flagship enterprise of research More durable solutions will be found in a new synergy between Indigenous knowledges and modern scientific knowledge. The need for a new synergy between these two is highlighted by the current acceptance that the problems we face today are such that none of the public sector (government), the private sector (business), and civil society alone has comprehensive and durable solutions. It is through imaginative collaboration among these three sectors that societies will be able to conceptualize and organize sustainable solutions.
Their “inclusion” offense is a one-way colonial bridge that co-opts indigenous knowledge in the name of standardization
15,026
119
5,004
2,221
17
737
0.008
0.332
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Rosenberg 14. Jordana, Associate Professor of English, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, “The Molecularization of Sexuality: On Some Primitivisms of the Present,” Theory & Event, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014) ipartman
The annihilation of space through revolutions in time must be understood not only in terms of the “leap” of capital into finance but also in relation to the intensification of forms of imperial violence my main point is political Israel’s main external support had come from Britain and France , as the US became the main backer of the Israeli state’s settler colonial project of dispossession and “economic subjugation The key element to U.S. control” in the Middle East is, the “embrace of Israel, which, with its origins as a settler-colonial state, was organically tied to external support for its continued viability there are multiple foundational ways in which financialization and settler colonialism are tied together finance and settler colonialism together constitute the levers of the present form of primitive accumulation I say “primitive accumulation,” rather than simply “capital accumulation as a way of marking not only the ongoing violent character of capital’s self-perpetuation but the kinds of transitions internal to the capitalist mode of production and the narrative forms that accompany those transitions as well settler colonialism puts into place a property-logic that is significantly different from feudal use-based conceptions of land settler colonialism constitutes the leading edge of capitalist forms of speculative possession. If at one point, property ownership was demonstrated in use capitalist expropriation depends on “expectation of use.” Whereas possession and use once justified ownership, the commoditization of land witnessed a shift in the conceptual underpinnings of ownership itself Speculation requires the imposition of terrus nullius a “wasteland rationale”: the legal codification of land as unpopulated to justify the speculative possession that ensues The dynamics of speculation are not confined This feeling of expectation “comes to be materialized, or … to have an actual life, in how we are constituted as subjects Emergent forms of property ownership along with the affective effects of property, “were constituted with racial ontologies of settler and native, master and slave. This is as evident in the burgeoning realm of finance capital and its relationship to the slave trade as it is with regard to transformations in how the ownership of land is conceptualized in the colonial settler context Ontology itself has a history Its history is crystallized in the legal forms that remain with us still and in the affective, economic, and political dimensions of racialization and settler colonialism the relationship between being and having, or ontology and property ownership animates modern theories of citizenship and law Ontology cannot be thought outside of the spatial dispossessions Nor can it be thought outside of the temporal character that Bhandar demonstrates as encoded in property relations Bhandar and Coulthard together direct us toward an understanding of Marx’s annihilation of space by time as a racialized, spatial, settler expropriation that simultaneously deploys indeed, weaponizes – temporality as a form of speculation This spatio-temporal type of dispossession sets into place the property form and racial ontologies at once It is at the heart of the “ontological illusions” that course through our social world and at the heart of the forms of primitive accumulation that set in place the state-form and the ascriptions of citizenship so-called primitive accumulation take the form of an origin-brink figuration the removing, or wrenching of temporality from spatiality and from history This figural annihilation of space by time, this origin narrative – one that gets reiterated in the ontological turn brings together the temporal accelerations of financialization with the speculative settler-forms and speculation as a form of possession and racialized self-possession that together mark a contemporary moment of primitive accumulation that we understand the discourse of molecularization as a kind of abstract dispossession that is the condition of a fantasized speculative self-possession we see a two-fold movement: the assertion of the body as the new ground of resource extraction and laying-waste of capitalism; and a speculative re-possession of that body on the condition of that body’s dispossession those molecules affect of possession and agency that recalls the abstractions and racial ontologies at the heart of the property-form
We control proximate cause – the contemporary transition from feudal capitalism to neoliberal financial capital to its late stage successor is found thru primitive accumulation made possible by coloniality – colonialism grounds the epistemology of possession that makes privatization of property possible. The alt alone fails because their origin story produces settler colonial AND capitalist violence by attempting to flatten out space as empty without reference to temporal chronology – this is the operation of capital in the present tense.
9,302
545
4,434
1,425
80
667
0.056
0.468
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Zapatismo’s Marxism lies in its anticapitalist and anticolonial stance. Marcos reminds us of numerous tricontinental, anticolonial figures, but the fact that he speaks Spanish has unfortunately limited most comparative horizons to Jose´ Maria´tegui, Che Guevara, the Sandinistas, or Liberation Theology. There certainly are commonalities. For example, zapatismo shares liberation theology’s structural sin and a desire for ‘another possible world’ through a contextualized redefinition of democracy that no longer, as liberationist Ivan Petrella writes, ‘smacks of realism’ and serves as a North American ‘apologetic function of separating the understanding of democracy from the foundation of poverty, marginalization, and exclusion upon which it rests. (Petrella 2004, 46) But zapatismo breaks from the Cold War resistance and decolonization movements that were often totalizing in their means and ends, and that tended toward romantic atavism in their approach to the indigenous question. Even as yet another national liberation movement, zapatismo is disinterested in the official-ness that comes with nationalism and the nation-state. ‘I shit on all revolutionary vanguards of this planet’, Marcos responded to ETA (Basque separatists) and to comparisons with Che. ‘In the world we want, many worlds fit’, goes the Fourth Declaration. ‘The nation which we are building is one where all communities and languages fit, where all steps may walk’ (CCRI-CG 1996). The structure of Mexican nationalism became a source of encoding and decoding, but since ‘divisions between countries only serve to create the crime of ‘smuggling’ and to justify wars’, Durito declares, the end result is something other than the cultural nationalisms of the modern world (Marcos 1995d, 119). Zapatismo, like tricontinentalism, extends Marxist thought to the dilemmas of race, ethnicity, and culture. ‘Everything is in order’, Aime Ce´saire criticized the racial exploitation built into French republicanism. Don Durito quips: ‘And Hernan Corte´s lived happily ever after. And that’s the end – except this story’s not over’ (Marcos 2005, 141). Implicit in decolonization has been a critique of imperialist capitalism’s commodification of body and labor, but also of local culture and racial identities. In response, decolonization called for the formation of a Fanonian tabula rasa, 3 a ‘new man’ in Cuba, individual action in the Christian Base Communities of Liberation Theology, ‘a new society that we must create . . . rich with all the productive power of modern times, warm with all the fraternity of olden days’ (Ce´saire 2000 [1955], 52). When the Zapatistas argue that capitalism turns everything into merchandise, they sound remarkably similar to Ce´saire, who argued that colonialism equals thingification. Consider how easily zapatismo’s criticisms of both racial and class antagonisms so easily collapse into each other, and Frantz Fanon’s tautology comes to mind: ‘you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich’ (Fanon 1961, 40). Or, you are poor because you are Indian, and you are Indian because you are poor. Consider, in turn, Mexico’s tourism industry, which actively promotes and sells both pottery and poverty masqueraded as Indian authenticity. Tourism as colonialism is built into the natural beauty of a landscape with which the natives are one. This is the discourse of naturaleza. In resource-rich and poverty-stricken Chiapas, lo indio continues to be described as a natural resource inextricably tied to the rest of the land used so inefficiently, so nonusufructuary. The unanticipated Indianization of zapatismo recalls Gandhi’s insistence on the re-Indianization of India, accompanied by a politics of nonviolence. But ‘what does it mean ‘‘to think as an Indian’’? What is it in this day and age ‘‘to be an Indian’’?’ Carlos Monsivaı´s asks (Monsivaı´s 2001, 131). It has implied backwardness, but it is only 90 degrees to get from backward to bottom. An early essay by Marcos, ‘The long journey from despair to hope’ divides Mexican society into four classes. In Lower Mexico, for example, ‘the manor house on the Porfirian hacienda has been replaced by the inner office of the bank. This is how modern times have penetrated rural Mexico.’ Beneath Lower Mexico, at a level barely visible, is the Basement: To get there one must descend through history and ascend through the indexes of marginalization. Basement Mexico came first. When Mexico was not yet Mexico, when it was all just beginning, the now-Basement Mexico existed, it lived. Basement Mexico is ‘indigenous’ because Columbus thought, 502 years ago, that the land where he had arrived was India . . . Basement Mexico is indigenous . . . However, for the rest of the country, it does not count, it does not produce, sell, or buy – that is, it does not exist. (Marcos 1994, 652) In other words, Mexico was awakened by both its ‘past’ and its poverty, which came to the forefront with the Zapatista uprising. The interrelationship is clear between the historical weight of oblivion and the ethnic and economic indexes of the struggle. ‘How long does it take to become a Zapatista?’ asked one of Marcos’ characters. ‘Sometimes it takes more than 500 years’ (Marcos and Taibo 2006, 27). As an extension of tricontinentalism, zapatismo is both anticapital and anticolonial. It is critical of the usurpation of local resources, including labor, and its simultaneous affects on local culture. It implies the concurrent commodification of labor and of cultural and racial identity. Capitalism, the Zapatistas say, ‘makes merchandise of people, of nature, of culture, of history, of conscience’ (CCRI-CG 2005). In turn, they posit a counternarrative of culture and civilization based on nonviolence, economic and cultural autonomy, the right to construct their own narratives and produce their own material culture. Perhaps most importantly, despite the media effect on the Indianization of zapatismo, the Zapatistas do not go in for exoticism.
Bahon ’09 - (Josh Bahn (2009) Marxism in a snail shell: Making history in Chiapas, Rethinking History, 13:4, 541-560, DOI: 10.1080/13642520903293136)//Kian
Zapatismo’s Marxism lies in its anticapitalist and anticolonial stance zapatismo shares liberation theology’s structural sin and a desire for ‘another possible world’ through a contextualized redefinition of democracy that no longer smacks of realism’ and serves as a North American ‘apologetic function of separating the understanding of democracy from the foundation of poverty, marginalization, and exclusion upon which it rests. zapatismo breaks from the Cold War resistance and decolonization movements that were often totalizing in their means and ends, and that tended toward romantic atavism in their approach to the indigenous question. zapatismo is disinterested in the official-ness that comes with nationalism and the nation-state ‘The nation which we are building is one where all communities and languages fit, where all steps may walk’ Zapatismo, like tricontinentalism extends Marxist thought to the dilemmas of race, ethnicity, and culture Implicit in decolonization has been a critique of imperialist capitalism’s commodification of body and labor, but also of local culture and racial identities. zapatismo’s criticisms of both racial and class antagonisms so easily collapse into each other, and Frantz Fanon’s tautology comes to mind: ‘you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich’ (Fanon 1961, 40). Or, you are poor because you are Indian, and you are Indian because you are poor. Consider, in turn, Mexico’s tourism industry, which actively promotes and sells both pottery and poverty masqueraded as Indian authenticity. Tourism as colonialism is built into the natural beauty of a landscape with which the natives are one. . The unanticipated Indianization of zapatismo recalls Gandhi’s insistence on the re-Indianization of India, accompanied by a politics of nonviolence. But ‘what does it mean ‘‘to think as an Indian’’? What is it in this day and age ‘‘to be an Indian’’? To get there one must descend through history and ascend through the indexes of marginalization zapatismo is both anticapital and anticolonial. It is critical of the usurpation of local resources, including labor, and its simultaneous affects on local culture It implies the concurrent commodification of labor and of cultural and racial identity. Capitalism, the Zapatistas say, ‘makes merchandise of people, of nature, of culture, of history, of conscience’ In turn, they posit a counternarrative of culture and civilization based on nonviolence, economic and cultural autonomy, the right to construct their own narratives and produce their own material culture. Perhaps most importantly, despite the media effect on the Indianization of zapatismo, the Zapatistas do not go in for exoticism.
Zapatista movements are both anticapital and anticolonial and break away from the romantic activism of previous movements.
6,031
122
2,719
936
17
412
0.018
0.44
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Bahon ’09 - (Josh Bahn (2009) Marxism in a snail shell: Making history in Chiapas, Rethinking History, 13:4, 541-560, DOI: 10.1080/13642520903293136)//Kian
The Zapatista war against oblivion is waged first against their own national bourgeoisie, and second against the global bourgeoisie that seeks to make the world in its own image. Their struggle is not only against the state politics and ‘free trade’ agreements, but against the historical economy of humanist cynicism that gave rise to ‘modernity’ in its Eurocentric terms. At the heart of this matter is the nature–culture binary, arguably the most farreaching epistemological underpinning of modern European thought. This humanist paradigm speaks of the land and the ‘Indian’ in the same breath, as natural resource, prehistoric and uncultivated. The coupling of science and progress has provided the basis for political and imperial ‘discovery’ and subjugation of the socalled ‘state of nature’. This has been a metanarrative sustained in form since the Conquest, legitimized through a historical philosophy of linear progress. This is where zapatismo’s criticism of national and global politics combines most thoroughly, and we can situate the recentness of the NAFTA within the long history of humanist thinking in its various recycled forms – from enlightenment and modernization through development, globalization and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism relies on this metanarrative The United States leads the way both by military force and by the command of financial institutions and global telecommunications, which control, build and destroy in its ‘war for the conquest of territory’ and new markets opened up by the demise of the evil empire and it socialist camps ‘In the new world order there is neither democracy nor freedom, neither equality nor fraternity. The planetary stage is transformed into a new battlefield in which chaos reigns’. The bourgeois totality is extended as military-industrialism – the appearance of a distinct public and private – is spread globally. Neoliberalism produces de- and re-territorialization, ‘on the one hand, destruction and depopulation, and, on the other, the reconstruction and reorganization of regions and nations’ instead, indigenous uprisings, tsunamis, and hurricanes remind the ‘free world’ that the third world has always existed within the first. A struggle against neoliberalism is a struggle for humanity, and the Zapatistas intend to align themselves with other such pockets of resistance globally. Neoliberalism flows from the global capitalist class into the local, whereas the leftist ‘pockets of resistance’ flow from local roots against the right’s totalizing discourse. If neoliberalism seeks to fashion the world in a bourgeois image, the crux of zapatismo is to offer a mirror reflection of that image. It takes a true idealist to confront such a politically, geographically, and historically daunting scenario. Marcos has done so with political audacity and a sense of humor, playing the modern Don Quixote, idealistic and comical, but only self-consciously so. Marcos’ ‘enchanted’ politics has materialized in a knight-errant of his own, Don Durito (little hard one), a tiny beetle who takes on neoliberalism, ‘the chaotic theory of economic chaos, the stupid exultation of social stupidity and the catastrophic political management of catastrophe’ Marcos’ idealism is evident in the Kafka-esque beetle, who explicates neoliberalism’s irrationality, rides a tortoise named Pegasus and roams Mexico in search of wrongs to right – wrongs wrought by the ‘junior politicians’ who return from the north to Mexico in order to save the country ‘without knowing its history and annexing it to the tail of the fast train of brutality and human imbecility’ as the EZLN declared to the people of Mexico: ‘They heap upon us the weight of laws we did not make, and those who did make them are the first to violate them’ In each of these excerpts, Durito, Marcos, and the EZLN describe the effects not only of history, but a philosophy of history, that has naturalized ‘the chaotic theory of economic chaos’. Marginalization comes at the hands ‘efficiency’ and the ‘laws of nature’, materialized as the weight of civilization and its cultural baggage. As the small uphold the large in history and nature, that doctrine of efficiency has relied on a historical metanarrative that is linear in history and in nature. This quixotic politics is a deliberate parody of neoliberals’ claim to nature. Despite that its economism is taken as scripture, neoliberalism is not only unrealistic, but also irrational and chaotic. The most quixotic form of zapatismo is its audacity to challenge the very idea of nature on which neoliberalism rests. The EZLN has in itself acted as a mirror. Confronting at once militarily, only to voluntary dissolve itself, their army is a parody of this ‘ritual of chaos’ that is state politics. It is an army that does not fight, rejecting the ‘political masturbation’ of revolutionary vanguardism and populism: What we have to relate is the paradox that we are. Why a revolutionary army is not aiming to seize power, why an army doesn’t fight if that’s its job. All the paradoxes we faced: the way we grew and became strong in a community so far removed from the established culture Neither politicians nor investors could tolerate this parody this intolerability has given way to the lack of distinction between EZLN and Zapatista, whereby the latter are guilty by association – a theme all too common in the dirty wars of twentieth-century Latin America. ‘Our word is our weapon’ underscores not only Zapatista nonviolence, but also that there is no such thing as being outside of ideology, which gives shape to political economy. The Zapatistas have withstood a particular vulnerability in confronting the naturalism of neoliberal princes and sorcerers. It is not the content of the quixotic that is comical, but the form of chivalry that is to be taken seriously. This has been the Zapatistas’ basis for dialogue, as a hinge between points – between the traditional right and the traditional left – and as a mirror that reflects the absurdities of state politics.
Perm do both: the Zapatista war is one against the global bourgeoisie through a criticism of the metanarrative of the nature-culture binary that neoliberalism relies on, it is a mirror reflection of the ideal bourgeois image – pointing out its irrational and chaotic nature.
10,307
274
6,047
1,668
44
957
0.026
0.574
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Vasquez 9 Rolando Vázquez is assistant professor of Sociology at the Roosevelt Academy of the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands. He teaches Latin American ideas. His research circles around the critique of the modern notion of time and its relevance for both de-colonial thinking and an extended critique of modernity. Vázquez, Rolando. "Modernity coloniality and visibility: the politics of time." http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/4/7.html Sociological Research Online 14.4 (2009): 7. ipartman
How can we think the simulation of modernity together with the oblivion of coloniality? chronology, chronological narratives are at the heart of the modern/ colonial systems of oppression; and that the movements of resistance against 'hegemonic globalization' are not only questioning the material structures of oppression, but also the universality of the modern idea of time. the modernity/ coloniality tandem is of a politics of time geared towards of specific economic and political practices oriented to sever the oppressed from their past, their memory. temporal discrimination makes invisible all that does not belong to modern temporality resistance to coloniality embody a different politics of time, that rescues memory as a site of struggle inhabiting and rescuing the past These practices of resistance are fights against temporal discrimination: fights against invisibility. By addressing modern time we can better understand the violence of modernity/ coloniality bringing the critique of time to the centre of the coloniality debate. chronology, chronological narratives are at the heart of oppression; movements of resistance against 'hegemonic globalization' are questioning the universality of time. modernity/ coloniality imposes the universal claim that the present is the only site of the real, while dismissing the past as archaic The past is a fixed entity with only documentary value the imposition of modern time is coeval to the injustice and violence of modernity/ coloniality oblivion has been a constitutive part of modernity's politics of time. The forms of oppression that characterize coloniality cannot be sufficiently understood without taking into account oblivion a politics of time that produces the other by rendering it invisible The destruction of memory, produces invisibility invisibility is tantamount to de-politicization 'visibility' signals the close relation between material oppression and epistemic discrimination, violence oloniality dismisses the past, turns the future into the teleology of progress and holds the present to be the only site of the real. coloniality's strategies of invisibility erase the past as a site of experience The condition of possibility of these strategies over the visible, the monopoly of the sense of the real, is grounded on the modern notion of time 'The "discovery" of America and the genocide of Indians and African slaves are the very foundations of "modernity' they constitute the darker face of modernity, 'coloniality'' Coloniality is not a derivative , it is constitutive of modernity the under-side the phantasmagoria of modernity of a modern politics of times that expresses itself in a threefold hegemony rejection of the past future-oriented mentality and the objectivity of the present temporal discrimination contributed to making 'the other' invisible. Modernity is seen as a race towards an unattainable future The objectivity of modernity affirms the history of western metaphysics, the present as the only site of the real modernity is the time that rejects the past and construes the future in a teleology. Core modernity progress, universality, all correspond to this conception of time. the present it designates the space of power. modern domination is exercised through defining its 'proper place', Modernity can hence be characterized as the age that designates space as reality space coincides with presence the present The present and presence come together to constitute the site of the real the affirmation of the present cannot be separated from the cult of the new and the illusion of the commodity The objectivity of the present is wedded with the simulation of the future. a hegemony over the illusions of an objective present and a utopian future.¶ coloniality comes to light, as the rejection of the past. It time that praises the present as the site of the real and the future as the horizon The violence of modernity has constantly been justified in the name of these rational utopias. The chronology of historical necessity underlies the ideologies from right and left systematically suppress the other fostering the devaluation of political alternatives a costly and bloodstained fantasy' because the suffering belongs to the past it is rejected as non-objective The suffering of the oppressed is erased. Memory is historicized the age of museums confined / objectified History ceases to be a relation to the past, negation of the past as an open realm of experience the temporal hierarchy imposed by modern of time and hegemonic history barbarian and , backward become key words in the vocabulary of discrimination Societies were placed 'in an imaginary chronological line coloniality came with the instauration of temporal discrimination. 'By politics of time, sever the past strategies of erasure Franciscan monks burning the manuscripts, burning the gods the endless history of a politics of time oriented towards the destruction of memory Colonialism turns to the past of the oppressed people, and destroys i This shows an economy of destruction that is not reducible to economic exploitation However the memory of suffering cannot be burnt down, The consciousness of the suffering of the previous generations is the source of strength for a politics of time of liberation The liberation from the modern politics of time is a fight for 'a memory we should not turn memory into a utopia Memory is a rebellion against the future oriented reason of modernity Memory stands up against the rational utopias that have brought oblivion and violence the spirit of sacrifice is nourished 'by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than by the ideal of liberated grandchildren' movements of resistance to break with the chronology synonymous of oblivion from the modern �empty time� The critical thinker of time seeks to to salvage our relation to time, to the past the linear history of modernity is called into question by a history based on difference the critique of time recognizing the violence of the simulation of modernity next to the violence of oblivion, is able to thematize those in the abyss the critique of time brings to light all those who live in modernity's spaces of exclusion, the ideas of progress and universality cannot be sundered from the spread of marginality and violence by taking seriously the politics of time next to systems of exploitation. looking at the illusion of the future at the present as being the site of the real in the institutional practices of powe in the destruction of memory. Simulation and oblivion can be thought together when we see the politics of time
We control the root cause debate – Economic exploitation occurs because of an affective investment in rational utopias. Neoliberalism always operates through a politics of chronology oriented towards civility and erasure of the past.
22,271
233
6,625
3,579
34
1,042
0.009
0.291
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Libretti 1 (Tim, professor of English and Women's Studies at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, Ph.D from the University of Michigan MFS Modern Fiction Studies, Volume 47, Number 1, Spring 2001, pp. 164-189, The Johns Hopkins University Press)
Alienation DA—The working class cannot liberate only part of itself—the left must reinvent its political ideology to achieve a true class consciousness. The abject position of the Native is the most advantageous from which to garner complete comprehension of capitalist exploitation. We must not fall into the same trap of a system which only serves itself—isolating indigeneity in the process. This means that only the permutation can resolve capitalism.
19,645
455
10,380
3,132
69
1,670
0.022
0.533
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Smith 5 David Michael Smith, College of the Mainland “Marxism and Native Americans Revisited” http://www.se.edu/nas/files/2013/03/Proceedings-2005-Smith.pdf
Churchill and Dora-Lee Larson contend that Marx and Engels and subsequent generations of Marxists have erred in believing that all peoples and cultures must inevitably undergo capitalist development and all the violence and oppression associated with it No culture other than Europe has ever undergone the progression of material development experienced in Europe … to presume that nonEuropean cultures would inevitably have followed a trajectory from primitive to precapitalist to capitalist is sublimely speculative “Terms such as ‘primitive,’ ‘precapitalist,’ ‘underdeveloped,’ etc. … are racist and arrogant terms, unsupported by fact.”6 Churchill and Larson reject what they see as the assumption in Marxism that “In essence, Europe must be the ideal against which all people and all things are measured, the source of all ‘valid’ and ‘advanced’ inspiration. Marxism’s failure to learn from the experience and knowledge of non-European cultures renders it yet another European intellectual import, another species of “faith, not science,” another kind of Messianic religion much like Christianity, with a “dangerous” universalism and a wanton disregard for non-European peoples, including Native Americans who is primitive, and who is advanced? Another central criticism of Marxism by several Native American contributors centers on the question of industrialization. that European colonization and industrialization brought about “a new economic order…forged on the land, not with the land.”13 For LaDuke, “The developing technological society became ever more divorced from nature, ever more ‘synthetic.’ Russell Means and other Native Americans explore the extent of the devastation of the land and the natural environment wrought by industrialization and submit that it is modern machine-based production itself that must be overcome in order to protect and live in harmony with nature. Several Native American writers argue that Marxism offers no solutions to the problem of industrialization. Deloria contends that for Marxists as well as for capitalists, nature is to be struggled against, and overcome, for the sake of production and consumption.21 Black Elk suggests that Marxists have the same view of progress and development as capitalists—more industrialization. I do not believe that capitalism itself is really responsible for the situation in which we [Native Americans] have been declared a national sacrifice. No, it is the European tradition; European culture itself is responsible. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it
Western development DA—Communism is a Eurocentric construction that was made as an answer to the problems of Europe. There’s no warrant as to why or how materialist progression would apply outside of colonial society, and their universal application of such only devolves into a new manifestation of eurocentrism.
7,068
313
2,586
1,056
48
380
0.045
0.36
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Means 80—was a leader in the American Indian Movement (AIM) of the 1960s and 70s, and remains one of the most outspoken Native Americans in the U.S. (Russell, Revolution and American Indians: “Marxism is as Alien to My Culture as Capitalism”, http://endofcapitalism.com/2010/10/17/revolution-and-american-indians-marxism-is-as-alien-to-my-culture-as-capitalism/#more-1730)**We don’t endorse ableist language**
Materialism DA—Moves away from capitalism are part and parcel of Eurocentric dehumanization. Indigenous people are assimilated into industry in the name of ‘efficiency.’ Leftist movements remained trapped within western modes of quantification which further justify ideological purging and settlers.
15,706
300
8,245
2,612
39
1,334
0.015
0.511
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Tuck & Yang 14 E. & K., prof of native american studies @ suny & prof of ethnic studies @ cal, R-words: Refusing research, p 241-243
Another way to think about refusal is using strategies of social science research to further expose the complicity of social science research in settler colonialism. There is much need to employ social science to turn back upon itself This form of refusal might include contesting pain narratives As long as the objects of research are presumably damaged communities the metanarrative remains unchallenged: which is that research at worst is simply harmless and at best is problem solving (and therefore beneficial). This metanarrative treats communities as frontiers to civilize, regardless of the specific conclusions of individual projects. Instead, by making the settler colonial metanarrative the object of research, researchers may bring to a halt or at least slow down the machinery that allows knowledge to facilitate interdictions on Indigenous and Black life. Thus, refusal might involve tracking the relationships between social science research and expansions of state and corporate violence against communities. Social science researchers might design their work to call attention to power, rather than allowing their work to serve as yet another advertisement for power. refusal might expand representational territories to thwart settler colonialism.¶ Refusal understands the wisdom in a story, as well as the wisdom in not passing that story on. Refusal makes way for resistance, recovery, repatriation, regeneration. Though understandings of refusal are still emergent, we want to consolidate a summary for our readers. Refusal can be a generative stance Refusal is not just a “no.”¶ Refusal must be situated in a critical understanding of settler colonialism and its regimes of representation (i.e., the disappearance of Indigenous people, the enslavability and murderability of Black people, the right to make interdictions on Othered lives).¶ Refusal makes space for desire and other representational territories, such as making the spectator the spectacle, and turning settler colonial knowledge back on itself.¶ Refusal is multidimensional refusal makes visible the processes of settler colonial knowledge. refusal denudes power (and power-knowledge) without becoming an advertisement for power.¶
Their own authors vote AFF and concede that their K is non-UQ – the academy is always a site of circulation of settler colonial knowledge claims, but exposing counterhegemonic politics and settler investments in clearing is a critical to turn the academy’s finger back on itself. Revisibilization is not a move away from decolonization but opens up new representational territories upon which the potential of decolonization will take place
5,059
440
2,218
776
69
323
0.089
0.416
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Henderson 15 (Phil, Doctoral Student at the University of Victoria “Imagoed communities: the psychosocial space of settler colonialism” Settler Colonial Studies DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2015.1092194, pp. 10-14) ipartman
settlers must answer the legitimate charge that their daily life – in all its banality – is predicated upon the privileges produced by ongoing genocide. The jarring nature of such charges offers an irreconcilable challenge to settlers qua settlers. Should these charges become impossible to ignore, they threaten to explode the imago of settler colonialism, which had hitherto operated within the settler psyche in a relatively smooth and benign manner. This explosion is potentiated by the revelation of even a portion of the violence that is required to make settler life possible. If settlers are forced to see ‘their’ beach as a site of murder and ongoing colonization, it becomes more difficult to sustain it within the imaginary as a site of frivolity. panic is always already at the core of the settler as a subject. the settler necessarily remains in a disposition of aggression ‘even after indigenous alterities have ceased to be threatening’. This disposition results from the precarity inherent in the maintenance of settler colonialism’s imago, wherein any and all indigenous presences threaten subjective dissolution of the settler as such. Settlers’ reactions to indigenous peoples fit with two ego defense responses The first of these defenses is to attempt a complete conversion of the suppressed desire into a new idea. In settler colonial contexts, this requires averting attention from the violence of dispossession; as such, settlers often suggest that they aim to create a ‘city on the hill’. Such is the case when settlers’ utopic visions are forced to confront the reality that the gentile community they imagine is founded in and perpetuates irredeemable suffering. A second type of defense is to channel the original desire’s energy into an obsession or a phobia. The effects of this defense are seen in the preoccupation that settler colonialism has with purity of community. this obsession solidifies the power of the settler state naturalizing the settler and simultaneously perpetuating the processes of erasing indigenous peoples. Because of the threat that indigeneity presents to the phantasmatic wholeness of settler colonialism, settlers must always remain suspended in a state of arrested development between these defensive positions. the settler is necessarily a parochial subject who continuously coils, reacts, disavows, and lashes out Goeman writes as an explicit challenge to other indigenous peoples, but this holds true to settler-allies as well, that decolonization must include an analysis of the dominant ‘self-disciplining colonial subject’. settler-allies must also examine and cultivate the ways in which settler subjects fail to be totally disciplined. Discovering the instability at the core of the settler subject, indeed of all subjects, is the central conceit of psychoanalysis. Because of this precarity the subject in slippage also provides an avenue by which the process of settler colonialism can be subverted – creating cracks in a phantasmatic wholeness which can be opened wider. The cultivation of these cracks is a necessary part of decolonizing work, as it continues to panic and thus to destabilize settler subjects. the ‘repetitive practices of everyday life’ are what give settler spaces their meaning, as they provide a degree of naturalness to the settler imago and its psychic investments. As such, to disrupt the ease of these repetitions is at once to striate radically the otherwise smooth spaces of settler colonialism and also to disrupt the easy (re)production of the settler subject. Settler colonialism has been distinguished from colonialism proper by its ‘logic of elimination’ This is accomplished through a variety of mechanisms that range from outright violence to policies of gradual elimination. settler colonialism is perpetuated through a double move: to erase indigenous peoples and then to disappear settlers by naturalizing the violence inherent their existence in colonized territory. Out of this spatial logic, an imago of settler society is produced that binds settlers both psychically and socially to each other and to the colonized spaces. The continual (re)production of a settler colonial imago is necessary to secure the psychic horizons of the settler subject; Total erasure of indigeneity is the grotesque desire of the settler that must be constantly disrupted. indigeneity opens a crack within the imago within the settler subject itself – through which an ethic of decolonization can emerge. settler colonialism is propelled by a tightly circuitous movement of subject formation, projection, and (re)formation
Speech acts work to destabilize settler colonialism.
10,992
52
4,613
1,685
7
709
0.004
0.421
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
This triadic model is echoed in Spillers’ text “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book.” As Spillers plots the unfolding of an economy of signification in which the captive emerges through a series of mutilations, Spillers also focuses on the time-space of the “socio-political order of the New World.”26 This socio-political “order with its human sequence written in blood, represents for its African and indigenous peoples a scene of actual mutilation, dismemberment, and exile.”27 The human and its “sequence” or repetition and arrangement for its continuance is a mode of being that requires genocide, mutilation, displacement and the negation of Black and Indigenous peoples and their ways of living. Conquest is constituted by a violence formidable enough to encompass both slavery and Native genocide as it writes and extends itself as the human-conquistador across Wynter’s and Spillers’ Atlantic. While Spillers does not explicitly take on Native genocide in this essay, a reparative read could view this text as a possible point of departure for thinking about Blackness and Indigeneity non human, ethnic bodies—and “flesh”—in relationship to the human’s process of self-actualization. Black and Native flesh is certainly a space of engagment in the work of Frank Wilderson. In Red, White and Black, Wilderson reworks and alters Spillers’ conceptualization of flesh in order to elaborate upon the way the making of the human requires the unmaking of Black and Native bodies as non-human matter. Wilderson’s non traditional deployment of Spiller’s “body” and “flesh,” engenders the human with a body. Conversely, the non-human (Slave and Savage) is fleshly matter that exists outside of the realm of the body and thus humanity. Under the ontological universe of political economy, the Native is rendered non human “flesh.” The Black/Slave is rendered non human flesh under both “political” and “libidinal” economies. Though Wilderson does not identify Black and Native bodies as ontological equivalents, Native (the Savage’s) and Black (the Black’s) grammars of suffering do share the urgent concerns of the flesh. Wilderson sets forth the conditions of possibility that result in the making of Black and Native flesh. The Middle Passage turns, for example Ashanti spatial and temporal capacity into spatial and temporal incapacity—a body into flesh. This process begins as early as the 1200s for the Slave. By the 1530s, modernity is more self-conscious of its coordinates, and Whiteness begins its ontological consolidation and negative knowledge of itself by turning (part of) the Aztec body, for example into Indian flesh. In this moment the White body completes itself and proceeds to lay the groundwork for the intra-Settler ensemble of questions foundational to its ethical dilemmas (i.e., Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis). In the final analysis, Settler ontology is guaranteed by way of negative knowledge of what it is not rather than by way of its positive claims of what it is.28 In exploring the diacritics at work in the making of the human, Wilderson momentarily identifies a moment of interlocution in which the discourse of conquest serves as passage for Black and Native grammars. When speaking in terms of the flesh, a space of possible dialogue emerges under rare conditions in which Wilderson argues that the “genocidal modality of the ‘Savage’ grammar of suffering articulate[s] itself quite well within the two modalities of the ‘Slave’s’ grammar of suffering, accumulation and fungibility.”29 For Wilderson, both of these grammars find it difficult to assume narrative form within the lexicon made available by humanism and the contemporary polemics of the white left. It is virtually impossible for the Native or the Black to speak through these registers of intelligibility that are predicated on their very death.
King 16 Tiffany Lethabo King is currently an Assistant Professor in the Institute for Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Georgia State University. “New World Grammars: The ‘Unthought’ Black Discourse of Conquest.” Theory & Event 19, no 4 [2016]
This socio-political “order with its human sequence written in blood, represents for African and indigenous peoples a scene of mutilation, dismemberment, and exile The human and its repetition for its continuance is a mode of being that requires genocide, mutilation, displacement and the negation of Black and Indigenous peoples Conquest is constituted by a violence formidable enough to encompass slavery and Native genocide as it extends itself as the human-conquistador across Atlantic Black and Native flesh is engagment in the work of Frank Wilderson Wilderson reworks and alters Spillers’ conceptualization of flesh to elaborate on the way the human requires the unmaking of Black and Native bodies as non-human Wilderson’s deployment of body” and “flesh engenders the human with a body the non-human is fleshly matter that exists outside of the body and humanity Under the political economy, the Native is rendered non human The Slave is rendered non human under both “political” and “libidinal” economies the Savage’s and the Black’s grammars of suffering do share the urgent concerns of the flesh The Middle Passage turns spatial and temporal capacity into incapacity—a body into flesh Whiteness begins its ontological consolidation and negative knowledge of itself by turning the Aztec body, for example into Indian flesh In this moment the White body completes itself Settler ontology is guaranteed by way of negative knowledge of what it is not rather than by way positive claims of what it is Wilderson identifies a moment of interlocution in which the discourse of conquest serves as passage for Black and Native grammars a space of dialogue emerges in which Wilderson argues the “genocidal modality of the ‘Savage’ grammar articulate[s] itself well within the two modalities of the ‘Slave’s’ grammar of suffering accumulation and fungibility For Wilderson both of these grammars find it difficult to assume narrative form within the lexicon made available by humanism It is impossible for the Native or the Black to speak through registers of intelligibility that are predicated on their death.
Perm do both – [coloniality] does not displace the afterlife of slavery, but a theorization of afropessimism through the ontology of conquest constituted by guns overcomes residual links – even if they win uniqueness, it’s an affirmative argument for refusing attenuation to the world of the human.
3,863
299
2,110
598
47
330
0.079
0.552
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Scholars in the fields of critical ethnic, Black, and Native studies who welcome the charge of decolonization and abolition in the corporate university often labor to push back against and expose the limitations of the “epistemic turns” or “epistemic revolutions of Europe” that Sylvia Wynter so deftly tracks in her voluminous body of work. Scholars committed to the politics of Black abolitionist work and Native decolonization must often assume postures of suspicion—“misanthropy”—and sometimes must outright refuse Western thought’s arrogant universalist assumptions, commonsense tautologies, and professed reforms to the category of the human; due to these ways, they often experience a great deal of hostility and violence. When decolonial and Black abolitionist thought has to contend with Western or European continental theory, specifically its critical theories of progressive (liberal) social change, one often encounters an epistemic crisis or what scholar Frank Wilderson refers to as an antagonism.1 {1. Frank Wilderson III, Red, White & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2010). Wilderson defines the experience of the suffering of Black people as one of accumulation and fungibility and a part of the experience of Indigenous people—in the context of political economy—of one of genocide. These two experiences are antagonisms that are irreconcilable without the collapse of civil society as we know it. Black fungibility and Native genocide are unlike and therefore not reducible to the kinds of conditional conflicts that white people (settlers) experience through exploitation (i.e., of the wage worker) and the suffering that ensues.} Forced to wrestle with antagonisms that often require Native/Indigenous and Black death, the scholar committed to decolonization and abolition in the university seminar space often has to refuse necropolitical epistemological systems, which structure white liberal humanist ways of thinking and imagining the world. This kind of labor and violent confrontation in the classroom on a repeated basis can transform one’s educational and professional experience into one rife with stress, anxiety, and unease.More specifically, I have watched graduate students of color experience this kind of stress, anxiety, and unease as they confront the pressure to “take up” more contemporary impulses within Western “critical theory” to move “beyond the human” or toward the posthuman. One task of this article is to attend to the ways that Black and Indigenous academics, as well as Black and Native studies scholars, are expected to perform a commitment to a Deleuzian brand of posthumanist and nonrepresentational theory as proof that they are critical and postmodern scholars and disciplinary formations. Lately, I have heard questions posed to Black and Native scholars and activists who theorize the work of movements like Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, and other work addressing Black and Indigenous death to explain what relationship this (survival- based) work has to “identity,” “the subject,” or “the human.” More specifically, the questions are posed as ones that assume that these movements reify one or all of the above categories. Additionally, the inquiries are accompanied by an expectation that the person(s) and the movements will disavow all claims to identity, subjecthood, and the desire for humanity.
King 17 Tiffany Lethabo King, Assistant Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Georgia State, PhD in American Studies from the University of Maryland at College Park, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved: Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” Critical Ethnic Studies Volume 3 Number 1, Footnote 1 and 7 included in curly braces
Scholars in the fields of critical ethnic, Black, and Native studies who welcome the charge of decolonization often labor to push back against and expose the limitations of the “epistemic turns” or “epistemic revolutions of Europe Scholars committed to the politics of Black abolitionist work and Native decolonization must often assume postures of suspicion must outright refuse Western thought’s arrogant universalist assumptions tautologies, and professed reforms to the category of the human they often experience a great deal of hostility and violence When decolonial and Black abolitionist thought has to contend with Western or European continental theory, specifically its critical theories of progressive (liberal) social change, one often encounters an epistemic crisis or what scholar Frank Wilderson refers to as an antagonism Wilderson defines the experience of the suffering of Black people as one of accumulation and fungibility and a part of the experience of Indigenous people—in the context of political economy—of one of genocide These experiences are antagonisms that are irreconcilable without the collapse of civil society as we know it Black fungibility and Native genocide are unlike and therefore not reducible to the kinds of conditional conflicts that white people experience through exploitation (i.e., of the wage worker) and the suffering that ensues students of color experience this kind of stress, anxiety, and unease as they confront the pressure to “take up” more contemporary impulses within Western “critical theory” move “beyond the human” or toward the posthuman. task of this article is to attend to the ways that Black and Indigenous academics, as well as Black and Native studies scholars, are expected to perform a commitment to a Deleuzian brand of posthumanist and nonrepresentational theory as proof that they are critical and postmodern scholars and disciplinary formations I have heard questions posed to Black and Native scholars and activists who theorize the work of movements like Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, and other work addressing Black and Indigenous death to explain what relationship this work has to “identity,” “the subject,” or “the human.” the questions are posed as ones that assume that these movements reify one or all of the above categories. the inquiries are accompanied by an expectation that the person(s) and the movements will disavow all claims to identity, subjecthood, and the desire for humanity.
It solves the alt – an ethics of abundance is a hermeneutics of suspicion that refuses to disavow black and native feminist antagonisms. No consolidation for western thought.
3,423
175
2,479
512
28
380
0.055
0.742
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Affect studies draws on psychoanalytic treatments of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real, with wholeness and lack, with memory, displacement, and haunting, to frame trauma in ways that produce “multiple subjectivities and multiple modernities expressed in new forms of history, often presented at first in autobiographical experimental writings by diasporic subjects” (Clough, 2007, p. 6). While these writings productively interrogate conditions of knowability, representation, and memory, in the absence of a framework that foregrounds geography and the relationship between experiences of trauma and the land, they have no necessary relationship to decolonization. Dian Million (Tanana Athabascan) defines trauma as “suppos[ing] a violence that overwhelms, wounding individual (and collective) psyche, sometimes suspending access to memory” (Million, 2013, p. 2). Her definition resonates with and draw upon the work in affect studies, but Million leverages Indigenous accounts of trauma to “explode the measured ‘objective’ accounts of Canadian (and US) colonial histories” (Million, 2013, p. 31). For Million (2013), Indigenous women’s narratives are productively understood as felt knowledges that expose a “limit and boundary where white academia designated them incomprehensible,” which is inextricably linked to “the self-determination Indigenous peoples” as they “affectively work out . . . painful political, social, and personal conundrums with the state” (p. 2). So even as affect studies provides a point of entry for powerfully interrogating the conditions of trauma that resonate with Indigenous experiences as subjects of assimilation and objects of genocide and ongoing dispossession (as Million analyzes) and can be powerfully leveraged to expose processes of dispossession (in Greyser’s work), the field of affect studies remains wedded to an ungrounded, unbounded universal subject. Such land- and Indigenous-centered frameworks invite culture critics to examine how social, material, and rhetorical practices are shaped through settlement and the formation of the White subject as a settler subject. And in doing so would also entail an attention to the uneven distribution of affects and affective processes—the very constitution of some subjects as always-already affecting, while “others” are slotted as “affectable.” In her concept of ethnographic entrapment, Denise Ferreira Da Silva’s (2007) articulation of the construction of the human as formed through a form of self-determination mobilized through the Western subject’s power over and distinction from “affectable others.” Building on Ferreira Da Silva’s work, Andrea Smith (2010) argues this quality of affectability is a condition of self-determination, settlement, and racialization as the “Western subject differentiates itself from conditions of ‘affectability’ by separating from affectable others” (p. 42). Similar to cultural studies treatments of the production of Whiteness and racial difference, the racialized subject awaits humanity through a movement toward universality, yet distinct is Ferreira Da Silva and Smith’s attention to self-determination as defined by the capacity to “affect” and not be affected by others. This “humanizing” project is grounded in the notion of the sovereign subject as structured by the privatization of land that, in turn, define landed subjects through the erasure of the land theft through which the sovereignty of the settler subject is experienced, organized, and imagined. Mark Rifkin (2012) argues that Although U.S. Indian policy formally circulates the topos of self-determination, portraying the federal government as engaging with tribes’ lived sense of landedness and representations of themselves, it continues to foreclose forms of indigeneity, as a residual geopolitics predicated on principles other than those of the liberal state and as the collective memory of an ongoing history of violence. (Locations 109-110) Reading Ferreira da Silva in conversation with Rifkin underscores the structures of settler colonialism through which the sovereign subject is imagined: through his or her ability to move, affect, displace, or remove first nations people and through the ongoing erasure of various “forms of indigeneity” that belie the myth of manifest destiny.
Tuck and Rowe 16. Eve, engages Indigenous theorizations of settler colonialism and Black theorizations of antiblackness in order to learn more about what decolonization wil require from all of us. She is a co-founder of the Land Relationships Super Collective with her frequent collaborator K. Wayne Yang. Her website is evetuck.com. Aimee Carrillo, professor of Communication Studies and co-director of the Civil Discourse and Social Change Initiative at California State University, Northridge. Her books include Power Lines: On the Subject of Feminist Alliances (Duke University Press, 2008), Answer the Call: Virtual Migration in Indian Call Centers (University of Minnesota Press, 2013), and Carrillo Rowe is currently working on a book entitled Queer Xicana: Performance, Affect, and the Sacred. “Settler Colonialism and Cultural Studies: Ongoing Settlement, Cultural Production, and Resistance.”
psychoanalytic writings interrogate conditions of knowability, representation, and memory in the absence of a framework that foregrounds geography and the relationship between experiences of trauma and the land, they have no necessary relationship to decolonization. trauma as “ overwhelms, wounding individual (and collective) psyche, sometimes suspending access to memory resonates with and draw upon the work in affect studies, but Million leverages Indigenous accounts of trauma to “explode the measured ‘objective’ accounts of colonial histories Indigenous women’s narratives are productively understood as felt knowledges that expose a “limit and boundary where white academia designated them incomprehensible which is inextricably linked to “the self-determination Indigenous peoples” as they “affectively work out . . . painful political, social, and personal conundrums with the state even as affect studies provides a point of entry for powerfully interrogating the conditions of trauma that resonate with Indigenous experiences as subjects of assimilation and objects of genocide and ongoing dispossession and can be powerfully leveraged to expose processes of dispossession the field of affect studies remains wedded to an ungrounded, unbounded universal subject land- and Indigenous-centered frameworks invite culture critics to examine practices shaped through settlement and the formation of the White subject as a settler subject. in doing so would also entail an attention to the uneven distribution of affects and affective processes—the very constitution of some subjects as always-already affecting, while “others” are slotted as “affectable.” ethnographic entrapment, the human as formed through a form of self-determination mobilized through the Western subject’s power over and distinction from “affectable others.” this quality of affectability is a condition of self-determination, settlement, and racialization as the “Western subject differentiates itself from conditions of ‘affectability’ by separating from affectable others the racialized subject awaits humanity through a movement toward universality distinct is self-determination as defined by the capacity to “affect” and not be affected by others grounded in the notion of the sovereign subject as structured by the privatization of land that, in turn, define landed subjects through the erasure of the land theft through which the sovereignty of the settler subject is experienced, organized, and imagined Although U.S. Indian policy formally circulates the topos of self-determination, portraying the federal government as engaging with tribes’ lived sense of landedness and representations of themselves, it continues to foreclose forms of indigeneity, as a residual geopolitics predicated on principles other than those of the liberal state and as the collective memory of an ongoing history of violence
Their theory is wedded to an ungrounded, unbounded universal subject – the land is the critical mediating question
4,311
114
2,894
616
18
407
0.029
0.661
Mexico Honduras - Wake 2019.html5
Poststructuralist traditions that attempt to transcend identity actually function as a ruse of subjectlessness. In fact, queer subjectlessness and nonrepresentational rhizomes are an expression of a posthumanism that resuscitates normative subjects through the death of Black and Indigenous peoples. Continental theory has not typically had the stomach for sustaining an investigation of the kind of unspeakable violence that enabled the Marxist worker, queer, and affective subjectless discourses (one can only strive for subjectlessness if you possess it) to exist. The erasure of the (white) body-as-subject-as-ontology has been more effective in covering the bloody trail of white/human-self-actualization than it has been at successfully offering a way around and beyond the entrapments of liberal humanism. According to Amber Jamilla Musser, even in its postidentitarian and subjectless modes, continental theories’ transgressive moves (affective, sensational, masochistic) tend to reinstantiate the white male (sometimes queer) subject that it hopes to overcome.44 While not throwing away affect theory in Sensational Flesh, Musser scrutinizes white queer theory’s moves toward subjectless, futurelessnes, and masochism as gestures that actually recover and reify a subject (often white male gay) as they seek to annihilate the subject.
King 17 |Tiffany Lethabo King, Assistant Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Georgia State, PhD in American Studies from the University of Maryland at College Park, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved: Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” Critical Ethnic Studies Volume 3 Number 1|KZaidi
Poststructuralist traditions that attempt to transcend identity actually function as a ruse of subjectlessness. queer subjectlessness and nonrepresentational rhizomes are an expression of a posthumanism that resuscitates normative subjects through the death of Black and Indigenous peoples theory has not typically had the stomach for sustaining an investigation of the kind of unspeakable violence that enabled the Marxist worker, queer, and affective subjectless discourses to exist The erasure of the (white) body-as-subject-as-ontology has been more effective in covering the bloody trail of white/human-self-actualization than it has been at successfully offering a way around and beyond the entrapments of liberal humanism even in its postidentitarian and subjectless modes, continental theories’ transgressive moves affective, sensational, masochistic tend to reinstantiate the white male subject that it hopes to overcome Musser scrutinizes white queer theory’s moves toward subjectless, futurelessnes, and masochism as gestures that actually recover and reify a subject as they seek to annihilate the subject.
The 1AC’s call to move beyond the subject is a form of humanist masochism which produces a ruse of subjectlessness – this conceals the desire for white human ascendency which undergirds their transgression of the human, morphing their project into a philic desire to inhabit the bodies of Black and Indigenous people fixed as abject – it’s not a question of the human or the subject but the scaffolding of antiblack settler-colonial positionality that produces gratuitous deathmaking
1,343
484
1,118