Professional Documents
Culture Documents
India DA
The U.S. and India are expanding relations now mutual
suspicion of China is key
Tankel 15
(Stephen Tankey is an assistant professor in the School of International
Service at American University, where he specializes in international security
with a focus on political and military affairs in South Asia, transnational
threats, Islamist militancy, and U.S. foreign and defense policies, 1/27. U.S.India Relations Three Questions for Stephen Tankel.
http://www.american.edu/sis/news/20150127-3Q-Three-Questions-on-USIndia-Relations.cfm)
Q: Why did President Obama visit India, and what was the significance of the visit? A: President Obama attended Indias
Republic Day celebrations as the chief guest of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This is the first time
India
has
invited an American president to be chief guest at its Republic Day. It is also the
first time that an American president visited India twice while in office. Those
facts alone speak to the importance both governments place on building the
bilateral relationship. In the United States, there is bipartisan support for building the relationship
with India, which is viewed as a possible net security provider in South Asia and the
wider Indian Ocean Region, a potential balance against China, an attractive economic market, and a natural
partner given that it is the worlds largest democracy. Q: Why has Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made
improved U.S.-Indian relations a priority since his landslide election victory last May? A: Prime
Minister Modi has stressed, since before he was elected, that he believes India and the United
States have a fundamental stake in one anothers success. Strong bilateral relations are
beneficial to India in various ways, and Id note several of them here. First, Modi has made revitalizing the Indian economy
the centerpiece of his administration, and that requires boosting investment and manufacturing in India. The United
States is an important partner in this regard. Second, the conventional wisdom is that India does not view security through
relationship with the United States as a way to procure technology that India lacks. Thats necessary both from a defense
perspective, and as a way to build the Indian economy, which helps explain why New Delhi is so insistent that the United
States agrees to technology transfers as part of defense trade agreements.
robust relationship with India and for supporting its rise: strategic interest, especially in the context of the rise of China;
economically (internal balancing) and building a range of partnerships (external balancing)and it envisions a key role for
the U.S. in both. Some Indian policymakers highlight another benefit of the U.S. relationship: Beijing takes Delhi more
quest for strategic autonomy will allow India to develop a truly strategic partnership with the U.S. There are also worries
about the gap between Indian potential and performance. Part of the rationale for supporting Indias rise is to help
demonstrate that democracy and development arent mutually exclusive. Without delivery, however, this rationaleand
hand, is seen as potentially destabilizing the region and forcing India to choose between the two countries. From the U.S.
perspective, any deterioration in Sino-Indian relations might create instability in the region and perhaps force it to choose
sides. Too much Sino-Indian bonhomie, on the other hand, would potentially create complications for the U.S. in the
bilateral, regional and multilateral spheres.
direct Indian
engagement in these global negotiations demonstrated that it is essential to
any international solution to this pressing problem. While real differences
exist and will likely continue on the best methods for reducing carbon emissions,
this effort should not be seen as a competition between developed and developing countries.
On the contrary, any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions will require the
active collaboration of the worlds largest energy consumers. India , one of the
two fastest-growing energy markets in the world today, is critical to this
effort.
India, and China) bloc rather than with the United States and its other partners. At the same time,
monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel
predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could
literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria;
glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming
several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase
NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005
was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is
estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million
illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad
in the most destructive hurricanes;
killed broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded
Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it
breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution,
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present
they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As
winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the
damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming
could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive
feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took
place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse
effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and
humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor
Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn
everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at
the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl
Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the
Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the
post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over
is a threat not
only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It
DipCap DA
The US is pushing for peace talks in the Middle East now
Kerrys making it a priority
Mills 5/19/16
(Curt Mills is a staff writer for the US News and World Report, Kerry to Take
Part in Middle East Peace Talks Opposed by Netanyahu, US News And World
Report, 19 May 2016)
Secretary of State John Kerry announced Thursday that he will attend a meeting on
a French-led peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a plan opposed by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Kerry said in Brussels on Thursday that he informed French Foreign Minister
Jean-Marc Ayrault that the U.S. will participate in the June 3 meeting after some initial doubt about his availability on a
previously sheduled date. The organizers of the meeting also plan a larger international conference on the Middle East this
"I
certainly intend to be helpful and cooperative in a cooperative way that
makes sense with the parties in order to encourage them to come to the
table," Kerry said." I will work with the global community in good faith in an
effort to see if we can find a way to help the parties see their way to come
back and ultimately see their way to a final status agreement that meets the
needs of the parties." The State Department said Thursday the U.S. will be an "active" and
"energetic" participant in the work of the talks. "I can assure you the
secretary is not going to attend the meeting with the expectation that he's
just going to be in the audience," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. "We're not going to
summer amid a growing dissatisfaction that decades of U.S.-led efforts have yielded little in the way of results.
both very important -- but it is not clear what the U.S. can or should do and how much influence it can exert. However,
attitude achieves nothing. Working for peace is harder, no doubt, but the rewards are so great that it would be criminal
not to try.
opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to
pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United
taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework.
Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which
escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such
a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and
decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The
international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an
K
The affirmatives desire for the USFG to step in and save
us from racism is a farce their deference to Congress
and method of pretended fiat precludes analysis of our
own relationship to violence
Kappeler 95
(Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the
notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the
conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is
precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash
a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective
action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective
decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions
of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at
all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own
apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate
competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the
major powermongers: For we tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to
General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to stop this war', `I want
military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we
do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension:
our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring
innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you
have a yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one
relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of war
and violence.
Part of my white
privilege was not seeing my whiteness. One of the most pervasive tools
of oppression is the insistence that power and privilege do not exist. From birth,
those of us with privileged identities are socialized to internalize dominance.
We come to believe that our privilege, or even superiority, is natural, and that all
Kelly, Im proud Im a girl, and Im proud I have a guinea pig. Well, that was that.
opportunities are granted based on individual merit. I never had a hard time finding a job. Pull yourself up
remains status quo. And if white people dont acknowledge that they benefit from racism, they are
cosigning onto white supremacy.
form or another as white folks, as cismen, as straight folks, as able-bodied folks, as United States
citizens. And because of the often-subconscious nature of internalized
dominance, our social justice learning curve typically entails unlearning. For
example: For a gay man to stand in solidarity with a lesbian woman with
whom he shares a marginalized sexuality, but carries a dominant gender
he must unlearn his internalized sexism. Otherwise, his male privilege will
inevitably show up despite his efforts to combat homophobia alongside her.
If it so happens he is white (carrying a dominant race), and she is black (a marginalized race), he must also
unlearn his internalized white supremacy. Otherwise, his internalized sexism and racism begin to layer in
how he moves through the world. Make sense? Mainstream feminist and anti-racist organizing emerged in
the 20th century as responses to the systematic denial of male and white supremacy: Hey, wait a sec.
Thanks for the vote and all, but my
power and privilege. But it gets tangled. As systems of oppression are. To stand firmly in antiracism, white feminists must unlearn internalized white supremacy. The unlearning of white
supremacy isnt exactly encouraged by the existing powers that be.
Unfortunately, its not an integral rite of feminist passage. Dismantling white supremacy isnt a core
Again the
oppression monster feeds itself. This is all natural. Because of this,
internalized white supremacy among feminism carries a long and painful history
that continues to create fierce divisions today. In 1982, a group of black lesbian feminists
element of high school social studies, nor a given in womens studies curricula.
by the name of the Combahee River Collectiveissued a statement that would become a core canon of
black feminist thought and a required text within intersectional feminism. Their statement expressed that
the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the
conditions of our lives. In a lesser-cited excerpt, however, the Collective stated, We realize that the only
people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us. We repeatedly hear the
voices of feminists of color calling out a persistent whitewashed feminism that erases their experiences as
people of color. This is not new. This has been going on for over a century. So where are the white anti-
dont perpetuate white supremacy and the same goes for you. Consider this: As a feminist, how many
times have you heard the following? Maybe if women didnt dress like that, they wouldnt get sexually
assaulted. Thats reverse sexism. Youre just a man hater. Its not all about gender, you know. Women are
sexist toward each other, too. Why dont you ever talk about mens issues? Men are victims to violence,
too. I cant be sexist. Im a [marginalized identity]. Youre just dividing people. Why are you so angry?
#NotAllMen I imagine youve heard at least one of those things before, if not all. How did you respond?
How did you feel? As an anti-racist feminist, how many times have you heard the following? Maybe if
people of color didnt commit crimes, they wouldnt get arrested. Thats reverse racism. It sounds like you
just hate white people. Its not all about race, you know. People of color are racist toward each other, too.
Why dont you ever talk about the struggles white people face? White people are arrested, too. I cant be
racist. Im a woman. Youre just dividing feminists. Why are you so angry? #AllLivesMatter Similarly, I
imagine youve heard at least one of those things before, if not all. How did you respond? How did you
feminists can silence the experiences of people of color just as men can silence the experiences of women.
Shifting Toward a Self-Aware Accountability Many anti-racist feminists rightfully mistrust an anti-racism that
is outward looking the type that believes that as a white feminist, I should learn about the experiences of
people of color in order to help them. I should promote diversity and inclusion. Instead, as a white feminist,
a collective emphasis on noticing andlearning about our whiteness as it relates to our desire to be antiracist. This isnt just a call to learn about the unique struggles encountered by women of color in a white
supremacist society, but to really study your whiteness. This is the only way to genuinely address white
privilege in a way that lends itself to a humble and focused anti-racism. Study your words, your thoughts,
your feels. Find what is yours and what you have been taught. Examine the things that you feel entitled to,
or situations in which you do not experience barriers. And when you find your privilege is checked, or
witness another responding to their privilege being checked, notice the response. Specifically, have an
honest conversation with your heart and witness whether you experience the silencing tools of oppression
not only the ones that erase the lives of women, but also the lives of people of color.
Thus, we affirm a process of intralocality. Only selfreflective action, centered around ones unique
positionality and privileges, can ever challenge
intersectional oppression
Moore 11
(Darnell L., writer and activist whose work is informed by anti-racist, feminist,
queer of color, and anti-colonial thought and advocacy. Darnell's essays,
social commentary, poetry, and interviews have appeared in various national
and international media venues, including the Feminist Wire, Ebony
magazine, and The Huffington Post, "On Location: The I in the Intersection,"
http://thefeministwire.com/2011/12/on-location-the-i-in-the-intersection/)
The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that
we are actively
committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression and see as our
particular ask the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the
fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these
oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As black women we see black feminism as the logical
political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.
-The Combahee River Collective in A Black Feminist Statement Many radical movement builders are wellversed in the theory of intersectionality. Feminists, queer theorists and activists, critical race scholars,
progressive activists, and the like owe much to our Black feminist sisters, like The Combahee River
Collective, who introduced us to the reality of simultaneityas a framework for assessing the multitude of
interlocking oppressions that impact the lives of women of colorin A Black Feminist Statement (1978).
Their voices and politics presaged Kimberl Crenshaws very useful theoretical contribution of
intersectionality to the feminist toolkit of political interventions in 1989. Since its inception,
many have referenced the termsometimes without attribution to the black feminist intellectual
genealogy from which it emergedas a form of en vogue progressive parlance. In fact, it seems to be the
(as in, I understand the ways that race, sexuality, class, and gender coalesce. I get it. I really do.)
I am certain that I am not the only person who has heard a person use language embedded with race,
My concern, then,
has everything to do with the way that the fashioning of intersectionality as a
political framework can lead toward the good work of analyzing ideological
and material systems of oppressionas they function out thereand
away from the great work of critical analyses of the ways in which we, ourselves, can
function as actants in the narratives of counter-resistance that we
rehearse. In other words, we might be missing the opportunity to read our
complicities, our privileges, our accesses, our excesses, our excuses,
our modes of oppressinglocated in hereas they occupy each of
us. Crenshaws theorization has provided us with a useful lens to assess the problematics of the
class, gender, or ability privilege follow-up with a reference to intersectionality.
interrelated, interlocking apparatuses of power and privilege and their resulting epiphenomena of
PIK
We endorse the entirety of the 1AC minus the use of the
term American soil in the plan text.
Using the term America when referring to the United
States of America creates cultural assimilation and
perpetuates colonial and hegemonic thought
Velazquez 07
(Edyael Velazquez is an M.A. in Latin American Studies, Influence of
Trajectory and Agency on Strategies of Incorporation and Identity of
Immigrant Youth: A Case Study of New Life High School, pg. 12-13, 2007)
A component of the hegemonic attitude at the foundation of the United
States is establishing the national identity as American. America is a
continent (or three to some) not a country. The United States is not America,
but one of the countries on the American continent. Therefore, referring to the
United States as America and its citizens as American is a strategy of
hegemony. Because I wish to deconstruct the hegemonic practice of referring to
the United States as America and its citizens as American , I refer to U.S. citizens as
UnitedStatesian. Re-defining who is considered immigrant also challenges how someone is considered immigrant.
Research conducted on the so-called second generation, referencing the children of immigrants, (Portes, 1993, Portes et.
al, 1994, 1996, 2001; Rumbaut, 1999; Zhou, 1997) indicates that immigrants are defined by generational position.
Therefore, anybody who is a descendant of someone who immigrated at any point is an immigrant of X generation.
However, the hegemonic establishment of United Statesian identity as a native identity instead of an immigrant identity,
places the descendants of European immigrants outside of immigrant identity and immigration discourse. And it also
introduces my third objective: to challenge and re-frame the discourse on immigration. I challenge immigration discourse
by considering UnitedStatesian an immigrant identity constructed by European immigrants. By placing UnitedStatesian
inside the immigration discourse, I re-frame the U.S.-centric, assimilationist understanding of immigrant incorporation and
identity to an understanding centered on the experience of the immigrant.2 Thus, instead of asking how UnitedSatesian
are you? and using assimilation into UnitedStatesian identity to measure the identity and successful incorporation of
immigrants, I explore diverse identities and strategies of incorporation that immigrants negotiate influenced by their
particular experience. The objectives I have outlined shape the arguments I present in this thesis and how I construct
hegemonic mentality is equating being American with being successful. In immigrant incorporation
research, American is placed as the native identity immigrants assimilate to . The
ultimate goal for the immigrant is to become American and stop being immigrant in order to receive all the
the "hemispheric turn" has been reflected in two recent literary anthologies.
Case
Racism
Not going to touch it anti-Chinese racism is certainly
awful and we should try to prevent it. The problem here is
that the aff has no chance of solving racism C/A our
solvency answers. Make them explain to you how an
ambassador in Chicago is going to prevent Missourians
from thinking Everything in China is cheap, or else they
will never get solvency
Business
First, U.S.-China trade ties are massive and expanding
cultural gaffes may be embarrassing, but empirically they
are not hurting trade relations
Morrison 15
(Wayne M. Morrison is a specialist in Asian Trade and Finance, China-U.S.
Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, 15 December 2015, web)
U.S.-China economic ties have expanded substantially over the past three
decades. Total U.S.-China trade rose from $2 billion in 1979 to $591 billion in
2014. China is currently the United States second-largest trading partner, its
third largest export market, and its biggest source of imports. In addition, according to
one estimate, sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms in China totaled $364 billion
in 2013. Many U.S. firms view participation in Chinas market as critical to
staying globally competitive. General Motors (GM) for example, which has invested heavily in China, sold
more cars in China than the United States each year from 2010 to 2014. In addition, U.S. imports of low-cost
goods from China greatly benefit U.S. consumers , and U.S. firms that use
China as the final point of assembly for their products , or use Chinese-made inputs for
production in the United States, are able to lower costs . China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury
securities ($1.26 trillion as of September 201). Chinas purchases of U.S. government debt help keep interest rates low.
it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize
how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact
whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen
ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the
global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and
Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the
markets -- is the talk of the day,
chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia
Russia-Georgia
conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening
ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by
the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long
struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various
databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts,
insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements . Besides the recent RussiaGeorgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v.
Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied
down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our
involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and
following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America,
(where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the
the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast).
Solvency
China says no no motivation to cooperate with the U.S.
plan makes them pay for diplomats and get nothing in
return
Gallage 13
(Moira Gallage, Do We Still Need Embassies? The Diplomat, 4 September
2013, web)
the global recession is that it has compelled a number of countries
to scale back their diplomatic representation overseas by closing some of
their embassies. Faced with the economic and financial realities during economic
downturns, governments often have little choice but to cut back on the spending that is
involved in maintaining and operating embassies overseas. For developing countries,
especially those facing issues such as poverty, serious income inequality , battered
economies and poor quality of life for average citizens, it can be quite difficult
to justify the allocation of limited government funds to maintaining an
embassy. It doesn't help that there is a mistaken public perception of the way in which diplomacy is conducted: that
One of the impacts of
it is all about cocktails and receptions. It makes it very easy for grandstanding politicians to target diplomats and their
perceived "lifestyles" overseas in order to make budget cuts.
more responsive and effective in this modern environment. Former British diplomat Carne Ross strongly emphasizes this
foreign policy. Proponents of this view would cite the benefits of modern telecommunications and information systems and