Aff PTC 2

MICHIGAN DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 1
SEVEN WEEK MIXED PTC AFFIRMATIVE
NATIVE AMERICAN PTC AFFIRMATIVE

NATIVE AMERICAN PTC AFFIRMATIVE.................................................................................................................1
IAC (1/17).......................................................................................................................................................................5
IAC (2/17).......................................................................................................................................................................6
IAC (3/17).......................................................................................................................................................................7
IAC (4/17).......................................................................................................................................................................8
IAC (5/17).......................................................................................................................................................................9
IAC (6/17).....................................................................................................................................................................10
IAC (8/17).....................................................................................................................................................................12
IAC (9/17).....................................................................................................................................................................13
IAC (10/17)...................................................................................................................................................................14
IAC (11/17)...................................................................................................................................................................15
IAC (12/17)...................................................................................................................................................................16
IAC (13/17)...................................................................................................................................................................17
IAC (14/17)...................................................................................................................................................................18
IAC (15/17)...................................................................................................................................................................19
IAC (16/17)...................................................................................................................................................................20
IAC (17/17)...................................................................................................................................................................21
***INHERENCY/HARMS***....................................................................................................................................22
NO PTC ........................................................................................................................................................................23
NA=IMPOVERISHED.................................................................................................................................................24
NA=IMPOVERISHED.................................................................................................................................................25
INEQUALITY POVERTY.........................................................................................................................................26
POVERTY IMPACTS—GILLIGAN ...........................................................................................................................27
POVERTY IMPACTS—CUOMO ...............................................................................................................................28
POVERTY HEALTH RISKS.....................................................................................................................................29
CULTURE LOSS BRINK............................................................................................................................................30
NA GENOCIDED.........................................................................................................................................................31
***SOLVENCY***
.......................................................................................................................................................................................32
PTC SOLVE RENEWABLES......................................................................................................................................33
PTC→ RENEWABLES................................................................................................................................................34
RENEWABLES→ECONOMIC GROWTH................................................................................................................35
PTC→ ECONOMIC GROWTH..................................................................................................................................36
PTC ECONOMIC GROWTH....................................................................................................................................37
A2 NA≠PLAN..............................................................................................................................................................38
PTC→ WIND................................................................................................................................................................39
PTC→ WIND................................................................................................................................................................40
PTC→ WIND................................................................................................................................................................42
TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY............................................................................................................................43
TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY............................................................................................................................44
CULTURE SOLVES EXTINCTION............................................................................................................................45
NA K/T BIODIVERSITY.............................................................................................................................................46
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS.........................................................................................................................................49
COLONIALISM O/W..................................................................................................................................................53
M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY................................................................................................................................54
M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY................................................................................................................................55
NA K/T REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE....................................................................................................................56
REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE K/T ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................57
REVELATORY K/T ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................................58
WEST NOT ACCESS REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE..............................................................................................59

REVELATORY SOLVES OBJECTIVICATION.........................................................................................................60
***SELF-DETERMINATION***
.......................................................................................................................................................................................61
NO—US SELF-D.........................................................................................................................................................62
NO—US SELF-D.........................................................................................................................................................63
NO—US SELF-D.........................................................................................................................................................64
YES—US SELF-D.......................................................................................................................................................65
NO—US/INT’L SELF-D..............................................................................................................................................66
NO—US/INT’L SELF-D..............................................................................................................................................67
YES—INT’L SELF-D..................................................................................................................................................68
YES—SELF-D MOVEMENTS--KOSOVO................................................................................................................69
NO-US SELF-D--YES INT’L SELF-D........................................................................................................................70
NO-US SELF-D--YES INT’L SELF-D........................................................................................................................71
DEVELOPMENT SELF-D........................................................................................................................................72
DEVELOPMENTSELF-D........................................................................................................................................75
PTC SELF-D (WIND)................................................................................................................................................76
YES—US MODELED.................................................................................................................................................77
YES—US MODELED.................................................................................................................................................78
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................79
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................80
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................81
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................82
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................83
US MODEL KEY.........................................................................................................................................................84
SELF-D SOLVES OPPRESSION................................................................................................................................85
SELF-D K/T US HRTS LEADERSHIP.......................................................................................................................89
SELF-D SOLVES CULTURE LOSS............................................................................................................................90
SELF-D SOLVES CULTURE LOSS............................................................................................................................91
SELF-D SOLVES BIODIVERSITY............................................................................................................................92
SELF-D SOLVES POVERTY......................................................................................................................................97
SELF-D SOLVES POVERTY......................................................................................................................................98
SELF-D SOLVES CONFLICT.....................................................................................................................................99
SELF-D SOLVES CONFLICT...................................................................................................................................100
SELF-D≠CONFLICT.................................................................................................................................................101
*SELF-D SCENARIO EXTENSIONS*....................................................................................................................102
EXT: SP- NO US SELF-D↓SP...................................................................................................................................103
EXT: SP- NO US SELF-D ↓ SP.................................................................................................................................106
EXT: SP- PLAN ↑ SP.................................................................................................................................................107
EXT: SP- PLAN ↑ SP.................................................................................................................................................108
EXT: UN CRED- SELF-D SOLVES CRED..............................................................................................................109
EXT: UN CRED- NO UN CRED...............................................................................................................................110
EXT: UN CRED- US K/T CRED...............................................................................................................................111
EXT: UN CRED- US ↑ UN CRED.............................................................................................................................112
EXT: UN CRED- US ↑ UN CRED.............................................................................................................................113
EXT: UN CRED- US-UN K/T PEACE......................................................................................................................114
EXT: UN CRED- PLAN ↑ CRED..............................................................................................................................115
EXT: UN CRED- PLAN ↑ CRED..............................................................................................................................116

EXT: KASHMIR-TENSIONS HIGH.........................................................................................................................117
EXT: KASHMIR-TENSIONS HIGH.........................................................................................................................118
EXT: KASHMIR-PLAN ↑ US/PAK RELATIONS....................................................................................................119
EXT: KASHMIR-NO SELF-D...................................................................................................................................120
EXT: KASHMIR-NO US SELF-D IN KASHMIR....................................................................................................121
EXT: KASHMIR- A2 US INFLUENCE EMPERICALLY FAILS............................................................................122
EXT: KASHMIR-PLAN SOLVES.............................................................................................................................123
EXT: KASHMIR- PLAN SOLVES............................................................................................................................124
EXT: KASHMIR- PLAN SOLVES............................................................................................................................125
EXT: KASHMIR-US KEY.........................................................................................................................................126
EXT: KASHMIR-US KEY.........................................................................................................................................127
EXT: KASHMIR- I/L TERROR COALITION..........................................................................................................128
EXT: KASHMIR- I/L INDO-PAK WAR....................................................................................................................129
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS....................................................................................................................................130
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS....................................................................................................................................131
EXT: KASHMIR- TERMINAL IMPACTS................................................................................................................132
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS – INDIAN ECONOMY..............................................................................................133
EXT: KASHMIR- TERMINAL IMPACTS – INDO-PAK.........................................................................................134
EXT: KASHMIR- A2 HEG SOLVES KASHMIR.....................................................................................................135
**2AC ADD-ONS**
...................................................................................................................................................................................136
2AC FREE TRADE....................................................................................................................................................137
2AC YUCCA..............................................................................................................................................................139
EXT: YUCCA- SELF-D SOLVES..............................................................................................................................140
EXT: YUCCA- IMPACTS..........................................................................................................................................141
EXT: YUCCA-IMPACTS...........................................................................................................................................142
2AC DEMOCRACY...................................................................................................................................................146
EXT: DEMOCRACY- SELF-D KEY.........................................................................................................................147
EXT: DEMOCRACY- SELF-D KEY.........................................................................................................................148
EXT: DEMOCRACY-GLOBAL CRISIS...................................................................................................................149
2AC CANADA...........................................................................................................................................................150
EXT: CANADA-BRINK............................................................................................................................................151
EXT: CANADA-US MODEL KEY...........................................................................................................................152
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSION KILLS HEG............................................................................................153
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSIONPROTECTIONSIM.............................................................................154
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSIONINTERNATIONAL FRAGMENTATION...........................................155
***SECESSIONISM***............................................................................................................................................156
SELF-D≠SECESSION................................................................................................................................................157
“SECESSION” THREATS BAD................................................................................................................................158
NO IMPACT TO SECESSION...................................................................................................................................160
SELF-D SOLVES SECESSION.................................................................................................................................161
SELF-D≠SECESSION................................................................................................................................................162
SELF-D≠SECESSION................................................................................................................................................163
INTERNAL SELF-D SOLVES SECESSION............................................................................................................164
INTERNAL SELF-D ≠ SECESSION.........................................................................................................................167
INTERNAL SELF-D ≠ SECESSION.........................................................................................................................168
SECESSION≠ DESTROY DEMOCRACY...............................................................................................................169
***A2 SELF-DETERMINATION BAD SCENARIOS***.......................................................................................170
A2 CHINA TURN.......................................................................................................................................................171
A2 TURKEY DA........................................................................................................................................................172
A2 TURKEY DA........................................................................................................................................................173
A2 TURKEY DA........................................................................................................................................................174
EXT: TURKEY- NO WAR.........................................................................................................................................175
2AC INDONESIA TURN (1/3)..................................................................................................................................176
EXT: #1 SELF-D NOW..............................................................................................................................................179
EXT: #2 LINK TURN.................................................................................................................................................180
EXT: #3 NO EXTREMISM........................................................................................................................................181
EXT: #4 NO COLLAPSE...........................................................................................................................................182
EXT: INDONESIA 2AC NO IMPACT......................................................................................................................183
***A2 OFF CASE ARGUMENTS***......................................................................................................................184

KATO..........................................................................................................................................................................185
KATO..........................................................................................................................................................................186
A2 SPENDING...........................................................................................................................................................187
A2 SPENDING...........................................................................................................................................................188
A2 BUSINESS CONFIDENCE..................................................................................................................................189
A2 TERRORISM........................................................................................................................................................194
A2 OTHER INCENTIVE CPS...................................................................................................................................195
A2 OTHER INCENTIVES CPS.................................................................................................................................196
A2 STATES CP - USFG K..........................................................................................................................................197
A2 STATES CP - USFG K..........................................................................................................................................198
A2 STATES CP - CONSTITUTION...........................................................................................................................199
A2 STATES CP - CONSTITUTION...........................................................................................................................200
A2 STATES CP – INTERST8 COMMERCE.............................................................................................................201
A2 STATES CP - UNIFORMITY...............................................................................................................................202
A2 STATES CP – FISM N/U......................................................................................................................................203
A2 STATES CP – NO CREDITS................................................................................................................................204
A2 TREATY CP..........................................................................................................................................................205
A2 SUNSET CP..........................................................................................................................................................206
A2 SUNSET CP..........................................................................................................................................................208
A2 WIND PIC.............................................................................................................................................................209
A2 GIVE THE LAND BACK....................................................................................................................................210
A2 CONSULT IO........................................................................................................................................................211
A2 KRITIK.................................................................................................................................................................212
A2 STATISM K...........................................................................................................................................................213
A2 CAPITALISM KRITIK.........................................................................................................................................214
A2 CAPITALIST KRITIK..........................................................................................................................................216
A2 POMO KRITIKS..................................................................................................................................................218
***TOPICALITY QUESTIONS***..........................................................................................................................219
YES—FOREIGN .......................................................................................................................................................220
NO—FOREIGN..........................................................................................................................................................221
IAC (1/17)
Observation One: Inherency
Current U.S. tax policy denies Native Americans access to tax credits for renewable energy
American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of
Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF
TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267.
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy," has become a shibboleth of any economic reading of U.S.
constitutional law. 1 Yet behind Justice Marshall's oft-repeated words lies an important insight into the
balance of power between sovereign entities. That insight is essentially this: the ability of an entity to
maintain its sovereignty depends on economic power, and that economic power can be taken away by
taxation. With the power to tax also comes the power to push, to encourage, to foster and to favor. If taxation
can sap economic power, tax policy can also confer vast economic rents on certain favored groups. However,
America's Indian tribes are a group not favored by federal tax policy. 2 This paper is concerned with elements
of U.S. tax policy that do [*269] unrecognized harm to Indian tribes. In the standard analysis, Indian tribes
benefit from tax-free status - it is a bright line rule of U.S. tax policy that tribes and their subsidiary
corporations do not pay federal income taxes. However, the guarantee of tax-free status for Indian tribes also
guarantees the tribes cannot use tax credits granted by the federal government.
Plan: The United States federal government should authorize American Indian Tribal
eligibility for a permanent Production Tax Credit as identified in Internal Revenue Code
45.
or
Plan: The United States federal government should authorize American Indian Tribal
eligibility for a permanent Production Tax Credit.
IAC (2/17)
Advantage One: Poverty
Current federal tax code creates an unequal economic playing field for American Indians
Tex Hall, President of the National Congress of American Indians, 3-1-2004,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print
Second, Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that drives all
wind projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract the private investor to
develop partnerships for projects on Tribal lands. Indians are the only people with a "trust relationship" with
the federal government. Our treaties require the federal government to assist us in developing our reservation
economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to tax-paying developers via the PTC or to states or
subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). Indians are the only group
excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we are the only ones with a legal
obligation — our treaties — for federal assistance! Currently, because Tribes are not taxed entities (a status
we secured from the United States in return for our giving them most of this continent), any developer that
teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized by only being able to use a portion
of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of ownership in the
production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner must forego any
incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in this country,
but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands. Intertribal COUP once
proposed a Tribal energy production incentive to correct this federal oversight. Wryly called a "TEPI", it
gently reminded Congress that it had an obligation to provide an equal playing field for Indian energy
development. The Senate version of the federal energy bill contains language to allow Tribes and other non-
taxed entities (such as municipal utilities and rural cooperatives) to sell, assign, or trade any tax credits that
might become available to them, but those provisions were removed by the House in the conference
committee. A current COUP proposal is a little more restrictive in scope, allowing joint ventures between
Tribes and non-Indian developers to allocate the Tribe's share of the credits to their tax-paying partners. This
proposal would be tax neutral, but it removes the penalty for investment in Indian Country through Tribal
joint ventures. Tribes could still be principal owners of the project, but our partners would not be financially
penalized.
Tradable tax credits will reduce tribal dependency and increase tribal sovereignty
The argument for a tradable tax credit is, at root, an argument for equity. Legal scholarship has a history of
arguments for a federal tax treatment of tribes that allows tribal economies to develop. 23 The moral basis of
arguments for an equitable - even favorable - tax treatment of tribes tends to rest on the federal trust
responsibility toward tribes established early in U.S. history and articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 24 Writing of the Tribal Tax Status Act of 1982, legal scholar Robert Williams
said "To satisfy the 'moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust' incumbent upon the United
States in its dealings with Indian nations, federal Indian Country development policy must address itself to
the structural barriers currently preventing tribal economic and social self-sufficiency." 25 Lack of tribal
access to tax credits is one of today's structural barriers. Addressing those barriers will help alleviate the
federal concern for tribal economic development expressed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
"On Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud reservations," a bank publication found, "roughly half of Indian
families are poor." 26 By aligning the tax incentives tribal businesses face with those faced by the rest of the
business community, the federal government will meet its goals of energy development, reduced tribal
dependency and increased tribal sovereignty. That alignment of incentives can be made a reality by making
wind energy tax credits tradable. More broadly, allowing tribes to utilize all tax credits now available only to
tax-paying entities will better align the interests of tribal business and U.S. policy, and also will better
provide for tribal economic development.
IAC (3/17)
Native Americans have the highest occurrence of severe poverty

Beale 2003 [Calvin L., Senior Demographer, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture] “The
Ethno/Racial Context of Poverty in Rural and Small Town America”http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id
=804&item_id=7806&newsletter_id=67&header=Poverty+%2F+Welfare, Poverty and Race, March/April 2003.
Forty nonmetro counties with high-poverty incidence reflected low income among Native Americans,
including Alaskan natives. They are all in areas of either historic tribal presence or 19th Century Indian
removal, especially in the Northern Plains, coastal Alaska, the Southwest and Oklahoma. The poverty level
of Native Americans within these counties was 40.7%, a level greater than that of the dominant minorities in
other high-poverty county groups. Furthermore, the Native American counties did not simply have a higher
incidence of poverty, they had the highest occurrence of severe poverty. A full fifth (20.5%) of the total
population in these areas lived in households with income less than three-fourths the poverty standard. Thus,
substantial increases in income --whether from earnings, retirement or assistance -- would be required to lift
this segment of the population to a minimally sufficient level of living. The Native American high-poverty
counties also had the highest ratio of total population to employed people of all county groups, with 288
persons of all ages for every 100 with jobs. By comparison, in nonmetro counties with poverty lower than
20%, there were just 214 persons for each 100 workers. The high dependency ratio in Native American
counties stems partly from the age composition of the population, but its impact on income adequacy is
worsened by the fact that only 36% of all males 16 years old and over had full-time, year-round work,
compared with 47.5% in nonmetro counties without high-poverty. Low labor force participation, high
unemployment within the labor force and lack of steady work for those employed all contribute to the
situation.
We have a moral obligation to eliminate extreme poverty as it dehumanizes its victims

Sengendo 2008 [Ahmad Kawesa, Rector at University of Uganda] http://www.e astsym.org/documents/
P1Kawesa_CentralityofSTI.pdf.
As Jack DeGioia of Georgetown University put it, “The moral challenge of our times is to eliminate extreme
poverty.” Socio-economic transformation remains a mirage as long as the majority of our people continue to
live in abject poverty. Poor people have no capacity to benefit from the great opportunities that advances in
S&T as well as R&D may put on their door steps. Poverty is dehumanizing and cheats its victims of the
minimum positive self-image and self-confidence necessary to face life’s challenges
IAC (4/17)
A decision to ignore the dehumanization of a group of persons makes their impacts
inevitable. When people are dispensable every atrocity can be justified.
Berube 1997 [David, Ph.D. in Communications] “Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side”,
NanoTechnology Magazine, June/July 1997, p. 1-6, URL: http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm.
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matsou’s treatise on the dehumanization of humanity.
They warn “its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on
record – and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation.
For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse… Behind
the genocide of the Holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menecide of deviants and dissidents…
in the cuckoo’s next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man… (Montagu & Matsou, 1983, p. xi-xii).
While it may never be possible to quantify the impacts dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is
safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we
calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any
tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse,
and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are
dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every
epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil’s most powerful weapon.
IAC (5/17)
Advantage Two: Self-Determination
U.S. support for self-determination has dramatically waned.

Callahan, 2002.(David, Director of Research at Demos. He has written extensively on both foreign and domestic
policy, and is the author of four books, including Unwinnable Wars: American Power and Ethnic Conflict, 2002
Carnegie Challenge, “The Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century,”
http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/ethnicconflict.pdf)
A second idea is that conflict between modern and traditional populations, manifested by clashes of religions
and cultures, will be a major driver of world politics. This vision of the future is closely related to a third idea
with a wide following: That world politics will increasingly be defined by battles between the rich and poor
—between those who are benefiting from the fruits of an increasingly globalized world economic system and
the great masses of people who are shut out of such prosperity. Each of these ideas holds important clues
about the future. But something is sorely missing from current debates: An appreciation of the decisive role
that self-determination movements and ethnic conflict will likely have in shaping world politics and
American foreign policy in the decades ahead.*During much of the 1990s, self-determination issues received
a tremendous amount of attention, and for good reason. Conflicts between different ethnic groups in Bosnia,
Rwanda, Kosovo, and the former Soviet Union dominated international news and drew NATO, America and
the United Nations into several major interventions. And yet, even before September 11th, self-determination
issues had largely lost their central place in debates about world affairs and U.S. foreign policy. The fast
changing currents of these debates had carried elite attention to other problems: managing globalization and
its backlash; trading off cold war arms control agreements for the dream of national missile defense; dealing
with growing Chinese power; and so on. Before September 11th, even as international aid workers worked to
rebuild Kosovo and Bosnia, and even as Macedonia teetered on the brink of full-fledged ethnic warfare, self
determination problems ceased to receive a great deal of attention.
IAC (6/17)
The plan offers a unique nation-building approach that cultivates economic self-
determination and tribal sovereignty.
Tribal sovereignty may be the number one concern of tribes. Indeed, one prominent legal scholar identifies
the right of self-government as the tribes' most valuable reserved right. 90 Historically, tribes have had good
reason to fear a loss of sovereignty, 91 and modern jurisprudence has done little to assure them of their long-
term status. 92In narrow terms, allowing tribes to develop and own their own wind generation will give them
more control over their resources, thus increasing tribal sovereignty. In broader terms, increased economic
self-determination - and specifically the ability of a local population to use and manage resources - is at the
heart of many of the concerns about sovereignty around the world, from the debate over free trade 93 to the
rapidly developing jurisprudence concerning the efforts of California and northeastern states to impose
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. 94 Policymakers have thrown strong weight behind the idea that
increased development of tribal energy and natural resources leads to increased tribal sovereignty. The
Reagan Administration, for example, believed that strengthening tribal governments could be accomplished
by resource development. The 1983 policy statement quoted above noted, "[t]his [*289] Administration
pledges to assist tribes in strengthening their governments by removing the federal impediments to tribal self-
government and tribal resource development." The Reagan administration's philosophy was still prominent
in 2005, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 503(a)(1) of the 2005 Act reads, "To
assist Indian tribes in the development of energy resources and further the goal of Indian self-determination,
the Secretary shall establish and implement an Indian energy resource development program" 95In the Senate
Report on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy and Natural Resources committee wrote:The
Committee believes that the provisions contained in this legislation, especially when combined with the tax
provisions to be offered from the Finance Committee, are the genesis for improving the national security of
this Nation, enhancing the environment, strengthening self-government for Native American communities,
decreasing dependence on foreign sources of energy, aiding the economy, and diversifying the energy base of
the country. 96Note that the Senate Report specifically mentioned the tax provisions to be offered from the
Finance Committee. In fact, language in the Act itself indicates that Congress may have wanted to address
tribal tax issues at a later date. Section 503 further provides the "Secretary of Energy shall submit to congress
a report on the financing requirements of Indian tribes for energy development on Indian land." 97 Making the
PTC tradable for tribes, as part of a program to make all tax credits tradable for tribes, would have a positive
economic impact on tribes. But to fulfill its potential, a tradable tax credit must be enacted as part of broader
legislation to bolster tribal economic development. Or, as one scholar put it, "A federal Indian policy that
focuses on the exploitation of tribal natural resources, and not on the development of tribal economies, is
doomed to resistance and failure." 98 Much research has been done over the past decade on the factors that
make tribal economies prosper, notably by Stephen Cornell, Joseph Kalt, Jonathan [*290] Taylor and their
colleagues at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. 99 The main points of the
research stress tribal governance, the importance of tribal sovereignty, tribal corporate governance and the
need to think broadly about economic development in order for tribal enterprises to succeed.Cornell and Kalt,
in particular, stress a nation-building approach:A nation-building approach to development doesn't say, "let's
start a business." Instead, it says, "let's build an environment that encourages investors to invest, that helps
businesses last, and that allows investments to flourish and pay off." A nation-building approach requires new
ways of thinking about and pursuing economic development. Telling the planning office to go get some
businesses going doesn't begin to crack the problem. The solutions lie elsewhere: in the design and
construction of nations that work. 100New ideas in tax credits and other tax incentives for tribes can be a part
of this nation-building approach, by laying the fiscal framework for tribal business to prosper.
IAC (7/17)
U.S. policy toward indigenous nations is modeled globally – its power and influence have no
substitute.
The Center For World Indigenous Studies, 99.
(THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, “The Center For World Indigenous Studies
“International Law and Politics: Toward a Right to Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples,”
http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/International/int.txt)
More important, the purpose here is to indicate that through the application of contemporary principles of
international law, particularly in the area of decolonization and self-determination, indigenous peoples must
ultimately be entitled to decide for themselves the dimensions of their political, economic, cultural, and social
conditions. It must be emphasized that the construction of this position is not based in the supposition that
because indigenous peoples constitute ethnic or cultural minorities in larger societies they must be protected due
to that status. Rather, the position is that since Europeans first wandered into the Western hemisphere they
have acknowledged the unique status of indigenous peoples qua indigenous peoples. That status is only now
being reaknowledged through the application of evolving principles of positive and customary international law.
While such assertions may seem novel and untenable at present, it should be recalled that just forty years ago,
tens of millions of people languished under the rule of colonial domination; today, they are politically
independent. Central to their independence was the development and acceptance of the right to self-
determination under international law. Despite such developments, many colonized peoples were forced by
desperate conditions to engage in armed struggle to advance their legitimate aspirations. Similarly, for many
indigenous peoples few viable options remain in their quest for control of their destinies. Consequently, a
majority of the current armed conflicts in the world are not between established states, but between indigenous
peoples and states that seek their subordination. Armed struggle for most indigenous peoples represents a
desperate and untenable strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an unavoidable option for many
of them, because if their petitions seeking recognition of their rights in international forums are ignored, many
indigenous peoples, quite literally, face extermination. Although this chapter has implications for the status of
all indigenous peoples, its concentration is primarily within the United States. This is because, in several ways,
the status of indigenous nations within the U.S. is unique, and the policy of the United States toward indigenous
nations has frequently been emulated by other states. The fact that a treaty relationship exists between the
United States and indigenous nations, and the fact that indigenous nations within the U.S. retain defined and
separate land bases and continue to exercise some degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the
successful application of international standards in their cases. Also, given the size and relative power of the
United States in international relations, and absent the unlikely independence of a majority- indigenous nation-
state such as Guatemala or Greenland, the successful application of decolonization principles to indigenous nations
within the U.S. could allow the extension of such applications to indigenous peoples in other parts of the planet.
Scenario One: Soft Power
America’s treatment of Native Americans fosters anti-Americanism

John A. Wickham, 2002 [September 11 and America's War on Terrorism: A New Manifest Destiny? American
Indian Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 117, JSTOR]
Another impediment to America's international public relations campaign is how to mitigate her genocidal
legacy towards her Indigenous tribes and nations, sovereigns referred to as Fourth-World countries.
America's reply here is to overlook or somehow suppress contemporary violations of Indian tribal
sovereignty and basic human rights. Without muffling the roar from the genocidal legacy or gagging the cries
of the currently oppressed, America's "Indian problem" may offer ample fuel for the manifestos of terrorists,
anti-globalists, and anti-Americanism abroad.
IAC (8/17)
U.S. support for UN standards of self-determination and human rights is the best way to
promote U.S. soft power and reverse anti-Americanism.
Dreier and Hamilton, 02.(David and Lee H. Co-Chairs, Council on Foreign Relations, TASK FORCE
REPORT, “Enhancing U.S. Leadership at the United Nations,” Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by
the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/11.pdf)
Establish a program of international public diplomacy that clearly communicates U.S. support for the
fundamental principles of the United Nations. According to a variety of indices, the United States continues to
have trouble effectively communicating its policies. To address this concern, a comprehensive and coherent
public diplomacy effort should highlight the unique role of the UN, the importance of U.S. engagement at the
UN, and, more generally, American support for human rights, democracy, and international peace and security.
Such a campaign should increase international awareness of the diverse and extensive contributions the United
States makes to multilateral institutions, including the UN. For example, while the U.S. debtor status to the UN
is widely known and derided, less well known is the fact that the United States is the largest donor to the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the world’s largest donor to international demining efforts, and
the largest national contributor to anti-HIV/AIDS efforts. The U.S. government should better target and expand
its international assistance. But it should also use public diplomacy to explain better the contributions of
individual Americans, private foundations, and corporate contributions, all of which are promoted and
subsidized by the U.S. tax structure. Tax incentives are an integral part of the U.S. belief in the role of the
private and nongovernmental sectors in international economic development. Another factor is the relative
openness of the United States to immigration, which creates opportunities for immigrants to partake in the
bounties of the U.S. economy and to assist their countries of origin through vast remittances that often
constitute significant proportions of a developing country’s gross national product (GNP). Public diplomacy
should also better explain how the United States is a major contributor to the economic and political
development of societies emerging from tyranny and state domination of economic life.
IAC (9/17)
U.S. soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear
Nye, 96 – Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (Joe, Washington Quarterly, "Conflicts after the
Cold War,” 19.1)
As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts
since the end of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving
wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The
UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus
the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of
identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or
religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out
when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international
organizations, states, and sub national groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves
threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states
within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread
across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship
weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more
intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military
personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and regional security organizations
lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal
U.S. Role Leadership by the United States, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and
a leading democracy, is a key factor in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and
communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both
"hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so
powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic
prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them.
Yet the United States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security
interests, whether or not the United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that
of a lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading
shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of
international organizations. This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S.
leadership effective and joint action possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of
U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the
conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.
IAC (10/17)
Scenario Two: UN Credibility
Failure to achieve autonomy as the method to promote democracy and counterterrorism

damages UN effectiveness.
Democracy, human rights, and counterterrorism are integrally related to the founding principles of the United
Nations. The ideals of human rights and democratic values are reflected in the preamble to the UN Charter,
which speaks of “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” Mass terrorism with a global reach is clearly
one of today’s main threats to the maintenance of international peace and security, the UN’s foremost
mission. Human rights, democracy, and counterterrorism are, therefore, not only at the core of the UN’s
founding mission, they are central to the two objectives that have central importance in the UN system: peace
and security, and economic and social development. Many egregious human rights violations and
humanitarian catastrophes around the world are the consequence of war and the collapse of security. Failed
states are a natural home for terrorist organizations. And there is convincing empirical evidence of the
proposition that established democracies do not wage war against one another. Moreover, sustainable and
equitable economic development for the poorest nations is dependent on the emergence of the rule of law and
on open and transparent governance that derives from democratic accountability. There is growing
understanding in the policy community that economic development is best achieved when citizens freely
criticize government policy, the press investigates and reports on economic transactions, civic groups work
openly to address issues of corruption and inequity, and the rotation of power acts as an antidote to the
cronyism and corruption that are so corrosive of economic growth and competition. Regrettably, UN action
on democracy, human rights protection, and counterterrorism has often stalled in the face of politicization of
the debate and obstructionist tactics by an effective minority of antidemocratic states. This, in turn, has
eroded confidence in the United Nations and contributed to skepticism about the institution and its
effectiveness, overshadowing the institution’s many unique strengths and essential activities.
Plan is key to U.S. leadership and high international standing – this revitalizes UN
credibility.
The recommendations proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations/Freedom House Task Force reflect the
consensus of a diverse group of U.S. experts whose views span the American political spectrum. They reflect
a workable agenda focused on the effective promotion of democracy, human rights, and counterterrorism that
can strengthen America’s leadership and reputation within the United Nations, help improve America’s
international standing, and, most importantly, help to make the United Nations a more effective institution.
The agenda set forth here also has the potential to serve as the basis of an effective multilateral engagement
that reflects American values and strengthens U.S. interests. Amid strains with many of its traditional
democratic allies over many such issues, the United States can clearly benefit from initiatives that underscore
its willingness to cooperate with natural allies on a broad range of actions that reflect shared values. We
believe that the recommendations of the Task Force reinforce this objective.
IAC (11/17)
A strong United Nations is the most effective mechanism to counter global terrorism – U.S.
role maximizes this agency’s advantage.
The day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the UN Security Council unanimously passed UNSC Resolution
1368, a groundbreaking measure in several respects. The resolution classified terrorist attacks as “threats to international peace and
security” and further stipulated that “those responsible for aiding, supporting, or harboring the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of
these acts will be held accountable,” a conclusion that lends support for the position that those states actively harboring terrorists bear
significant responsibility for the acts of those terrorists. On September 28, 2001, the Security Council also passed UNSCR Resolution 1373,
which created a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) within the Security Council to monitor states’ national efforts to adopt laws and build
capacity to prevent and combat terrorism. The CTC’s mandate is unusual in that it is open-ended and its scope is not limited to a response to
any particular terrorist threat. The CTC is composed of the fifteen Security Council members, with Britain’s permanent representative,
Jeremy Greenstock, elected as chairman, and three other Security Council members as vice chairmen.22 Although operating with a small
staff and no special funding, the CTC has been successful in accomplishing what it was set up to do: to fill in the gaps
that national efforts alone, including those by the United States, cannot fill. Rather than focusing on defining
terrorism or taking on other issues of contention in the UN terrorism debate, the purpose of the CTC is to “help
the world system to upgrade its capability, to deny space, money, support, haven to terrorism, and to establish a
network of information-sharing and cooperative executive action…”23The CTC’s principal work to date has
involved the collection and review of countries’ reports of their plans and progress on meeting UN Resolution
1373’s obligations.24 More than 160 UN member states have submitted reports to the CTC. The committee has
completed the first review of submissions and has begun a second phase of detailed examination, which focuses
on upgrading laws and regulations in member states and on the quality of the legislation in place. The
accomplishment of the CTC in coordinating the country report process is attributed largely to the way in which
the committee has employed appropriate transparency, openness, and effective communication with member
states. The United States has lent strong support to the CTC and is the only nation to have appointed a special
liaison to the committee. The work of the CTC and the UN’s post–September 11 counterterrorism efforts have
highlighted areas of the UN’s comparative advantage. The UN has the international legitimacy to bring
countries onto the counterterrorism bandwagon, as well as to promote counterterrorism standards and norms. It
has helped to build global norms against terrorism and establish accepted standards and practices for states to
adopt. The UN can also play an important role through post-conflict peace-building and humanitarian assistance
efforts, and through poverty reduction, conflict mediation, and human rights
The impact is extinction.

Alexander, 2003---professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies (Yonah , Washington
Times, 8/28)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that
the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the
terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to
regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is
not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists
striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the
collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years
ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the
now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by
the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including
misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of
terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media
by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new
scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current
and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global
security concerns
IAC (12/17)
Scenario Three: India-Pakistan
Kashmir tension over self-determination is on the brink – peace talks have failed
The News Pakastani Newspaper, April 23 2008, LEXIS
Hizbul Mujahideen derided on Monday a peace process between Pakistan and India and vowed to continue a
"holy war" against India. Hizb commander Syed Salahuddin said the Kashmir dispute had never been treated as a "core issue" in
peace talks. "We are peace-loving people but we cannot promote a peace process at the cost of our martyrs," Salahuddin told a rally in
Muzaffarabad. The rally by the militants, attended by about 1,000 people, was the first in many years. Salahuddin's comments came a
month before Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was due in Islamabad for a review of the peace process. Salahuddin said
militants would continue Jihad until Kashmir was "free" of Indian rule. "We want to convey a message to the
... political and religious leadership in Pakistan and at the same time to the Indian rulers that until every
single inch of Kashmir is freed from New Delhi's slavery, our struggle will continue with full force," he said.
A diplomatic model of internal self-determination is the only lasting solution to the

impending Kashmir crisis
Carley, 1997.(Patricia, United States Institute of Peace, “U.S. RESPONSES TO SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENTS: Strategies for
Nonviolent Outcomes and Alternatives to Secession,” Report from a Roundtable Held in Conjunction with the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S.
Department of State, July, http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks16.pdf)
Although the Kashmir issue involves both India’s domestic politics and its relations with neighboring Pakistan,
the immediate problem is the insurrection in Kashmir itself. Kashmir’s inclusion in the state of India carried
with it provisions for considerable autonomy, but the Indian government over the decades has undermined that
autonomy, a process eventually resulting in anti-Indian violence in Kashmir in the late 1980s.A lasting solution
to the Kashmir problem is unlikely unless that autonomy issue is addressed. Pakistan and India have gone to
war more than once over the Kashmir issue, and the two countries are currently polarized in their positions;
indeed, the primary concern for the United States on this issue has been to avoid another Indo-Pakistani war. To
that end, the United States may have to exert more effort to solve the problems inside Kashmir, which will
probably not be possible without some return to the autonomy established in the original accession agreement
IAC (13/17)
The U.S. should set the tone for Kashmir resolution – plan positions U.S. in a facilitating
role.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace,“The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict:
Opportunities for Economic Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy,” Special Report No. 121, June,
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr121.html)
These meetings were to be a prelude to a meeting between the two heads of government. Unfortunately, that meeting never took place
because Nehru died in May 1964. At that point, the Indian government was still open to a negotiated settlement. Instead, Ayub tried to grab
the territory and launched the ill-fated Operation Gibraltar in 1965. Although ending in a military stalemate, this move closed the discussion
on the Kashmir issue. Many of the factors that undercut the Kennedy initiative no longer exist. Even so, any effort
by the United States to impose a resolution will undoubtedly provoke popular resentment and public resistance
within both India and Pakistan, even if the national governments are compliant, rendering any enforced
settlement unsustainable. Pakistan's religious radicals would be sure to denounce it as an effort to undermine Pakistan's nationhood
and as a betrayal of their coreligionists. Indians would see it as an assault on their hard-won sovereignty. In February 1994, India's
parliament unanimously adopted a resolution declaring that the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been and will always be an "integral" part
of India, and that India has the will and the capacity to counter any effort to compromise this. It demanded that Pakistan vacate all areas of
the state "occupied through aggression" and warned that any interference in India's internal affairs will be "met resolutely." This resolution
was championed by the Congress Party, which returned to the helm of India's government after the parliamentary elections of 2004.The
subtleties and complexities of the relationships between the communities and the countries of South Asia are
best understood and handled by the people directly involved. The United States can best serve, then, not as a
mediator but as a facilitator, paving the way toward resolution while leaving the principal stakeholders to
determine the form of that resolution. As the chairmen of the Independent Task Force of the U.S. Council on
Foreign Relations and the Asia Society that visited India and Pakistan in December 2003 concluded in their
report, New Priorities in South Asia: "In the final analysis, only New Delhi and Islamabad can resolve their
rivalry and reach an accord over Kashmir. The United States can—and in the Task Force's view, should—try to
help the process." If the situation is to be resolved effectively, the Kashmiris will also need to have a say in the
matter. The good news is that the SAARC agreements have generated positive momentum, and it seems that the
time for real change has come.In an article published in Foreign Policy in spring 2000, Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state
under President Clinton, noted how the concept of nationhood is metamorphosing in a world of globalization and how the subphenomenon
of regionalization (of which SAARC is an excellent example) is on the rise.
A struggle over Kashmir will escalate into a nuclear conlict

Daniel S. Geller, January 2003 [Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Wayne State
University, JSTOR]
There exist a number of speculative but plausible avenues along which a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan might begin. For example, one scenario involves escalation, beginning with the use of conventional
military forces in a struggle over Kashmir. Such a military engagement could escalate to the nuclear level if
one side found itself losing the war on the conventional battlefield. The introduction of battlefield nuclear
weapons could be a tactic for manipulating risk or be pursued as a last, desperate means of avoiding defeat. A
second possibility involves crisis-generated preemption. In the case of a crisis, one side, fearing a first-strike
by the other during the confrontation, launches a preemptive nuclear attack on its opponent's nuclear forces
thereby hoping to minimize damage to itself. A third scenario involves preventive war. A "bolt out of the
blue" attack could be initiated by either side not as the result of some provocation or crisis, but rather as the
outcome of an expectation that war will inevitably occur at some future date, and, given a calculation that
war now-under current circumstances-is preferable to war later under circumstances which may be less
favorable, a decision is made to strike against the opponent's ungenerated forces.
IAC (14/17)
Advantage Three: Biodiversity
Indigenous cultures unique relationship to the land can ensure sustainability while
incorporating modern technologies
Aukerman 2000 [Miriam J. US representative of the Gulag Museum “Definitions and Justifications: Minority
and Indigenous Rights in a Central/East European Context” Human Rights Quarterly 22.4 (2000) 1011-1050]
Advocates for indigenous peoples have claimed that one can distinguish them from minorities through their
attachment to particular territories. 106 Certainly, one important aspect of many indigenous cultures is a
distinctive relationship to their land. Adequate protections for the equality of these peoples and for the
preservation of their unique cultures must recognize this tie to the soil. However, attachment to land also plays a
significant role for some Central/East European minority groups. In the former Soviet Union, for example, Stalin's forced deportations
and the efforts by some deported groups to return to their earlier homelands suggest that similar territorial attachments exist. Based on
such ties, some scholars have championed a "Recht auf Heimat" (right to one's homeland) for deportees. 107 Although this notion has
not been widely accepted, perhaps in part because of its association with the claims of Germans deported from [End Page 1038] Poland
and Czechoslovakia after WWII, it does suggest that attachment to land can be a significant aspect of minority identity. More
importantly, claims for cultural protection, particularly by national minorities who would theoretically have the option of moving to a
state where their culture predominates (e.g., Hungarians in Transylvania), assume that long-standing attachments to the territory of one's
ancestors justify guarantees of certain rights in that place, even when those rights might be readily available elsewhere. If all one really
cares about is the right of Central/East European minorities to speak their languages, practice their religions, and enjoy their cultures
someplace, "humane" population transfers to kin-states seem less problematic. But place, and the historical attachment to that place,
matter--a fact that minority protection schemes implicitly recognize by guaranteeing rights for Central/East European minorities in the
places where they actually are. Attachment, of course, can mean different things. As Special Rapporteur José Martínez Cobo remarked:
It is essential to know and understand the deeply spiritual special relationship between indigenous peoples
and their land as basic to their existence as such and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture. For
such peoples, the land is not merely a possession and a means of production. The entire relationship between
the spiritual life of indigenous peoples and Mother Earth, and their land, has a great many deep-seated
implications. Their land is not a commodity which can be acquired, but a material element to be enjoyed
freely. 108 This distinctive relationship of many indigenous peoples to their land and the importance of control over that land and its
associated natural resources have been recognized as adding a unique dimension to the interpretation of minority rights under Article 27
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to indigenous peoples. 109 By contrast, many of the
hallmarks of indigenous attachment to land--such as traditional patterns of land usage, collective ownership, or spiritual or religious ties
to land--are generally not at issue for Central/East European minorities, most of whom are integrated into modern economies, own land
according to Western concepts of private property, and practice major world religions. It is the quality, then, but not the fact, of
attachment to land that is distinctive to indigenous peoples. Yet even that quality may be becoming attenuated in particular cases. Some
indigenous peoples have argued that their claims to land and rights should not limit them to traditional
technologies and forms of ownership which hamper their economic [End Page 1039] growth. 110 Moreover,
some indigenous peoples have rejected idealized and patronizing visions of themselves as noble, native caretakers of the land, and have
offered their territories for projects such as nuclear waste dumps, a position which is not intuitively compatible with a religious
attachment to that land. 111 Indigenous cultures need not be static, of course. Nonetheless, to the extent that changes take place in the
way in which particular indigenous peoples are attached to their land, it will be more difficult to distinguish their attachments from the
attachments of Central/East European minorities.
IAC (15/17)
Indigenous peoples face genocidal eradication without protection
Maivan Clech Lam, Visiting Associate Professor at American University Washington College of Law, 2000, At
The Edge of the State: Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination, p. 32
So grave is the question of cultural and physical survival for indigenous peoples that some indigenous
lawyers, impatient at the seemingly inconclusive time spent on the question of self-determination at the
United Nations, advocate instead an immediate sui generis regime of international legal protection against
ethnocide and genocide for indigenous peoples. Ethnocide and genocide, in sum, figure as current
happenings, and not past calamities, in the lives of indigenous peoples. Their ongoing occurrence,
furthermore, is exacerbated by the sense of inevitability, spilling over into justifiability, that has settled over
the issue of the dismantling of indigenous homelands. For if the world believes that the march of the global
economy is inexorable, it necessarily accepts the victimization that it produces as unavoidable: that is,
beyond human control. The historian Arif Dirlik cautions that this is exactly how relationships of power are
consecrated: “the distancing of history from its living subjects . . . which is implicit in its reification, conceals
a power relationship.” It is a reification that indigenous peoples have refused to accept as they set out to
remake their history, using, in the process, the tool of international law. Kenneth Deer, a Mohawk long active
at the WGIP, puts it this way: Because indigenous peoples could not get protection in their own countries,
under domestic law, the feeling was that there should be an international instrument for the protection of
indigenous people against assimilation or from genocide.
Cultural diversity is vital for human survival

Russel Lawrence Barsh, Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge, University of
Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Winter, 1993, 25 U. MICH. J. L. REF. 671
There no longer seems to be much difference in the Westernization of the Third World and of the indigenous
world. Indigenous societies are usually more isolated geographically, so the process of convergence is
understandably slower. But they are catching up. While world leaders lament the loss of biological diversity,
which holds the key to the renewal and survival of ecosystems, our planet rapidly is losing its cultural
diversity, which holds the key to the renewal and survival of human societies. Scientists and scholars search
for an alternative in their theories while real alternative cultures disappear. It will be a real struggle to
reassert an indigenous perspective on social justice, democracy, and environmental security. The hardest part
of the struggle will be converting words to action, going beyond the familiar, empty rhetoric of sovereignty
and cultural superiority. The struggle will be hardest here in the United States, where the gaps between
rhetoric and reality have grown greater than anywhere on earth. This is the best place to begin, however,
because this is the illusory "demonstration" that is studied by the rest of the world, including the indigenous
peoples of other regions. Are American Indians ready to accept this global responsibility? The current
generation of tribal leadership appears unwilling to try. It is firmly committed by its actions to the materialist
path, and it is neutralized by its dependence on a continuing financial relationship with the national
government and developers. The next generation of American Indians may be another matter. Disillusioned
and critical, they may yet find a voice of their own that is both modern and truly indigenous, and they may
have the courage to practice the ideals that their parents merely sloganize. Let us hope so. There is no
alternative for Indian survival or for global survival.
IAC (16/17)
Observation Two: Solvency
PTC for Tribes is a narrow targeted fix to a problem enhancing sovereignty, economic self-
sufficiency and solving energy resource shortfalls.
To help resolve the problems outlined above, Congress should institute tax- credit tradability for tribes,
including a tradable PTC. Congress should change the current non-assignable status of tax credits and allow
tribes to trade their tax credits to business partners with tax liabilities in return for cash, equity or other
consideration equal to the value of the credits minus any (presumably minor) transaction costs. This is a
narrow, targeted fix to a problem, which does not require large-scale revisions of the tax code or of the
federal-tribal [*283] relationship. With this sort of provision in place, tribes could become involved in
businesses that make heavy use of tax credits.A. Tradable PTC is Win-Win Tradable tax credits would be an
ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes would gain economic
development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business ventures it is trying to
encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars; private business
would be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource. Each party
would bring something to the table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor. The
outside investor would contribute the capital. The federal government would contribute the tax credits. The
tribes and the outside investor would be partners, both sharing in the venture's profits. The tribe would take
much of the cash flow, while the outside equity investor would take all of the tax credits and, depending on
the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the project.
IAC (17/17)
Wind energy is consistent with native cultural values and a means to achieve sustainable
homeland economies and tribal sovereignty.
Neiss 2002 [Ronald. L., Rosebud Utility Commission President, Rosebud Reservation, South Dakota] “Wind
Stakeholder Interview: Rosebud Reservation” http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica
/filter_detail.asp?itemid=699 1/1/2002.
"In evaluating the potential of wind energy generation, Native Americans realize that wind power is not only
consistent with our cultural values and spiritual beliefs, it can also be a means of achieving Native
sustainable homeland economies." Ronald L. Neiss, Rosebud Utility Commission President, Rosebud
Reservation, South Dakota. My name is Ronald L. Neiss. I am an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe, through my father's family, and live in the Rosebud Community on the Rosebud Reservation. The
Rosebud Reservation is located west of the Missouri River and is bordered by the state of South Dakota to
the north, Nebraska to the south and the original boundaries of the Ogallala Reservation to the west. I was
honored to be selected to serve as the president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Utility Commission upon the
passing of our previous president Alex "Little Soldier" Lunderman into the Spirit World. Alex was also a
tribal president and vice president. He fully supported the Tribe's gathering of wind data in 1995 and the
Rosebud/DOE Wind Demonstration Project, which is scheduled for completion by this summer (2002).
Wind development was a part of his vision for the Sicangu Oyate (Burnt Thigh Lakota People) on the
Rosebud Indian Reservation. He believed we could use modern technology as well as our resources in a way
that is compatible with our history, our philosophy, and our cultural and spiritual values. In a vision, he saw a
long line of people behind him walking toward a traditional tipi. Inside the tipi were computers and other
kinds of technologies that could be used by our people to protect our Mother Earth. He later told us that being
able to generate clean electricity from the Four Winds could help our people. With the Rosebud Wind Project,
we are trying to make his vision a reality by using the tremendous wind resource on the reservation in a good
way. The wind is always blowing on the Rosebud Reservation. An elder from a southwest Pueblo once said
to me, "Say, all your animals up here kind of lean over to one side. Do they fall over when the wind stops?" I
answered, "We don't know... it never stops blowing."When the Tribe spent its own money to install an
anemometer to collect wind data in the mid-1990s, we learned that we had a class six wind resource on our
reservation. We later found out through the wind mapping of North and South Dakota by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory that in just one county of our reservation, we have a wind potential of over
35,000 megawatts. That is many times over the installed capacity of the dams on the Missouri River. Tribal
lands were flooded and whole communities had to move when the dams were built, and we are still being
harmed by those dams. My own family still suffers today when the graves of our relatives are violated by the
changes in water levels behind the Fort Randall hydroelectric dam where the White Swan Community once
stood. I am related to the Yanktonai on my mother's side of the family. We see that wind power can produce
electricity without flooding our lands or without digging up Mother Earth and burning her coal, gas, and oil.
It is about time the tribes took control of their resources. It is part of the federal government's trust
responsibility to assist us in developing our resources in a sustainable way. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) never assessed our wind resources. It was never a priority. The Rosebud Wind Project is something the
Tribe started on its own. Now, working with the Department of Energy, we are installing a utility-scale wind
turbine on the reservation. We are also working with the Rural Utility Service for a loan to help pay for the
project. The loan will be repaid from the sale of the power. We would also like to work with other parts of the
federal government, like the Western Area Power Administration, to gain access to the federal transmission
grid that crosses our reservation. That utility grid is our "farm to market" road for a 21st century product we
can produce here on our reservation. We would like to be able to sell "Red Green Power" to the federal
agencies and others that have green power requirements. Generating our own energy will help our tribe
develop a sustainable homeland economy on the reservation in the short term and strengthen our tribal
sovereignty in the long term. A tribe is only as sovereign as its economy and finances permit. One of our
tribal goals is energy self-sufficiency, and developing our renewable energy resources will help us achieve
that goal. What better way is there than using non-polluting tools for economic development? Sometimes
Indians are called to be the "Stewards of the Earth." But are we really? As my cousin, James "Tony" Iron
Shell, says the Lakota are the Tateya Topa Ho Oyate - the Voice of the Four Winds People. That's quite a
responsibility to live up to!
***INHERENCY/HARMS***
NO PTC
Current federal incentives have worked as disincentives in the context of tribal renewable
energy. Tribes want the federal government to fulfill its trust responsibility and assist in
economic development via wind production.
Indian Country Today 2008 “Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives” Rob Capriccioso, Indian
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026 Country Today April 11, 2008.
''As a general matter, we know tribes are very supportive of wind energy,'' said Jon Lauck, a senior adviser to
Thune [Republican Senator--South Dakota]. ''They know this is an area that could jump-start their
economies, and we'd like to help them.'' Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for
tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In 2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development
Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds that tribes could have used
to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20 percent of this bonding would have been
specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into the current version of the wind
energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December. Some tribal energy
advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the best
hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current
legislation proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible
to apply for via the IRS. ''Seed monies would be helpful,'' Renville said. ''But we haven't factored those into
our current projects.'' As the Senate and House consider extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10 tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support
tribal wind projects. Officials with the group note that none of the federal incentives currently in place
involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes, which they say is ironic since tribes are the only
group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to assist in economic development.
''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for tribes, in that they are both
insufficient and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured,'' the group noted in a
recent policy paper. ''The presently formulated federal incentives have actually worked as disincentives
in the unique context of tribal renewable energy development.''
Current law denies Natives access to tax credits for wind production projects. Tribes have
been lobbying congress gain eligibility for the credits.
WASHINGTON - As growing numbers of tribes pursue wind energy projects, tribal energy advocates are
cautiously hoping that new developments in Congress could eventually lead to tax credits and incentives to
aid tribal economies. ''We're not really holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce
Renville, a wind energy planner with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other
incentives would be helpful.'' In recent weeks, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., co-sponsored the bipartisan Clean
Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one
year. The current production tax credit incentive of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour is scheduled to expire in
December. Thune's proposed production tax credit would only benefit entities that already have profits from
wind energy production, but the legislation also includes bond funding that tribes could apply for to help
establish wind energy projects. Thune and other wind energy proponents in the Senate say they want to
extend the production tax credit so that wind energy developers have certainty when it comes to future
projects. Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen. Few, if any, tribes
have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes that have
been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off
the ground. Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers
for renewable energy production because tribes have a tax-exempt status. Tribal energy experts say it's
important for tribes to be reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it likely discourages
non-Native developers from wanting to work with tribes. Thune's office seems amenable.
NA=IMPOVERISHED
Money from casinos is unevenly distributed.

Keohane, 06.(Jeff R., Spring 2006 Human Rights Magazine, “Protecting the Sacred,” The Rise of Tribal Self-
Determination and Economic Development, American Bar Association,
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring06/keohane.html)
The distribution of revenues, however, has been uneven. The fifty-five richest tribal casinos, with median
gross revenues of over $100 million, took in 70 percent of total tribal casino revenues, while the least
lucrative 60 percent of tribal casinos, with median gross incomes of less than $25 million, took in just 8
percent of total tribal casino revenues. Moreover, many tribes either cannot, or have chosen not to, develop
casinos. In any event, most tribal casinos by themselves are unable to fund the economic development of
their tribes, although they have positive effects on tribal employment.
Native Americans lag far behind the rest of population.

Keohane, 06.(Jeff R., Spring 2006 Human Rights Magazine, “Protecting the Sacred,” The Rise of Tribal Self-
Although Native American incomes recently have grown very quickly, indicators of their economic
development still lag far behind the general population. Native Americans remained the poorest identifiable
group in the 2000 Census. While gains are being made, at current rates, tribal median household income
would not reach parity with the rest of the population for another fifty years. The question is, therefore, not
only how to sustain the recent rates of economic growth, but how to accelerate them.
NA=IMPOVERISHED
Poverty is high in Indian Country
Ward Churchill, Creek Cherokee, member of the Governing Council of the Colorado chapter of the AIM, From a
Native Son: Selected Essay on Indigenism, 1985-1995, 1996, p. 211
Overall, according to a federal study completed in 1988, reservation-based Indians experienced every index
of extreme empoverishment: by far the lowest annual and lifetime incomes of any North American
population group, highest rate of infant mortality (7.5 times the national average), highest rates of death from
plague disease, malnutrition, and exposure, highest rate of teen suicide, and so on. The average life
expectancy of reservation-based Native American males is 44.6 years, that of females fewer than three years
The situation is much more indicative of a Third World context than of rural areas in a country that claims to
be the world’s “most advanced industrial state.” Indeed, the poignant observation of many Latinos regarding
their relationship to the United States, that “your wealth is our poverty,” is as appropriate to the archipelago
of Indian reservations in North America itself as it is to the South American continent. By any estimation, the
“open veins of Native America” created by the IRA have been an incalculable boon to the maturation of the
U.S. economy, while Indians continue to pay the price by living in the most grinding sort of poverty.
Tribal governments and members are among the poorest in the nation
Vicki Limas, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, Arizona State Law Journal, Fall,
1994
Although Native American tribes function through governments, the vast majority of tribal governments
operate by way of meager funding derived primarily from federal sources. n79 Tribal governments possess
the sovereign power to tax, but cannot look to their anemic economies or largely unemployed constituencies
for any kind of tax base. Compared with state and municipal governments, tribes truly operate on
"shoestrings." The relative poverty of tribal governments is a matter of record. With regard to the status of
federal funding to tribes, which is for the most part funneled through the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"),
n80 Senator John McCain observed in his statement introducing the proposed Tribal Self-Governance Act of
1993 n81: I also want to emphasize that this program is not about equity funding. Unfortunately, Federal
Indian programs are already severely underfunded. It is my hope that the Congress will not only increase
funding for Indian programs, but will also ensure that such funding actually goes toward meeting the needs
of the Indian people rather than the needs of a bloated Federal bureaucracy. Reservations are home to some
of the poorest people in the country. In 1989, 47.3% of families on reservations or trust land lived below the
poverty level, compared to 11.5% of families in the entire country. n83 The median family income on
reservations and trust land was $ 13,489, compared to $ 34,213 nationwide. n84 Reservation unemployment
figures range from 30 to 90 percent A most telling illustration of the poverty of tribal governments occurred
this spring at the tribal summit convened by President Clinton. Although he invited representatives of all the
547 federally recognized tribes to the White House, n86 over 40% of the tribes could not afford to send
anyone. n87 Moreover, some of the 322 tribes who sent representatives spent up to half of their year's
budgets to do so.
INEQUALITY POVERTY
Inequality results in pockets of poverty and contributes to poor health.

Angell 2000 [Marcia] “Pockets of Poverty” Boston Review http://bostonreview.net/BR25.1/angell.html
Februrary/March 2000.
Unequal societies, by definition, have pockets of poverty and pockets of great wealth. If the pockets of
poverty contribute disproportionately to population measures of health--such as average life expectancy--that
would explain the apparent correlation between inequality and poor health. I believe that is the likely
explanation. Inequality just seems to be a direct contributor to poor health, whereas the real cause is poverty.
Daniels, Kennedy, and Kawachi base their argument for a direct effect of inequality on the notion of a linear
health gradient that operates equally across all socioeconomic strata, so that the wealthy benefit as much as
the poor lose. But the evidence for that is weak. There have not been sufficient studies of a broad enough
range of income levels to know what the shape of the curve is. The best information may come from
international comparisons showing that with increasing wealth, the health benefits become smaller and
smaller until a plateau is reached.One need not invoke some mysterious effect of inequality on health to make
a very strong argument for lessening inequalities that lead to deprivation at the low end of the scale. Poverty
is crippling not only physically but intellectually and spiritually. It cripples any wealthy society that tolerates
it on a large scale, as does the United States. In addition to the loss of human potential and the social
pathology that grows out of poverty, the costs include the callousness that inures the rest of society to its
presence, even as many people enjoy extraordinary riches. The fact that there are also health consequences
of poverty, whether they are exacerbated by inequality or not, is doubly punishing and adds greatly to the
injustice.
POVERTY IMPACTS—GILLIGAN
Poverty is a form of structural violence that outweighs war

James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2000 edition, Violence: Reflections on
Our Deadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year
from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those
caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and
civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the
Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-
1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear
that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other
word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed
in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die
from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period.
This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or
genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
POVERTY IMPACTS—CUOMO
Policy makers prioritization of crisis based political calculus has rendered structural
violence forgotten- sustainable peace is only possible if we take action based on eliminating
everyday violence.
Cuomo, 96 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Member of the Women's Studies Program @ University
of Cincinnati, “War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence”, Hypatia, Vol. 11,
Iss. 4, Fall, Proquest)
Ethical approaches that do not attend to the ways in which warfare and military practices are woven into the
very fabric of life in twenty-first century technological states lead to crisis-based politics and analyses. For
any feminism that aims to resist oppression and create alternative social and political options, crisis-based
ethics and politics are problematic because they distract attention from the need for sustained resistance to
the enmeshed, omnipresent systems of domination and oppression that so often function as givens in most
people's lives. Neglecting the omnipresence of militarism allows the false belief that the absence of declared
armed conflicts is peace, the polar opposite of war. It is particularly easy for those whose lives are shaped by
the safety of privilege, and who do not regularly encounter the realities of militarism, to maintain this false
belief. The belief that militarism is an ethical, political concern only regarding armed conflict, creates forms
of resistance to militarism that are merely exercises in crisis control. Antiwar resistance is then mobilized
when the "real" violence finally occurs, or when the stability of privilege is directly threatened, and at that
point it is difficult not to respond in ways that make resisters drop all other political priorities. Crisis-driven
attention to declarations of war might actually keep resisters complacent about and complicitous in the
general presence of global militarism. Seeing war as necessarily embedded in constant military presence
draws attention to the fact that horrific, state-sponsored violence is happening nearly all over, all of the time,
and that it is perpetrated by military institutions and other militaristic agents of the state.Moving away from
crisis-driven politics and ontologies concerning war and military violence also enables consideration of
relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena, and therefore can shape more nuanced theoretical and
practical forms of resistance. For example, investigating the ways in which war is part of a presence allows
consideration of the relationships among the events of war and the following: how militarism is a
foundational trope in the social and political imagination; how the pervasive presence and symbolism of
soldiers/warriors/patriots shape meanings of gender; the ways in which threats of state-sponsored violence
are a sometimes invisible/sometimes bold agent of racism, nationalism, and corporate interests; the fact that
vast numbers of communities, cities, and nations are currently in the midst of excruciatingly violent
circumstances. It also provides a lens for considering the relationships among the various kinds of violence
that get labeled "war." Given current American obsessions with nationalism, guns, and militias, and growing
hunger for the death penalty, prisons, and a more powerful police state, one cannot underestimate the need
for philosophical and political attention to connections among phenomena like the "war on drugs," the "war
on crime," and other state-funded militaristic campaigns. I propose that the constancy of militarism and its
effects on social reality be reintroduced as a crucial locus of contemporary feminist attentions, and that
feminists emphasize how wars are eruptions and manifestations of omnipresent militarism that is a product
and tool of multiply oppressive, corporate, technocratic states.(2) Feminists should be particularly interested
in making this shift because it better allows consideration of the effects of war and militarism on women,
subjugated peoples, and environments. While giving attention to the constancy of militarism in contemporary
life we need not neglect the importance of addressing the specific qualities of direct, large-scale, declared
military conflicts. But the dramatic nature of declared, large-scale conflicts should not obfuscate the ways in
which military violence pervades most societies in increasingly technologically sophisticated ways and the
significance of military institutions and everyday practices in shaping reality. Philosophical discussions that
focus only on the ethics of declaring and fighting wars miss these connections, and also miss the ways in
which even declared military conflicts are often experienced as omnipresent horrors. These approaches also
leave unquestioned tendencies to suspend or distort moral judgement in the face of what appears to be the
inevitability of war and militarism.
POVERTY HEALTH RISKS
Inequality and poverty are tightly linked to health risks.

Daniels, Kennedy, and Kawachi have written an important and deeply humane essay. They take as their
starting point the well-known observation that wealthier populations are on average healthier and that the
more evenly wealth is distributed within a population, the better the average health. Thus, life expectancy in
rich countries is higher than in poor countries, and it is higher in countries like Sweden, where wealth is
spread relatively evenly, than it is in similarly rich countries, such as the United States, where there are vast
disparities. The authors conclude, reasonably enough, that there are social determinants of health, and that
these determinants vary across and within populations. Less reasonably, they conclude that there is
something about inequality itself, quite apart from poverty, that is a risk to health. On this basis, they propose
that lessening income disparities within populations would improve the overall health of a population. Their
philosophical underpinning is Rawls’s theory of justice, but that is hardly necessary for the case that the
reforms they suggest would make the United States a healthier, wiser, and more decent nation. There is no
question that socioeconomic status and health are tightly linked, and the effect of one on the other can be
huge. For example, in a study of the use of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in male physicians, the modest
benefit of aspirin was swamped by the benefits apparently conferred by the high socioeconomic status of
these men. The overall rate of fatal heart attacks in the physicians was only 12 percent of what would be
expected in men from the general population. (To be sure, we don’t know whether doctors might do better
than other privileged groups, such as lawyers, because of their medical education, but even if that were true,
medical education would still have to be counted as a social determinant.) Very few medicines or
interventions can offer such a benefit.
Poor people suffer more from poor health issues.

What might those factors be? Most good studies of the subject--and there are lamentably few--try to control
for the usual suspects, such as cigarette smoking and heavy drinking, both of which are more frequent among
people of lower socioeconomic status. Even after controlling for them, the health disparities across social
strata persist, although they are lessened. The increased frequencies of trauma, substance abuse, and HIV
infection among the disadvantaged cannot explain the differences, either, since death rates from other causes,
such as heart disease and cancer, are also higher in poor people. One can imagine a host of influences that
might affect health--such as diet, stress, exposure to infectious agents or toxins--that are related to
socioeconomic status, but there is very little evidence to point to any of them as a major cause of the health
disparities across income groups.
The consequential health impacts cause depression, suicide, and drug use.
Dickerson 2008 [Chairman of APA] American Indian Committee http://healthyminds.org/expertopinion06.cfm.
Behavioral health and substance abuse issues continue to be very prominent issues in American Indian and
Native Alaskan populations. Our populations have the highest rates of suicide. More recently,
methamphetamine [drug] use has increased significantly, which has created very challenging social issues.
CULTURE LOSS BRINK
Indigenous populations will be lost if the US does not serve as an example of indigenous
self-government and adopt sustainable development
Suagee 1992 [Dean B., J.D., University of North Carolina, 1976; LL.M., The American University, 1989;
Associate, Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Wilder, Washington, D.C.] University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
SPRING AND SUMMER, 1992 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671 SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES AT THE DAWN OF THE SOLAR AGE, 1992.
In an era when many national governments treat indigenous peoples as obstacles to progress and
development, a country that considers itself a leader in the international human rights movement should be
able to acknowledge its history. We in the United States should be willing to tell the rest of the world not to
repeat our mistakes. We also should work to improve our model of indigenous self-government, and we
should share information about our successes with the rest of the world. Indigenous peoples need for some
states to serve as examples in respecting and protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples. But, as
discussed in the next part, respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples is not enough. Indigenous
peoples also need the states of the world to adopt models of development that do not cause the destruction of
the ecosystems on which the cultures of indigenous peoples depend.
Extinction is inevitable without massive change

Native Son: Selected Essay on Indigenism, 1985-1995, 1996, p. 30-31
The sort of alliance at issue no longer represents, as it did in the past, an exercise in altruism for non-Indians.
Anti-imperialism, opposition to racism, colonialism, and genocide, while worthy enough stances in and of
themselves, are no longer the fundamental issues at hand. Ultimately, the same system of predatory goals and
values which has so busily and mercilessly consumed the people of the land these past five centuries has
increasingly set about consuming the land itself. Not only indigenous peoples, but also the land to which they
are irrevocably linked, is now dying. When the land itself dies, it is a certainty that no humans can survive.
The struggle which confronts us—all of us—is thus a struggle to save our collective habitat, to maintain it as
a “survivable” environment, not only for ourselves, but also for the generations to come. Self-evidently, this
cannot be approached either from the posture of the predator or from any other position which allows the
predator to continue with business as usual. At long last, we have arrived at the point where there is a
tangible, even overriding, confluence of interests between natives and non-natives.
Extinction of Indian culture is imminent

Eventually, if such processes are allowed to run their course, the probability is that a “Final Solution of the
Indian Question” will be achieved. The key to this will rest, not in an official return to the pattern of 19th-
century massacres or the emergence of some Auschwitz-style extermination center, but in the erosion of
sociocultural integrity and confusion of identity afflicting any people subjected to conditions of diaspora.
Like water flowing from a leaking bucket, the last self-consciously Indian people will pass into oblivion
silently, unnoticed and unremarked. The deaths of cultures destroyed by such means usually occur in this
fashion, with a faint whimper rather than resistance and screams of agony
NA GENOCIDED
There is no more monumental example of sustained genocide than the reduction of the
Native American Indian population
Lewy 2004 [Guenter, political science professor and the University of Massachusetts, “Were American Indians the
victims of genocide?” http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html.
Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction
of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900
represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record." By the end of the 19th century, writes David
E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone the "worst human
holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and
consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people." In the judgment of Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil
Lane, Jr., "there can be no more monumental example of sustained genocide—certainly none involving a
'race' of people as broad and complex as this—anywhere in the annals of human history." The sweeping
charge of genocide against the Indians became especially popular during the Vietnam war, when historians
opposed to that conflict began drawing parallels between our actions in Southeast Asia and earlier examples
of a supposedly ingrained American viciousness toward non-white peoples. The historian Richard Drinnon,
referring to the troops under the command of the Indian scout Kit Carson, called them "forerunners of the
Burning Fifth Marines" who set fire to Vietnamese villages, while in The American Indian: The First Victim
(1972), Jay David urged contemporary readers to recall how America’s civilization had originated in "theft
and murder" and "efforts toward . . . genocide." Further accusations of genocide marked the run-up to the
1992 quincentenary of the landing of Columbus. The National Council of Churches adopted a resolution
branding this event "an invasion" that resulted in the "slavery and genocide of native people." In a widely
read book, The Conquest of Paradise (1990), Kirkpatrick Sale charged the English and their American
successors with pursuing a policy of extermination that had continued unabated for four centuries. Later
works have followed suit. In the 1999 Encyclopedia of Genocide, edited by the scholar Israel Charny, an
article by Ward Churchill argues that extermination was the "express objective" of the U.S. government. To
the Cambodia expert Ben Kiernan, similarly, genocide is the "only appropriate way" to describe how white
settlers treated the Indians. And so forth.
***SOLVENCY***
PTC SOLVE RENEWABLES

Wind Power Empirically Proves that Incentives Solve
Carolyn S. Kaplan , Esq., is counsel in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of the law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP.
Boston College Law School, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2004 accessed 9/14/2004, pg.ln.
Although Europe has four to five times more wind projects than the United States, the last five years have
shown dramatic growth in the United States, rivaling that of Europe. n14 In 2003, wind projects were
completed in seventeen states and installed wind generation reached almost 1691 MW. n15 By the end of
2003, the country's total installed capacity reached 6337 MW, "elevating the U.S. in world ranking to second
place behind Germany." n16 It is widely expected that the wind power industry will continue to grow at the
rate of the past five years. n17 As described below, this rapid rate of development is largely due to a
combination of decreasing costs and government incentives.
Tax credits/incentives make renewables instantly competitive

Ross Gelbspan, editor and reporter at The Boston Globe and The Washington Post and professor at the Columbia
University School of Journalism , The Heat is On, 1997, p. 97
But what is most urgently needed, in the face of the gathering climate threat, is something that Congress
views with horror—tax credits, subsidies, and other economic incentives to help proven nonpolluting energy
technologies leapfrog full blown into the marketplace in such a way that they can compete with oil and coal.
A production tax credit for wind energy, Brown notes, has already made it highly competitive. Today, in
areas with strong and predictable wind currents, wind power is far cheaper than power derived from oil or
coal. Were Congress to provide the renewable energy industry with the same $20 or so billion in tax credits
and incentives that it provides to coal and oil producers, he says, those climate-friendly energy technologies
could instantly become competitive with fossil fuels.
Extending eligibility of PTCs to tribes will spur economic development and renewable
energy development.
*This evidence also contains the proposed language for amending USC 45.
Intertribal COUP ~ June 21, 2006 http://www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2006/10/18/2426839.html
In the context of reaching the Western Governors' goal of 30,000 MWs of clean and diversified energy
throughout the West by 2015, it is recognized that Indian Tribes control a vast renewable power potential,
including the wind resource found across the western reservations, but that a comparative and appropriately
tailored incentive is needed to encourage tribal development compatible with tribal aspirations, federal
responsibilities and the financial realities of the existing energy system. A Tribal Joint Venture Production
Tax Credit incentive for "partnership sharing" of the PTC is needed to spur Tribally owned renewable energy
development, attract needed capital investment to reservations in an equitable and respectful manner, reduce
the cost of clean power, and keep more of the benefits in the local community. This tribal "partnership
sharing" concept was proposed by the Wind Task Force and recommended by the Clean and Diversified
Energy Advisory Committee of the Western Governors' Association after 18 months of study. This
recommendation was adopted unanimously by the Western Governors on June 11th in Sedona, AZ. It is fully
supported by the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP), which proposes the language below. A tribal
energy production incentive is recommended, whereby Tribes may assign their share of any production tax
credit (PTC) within a tribal joint venture, such as a tribal energy resource development organization (EPAct
2005, Section 2602), so that Tribes can retain significant project ownership while allocating their share of the
PTC to their taxable partners: Section 45(d)(3) of 26 USC 45 (relating to additional definitions and special
rules) should be amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
PTC Sharing Allowed within a Tribal Joint Venture:
In the case of a qualified facility as defined in 26 USC 45 (c)(3) in which one or more of the persons with an ownership interest is an
Indian tribe or tribes, the tribal owner or owners may allocate their share of the renewable electricity production credit among the other,
non-tribal, taxpaying owner or owners of the production in the gross sales from such facility.
PTC→ RENEWABLES
Changing the tax code will simultaneously achieve goals of tribal and renewable energy
development
There are three clear rationales for this change in the tax code. First, the change will give tribes the same
incentives as the rest of the business community as tribal economies develop. Second, the change will reduce
tribal dependence on federal grants, as larger pools of investment capital become available to tribes. Third,
the change will increase tribal sovereignty, as dependence is reduced.
1. Aligning IncentivesMaking tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of
tribes with the rest of the U.S. business community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity,
whether in the wind power industry or in other industries with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on
fostering tribal energy development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax
incentives as the rest of the business community, renewable energy development on tribal lands would
increase, and Congress would take a step forward in achieving its goals of tribal and renewable energy
development. Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. 76
With these incentives, the government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or
pollution-free energy production) that the government considers socially beneficial. 77 The government has an
interest in promoting those activities targeted for promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian
Country.
RENEWABLES→ECONOMIC GROWTH
Renewable energy development serves as a model for self-development
Bismark Tribune, August 19, 2001
The Blackfeet, whose reservation borders Glacier National Park and the Canadian province of Alberta, also
have timber and water resources that could play a role in a long-range economic plan, Parsons said. In
North Dakota, the Three Affiliated Tribes also are looking at wind generation as a source of electricity for
reservation businesses and residents, Chairman Tex Hall said. The Three Affiliated Tribes also see wind
energy as a possible job creator. 'Wind energy can help reduce (electricity) costs of each household but
still provide a profit for economic development to generate new jobs,' Hall said. Successful projects
between Indians and outside partners could serve as a model for other tribes, and allow for an exchange of
ideas among cultures, said Larry Flowers, with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Prospects for
wind energy development have some residents on the Blackfeet reservation excited. 'It would provide
jobs, you could train people. I don't see any bad in it,' Yvonne Night Gun said. 'It's a natural resource that
should be tapped into,' William Wade Running Crane said. 'The wind keeps on coming.'
Renewable energy boosts the entire economy of the reservation

The wind can howl for days without taking a breath, blowing with a force known to tip over railroad cars.
Leaders of the Blackfeet Indian reservation, where unemployment hovers near 70 percent, hope the wind has
enough strength to carry off some of the poverty, too. The Blackfeet, who live in the shadows of the
Rocky Mountains in northwest Montana, are developing what is being called the first commercial wind farm
on an American Indian reservation. Indian leaders hope to harness what often has been seen as little more
than a nuisance and turn it into a moneymaker for their communities. The wind farm, scheduled for
construction near the eastern boundary of Glacier National Park as early as next year, could produce enough
electricity to power 20,000 homes. Besides money and jobs -- including an estimated 30 construction jobs
and up to six permanent positions -- Indian leaders see a field of dozens of tall wind turbines as a possible
tourist draw that could help other sectors of the local economy. 'It's one avenue by which we can reach our
economic independence,' said Marilyn Parsons, the tribe's planning director.
PTC→ ECONOMIC GROWTH

Native’s tax status prevents their partial rights to project cash flow
Production Tax Credits can be shared between multiple owners of a single wind farm, but according to IRS
rules, credits can be shared only in proportion to the cash flow the respective owners receive from the wind
farm. 38 This non- severability of tax credits from cash flow means that tribes cannot own partial rights to
project cash flow, because that would mean the tribes also own the rights to the tax credits - tax credits which
the tribes cannot use and so would not contribute to a project's bottom line. For example, in a project with
two tax-liable owners, BigBank with a 40% share of cash flow and Developer [*277] with a 60% share,
40% of the tax credits must flow to BigBank and 60% must flow to Developer, and neither partner can assign
their tax credits to each other or to a third party. So, if BigBank partners with GreatTribe (with a forty-sixty
share, respectively), 60% of the PTC will go to GreatTribe. GreatTribe cannot use the tax credit and cannot
assign it, and the partnership will suffer financially.
Tax credits solve the lack of capital investment in Indian Country

Tradable tax credits are a targeted, practical policy instrument. They have been used by the states, they are
revenue neutral, and they enjoy broad political support from politicians, policymakers, and tribal groups.
Tradable tax credits carry out the clearly articulated congressional goals of providing incentives to certain
economic activities, reducing tribal dependency through resource development, and increasing tribal
sovereignty. Indian Country suffers from a $ 50 billion shortfall in capital investment. 101 The federal
government has a number of tools at its disposal which it can use to address the problem - a tradable tax
credit is lying at the top of the toolbox and should be made a permanent fixture of U.S. energy and Indian
law.
Changing the tax code will simultaneously achieve goals of tribal and renewable energy
development
There are three clear rationales for this change in the tax code. First, the change will give tribes the same
incentives as the rest of the business community as tribal economies develop. Second, the change will reduce
tribal dependence on federal grants, as larger pools of investment capital become available to tribes. Third,
the change will increase tribal sovereignty, as dependence is reduced.
1. Aligning IncentivesMaking tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of
tribes with the rest of the U.S. business community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity,
whether in the wind power industry or in other industries with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on
fostering tribal energy development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax
incentives as the rest of the business community, renewable energy development on tribal lands would
increase, and Congress would take a step forward in achieving its goals of tribal and renewable energy
development. Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. 76
With these incentives, the government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or
pollution-free energy production) that the government considers socially beneficial. 77 The government has an
interest in promoting those activities targeted for promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian
Country.
PTC ECONOMIC GROWTH
Only the PTC can satisfy the financial, cultural, and business requirements of tribes
Shahinian 2008 [Mark, third-year law student at the University of Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX
MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES
American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267.
Many other methods have been proposed for financing wind farms. However, these methods all fail to satisfy
both the financing requirements for a wind project and the cultural and business requirements of the tribes. It
is the lack of assignability of the production tax credits discussed supra that precludes development of
tribally owned wind farms. Other forms of financing cannot compete with a wind farm that benefits from the
PTC. "Flip" Models Conflict with Tribal Needs One proposal has been for tribal wind projects to use a "flip" model of
ownership. In the Standard Flip model, during the first ten years of a project's operation - while the tax credits are in
place - a large equity investor owns 99% of the project and the tribe/landowner owns 1%. The equity investor can take
the tax credits associated with its share of the project. After the tax credits run out (after ten years), the project is "flipped"
(i.e., sold) to the tribe. Over a three- year span, the tribe buys back the project (in an arms-length transaction for fair
market value) from the equity investor. After that, the tribe is the 99% owner of the project. 53
A2 NA≠PLAN
Native Americans want to move towards renewable energy.
KOAT ’08 (“Native Americans Leaders Hold Economic Summit in Albuquerque”, June 25,
http://www.koat.com/news/16711781/detail.html)
Native American leaders are holding an economic summit in Albuquerque this week. They’re trying to build
on the success they’ve had with their resorts and casinos. Officials say the revenue from the casinos has
moved from the poker tables to the pueblos, helping the communities thrive. Now that revenue is also
helping the pueblos move into new industries like telecom, construction and renewable energy. Leaders hope
this week’s economic summit will be an opportunity for representatives from pueblos across New Mexico
and the country to meet and talk about diversifying their revenue sources beyond the casinos. "What we're
hoping to accomplish is educational benefit to the tribes to bring about awareness of economic programs that
can assist them in their economic development," Ted Pedro of the American Indian Chamber of Commerce
said. But don’t think the pueblos will be giving up their casinos just because they’re expanding. Officials said
the casinos have done a lot to help others, like creating thousands of jobs for non-natives. They're hoping
with this economic summit they can take their accomplishments one step further and expand their role as a
major player in New Mexico's economy.
Native Americans support federal legislation for wind projects.

Indian Country Today ’08 (Shadi Rahimi, “Native Company Launches Wind Energy Project”, April 11,
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417016)
SAN FRANCISCO - Just as a collective of tribes is pushing for federal legislation in favor of tribal-led wind
energy projects, a Native company is posed to launch an unprecedented effort to help tribes to become
principal owners of turbines. The Seattle-based company, Native Green Energy, will debut its first endeavor
in April in Maine, where it has been working with the Passamaquoddy tribe to install two 100-kilowatt
turbines that would power 50 homes on a private grid and allow the tribe to sell back additional energy to
private utilities. The company has already won the backing of some state legislatures and plans next to
launch a 2.2-megawatt turbine for a Michigan gaming tribe. ''We're setting out to make a difference in Indian
country,'' said company co-founder Litefoot, a Cherokee musician, actor and entrepreneur. ''We have
responsibility from the Creator to take care of this earth and so we are harnessing these things the Creator has
provided to sustain our communities.'' Jon Ahlbrand, company co-founder, said the potential for wind energy
is blowing constantly across Indian country, but there remains a dire lack of suppliers that ''could bridge the
gap'' between the private sector market and its renewable energy demands and tribal governments. ''You can
count on your hand the number of existing turbines operating on reservations,'' he said. ''Some of the most
advantageous markets for wind energy are on trust land or fee land owned by tribes.'' Energy experts say the
Dakota winds in the northern Great Plains alone could meet the nation's entire electrical needs with wind
power. But the lack of a federal tax credit has been thwarting a tribal-led green energy future. Currently,
tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy production.
And if an outside company wants to team up with a tribe, they are not provided a full tax credit.
PTC→ WIND
Federal tax credits are necessary for American Indian Tribes to develop wind power
industries
In certain industries, federal tax credits play such an important financial role that entities unable to use those
tax credits are at a significant financial disadvantage to entities able to utilize the tax credits. Federal tax
credits play a key role in the coal bed methane extraction industry, 3 the low-income housing development
industry 4 , and the wind power industry, 5 among others. In some of these fields, tribes cannot make use of
the tax credits, and so face a severe financial handicap as compared to entities that can utilize the tax credits.
Perversely, this handicap is present in precisely the industries the federal government has decided to nurture
and encourage - for instance, the wind energy industry.To bring focus to the discussion of tax credits and
tribes, this article examines how the inability of tribes to access federal tax credits handicaps tribes' ability to
own and develop wind farms. Indian tribes could be a major force in the growing U.S. wind industry. Wind
power from tribal lands could provide 22% of installed U.S. electric power generation capacity. 6 Renewable
energy development is an issue with broad support in the United States and has the potential to bring
significant economic benefits to the tribes.
Credits are a prerequisite to wind industry development

In order to successfully develop a wind farm, a wind project's owners must have access to federal tax credits.
Tax credits for wind production are so valuable that wind farm owners who cannot make use of the tax
credits are at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to those who can take advantage of tax credits.
A. Federal Tax Credits for Wind Power Two programs are the primary drivers of wind development in the
U.S. today: (1) State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and; (2) Federal tax credits, especially the
Production Tax Credit. Two types of federal tax credits come into play: the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and
MACRS. 27 These tax credits, especially the PTC, make or break a wind project. The PTC gives owners of
wind farms a 1.9 tax credit for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) the wind farm generates. 28 The current building
boom in wind generation is evidence of the PTC's importance - the boom exists now precisely because the
current authorization of the PTC expires on Dec. 31, 2008, and developers are racing to get projects in the
ground before that deadline. 29 The PTC is more valuable than the 1.9 /kWh figure would indicate because it
effectively supplements earnings after taxes. To make up 1.9 after taxes, the project owner would have to
earn about 2.6 before taxes, making the PTC worth 2.6 in additional earnings. Note that this is 2.6 in
earnings, not revenue, and a corporation with 20% profit margins would have to take in 13 in revenues to
earn this amount. 30 Companies invest in projects only if they expect a return at least equal to the next best
alternative, and the PTC has made wind energy an extremely attractive investment.
PTC→ WIND
Lack of credits puts Natives at a competitive disadvantage
Wind projects are extremely capital-intensive but have low overhead once up and running. 31 As
investments, they are conceptually similar to long-term bonds - low risk, fixed-income investments. Like any
capital project, three parties have a role in building a wind farm: (1) the customer, (2) the financier, and (3)
the project owners. The customer: In a wind project, the customer, once identified and locked into a long-
term contract, is a relatively silent element. The customer is the buyer of the electricity the project produces,
and is usually a utility or power marketer. 32 The customer's main role is to provide the project with a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA). The PPA is usually in the form of a ten- to fifteen- year year output contract for a
set price per kWh generated, with built-in escalators. The financier: The developer uses that PPA as the
finance-able asset, and with that PPA in hand, finds money to build the project. Financiers of wind projects,
for reasons discussed below, are typically large investors with a significant tax liability. The project owners:
Project ownership is the key to the issues discussed in this paper. Only certain owners will find profit in wind
farms. These owners must, for financial reasons, meet two criteria. First, they must have easy access to the
capital markets. Wind farms are extremely capital intensive. A 30MW 33 wind farm (enough to power, on
average, 12,000 homes) such as one proposed for the Rosebud Reservation can cost $ 48 million to build. 34
Modern wind farms are generally in the 100-200MW range, and can represent capital investments of half a
billion dollars. 35 Second, the owner must have a large, steady tax liability from non-wind operations that they
can offset with the PTC credits. A 30MW wind farm throws off more than $ 1.6 million per year in tax credits
for the first ten years of its operation. 36The two requirements above - access to capital markets and large tax
liability - mean wind farm owners tend to be some of the largest corporations in the world, and that the
owners and financiers of projects tend to be one in the same. American investment bank Goldman Sachs,
financial giant General Electric and Australian investment bank Babcock & Brown all own or have owned
significant wind properties. 37III. Tax Credits and Tribes However, the two requirements - access to capital
markets and large tax liability - also work to wreck the hopes for tribal ownership of wind projects. Tribes, as
discussed infra, are non-taxable entities. As such, they cannot use tax credits, and are at a competitive
disadvantage compared to taxable owners of wind projects.
Credits are necessary to offset tax liabilities in wind production

It is not obvious why a non-taxable entity such as a tribe that does not pay a good chunk of its income in
taxes to the federal government should be at a competitive disadvantage to an entity that does pay taxes - the
phenomenon requires some explanation. In select industries, the tax credits available are greater than the
taxes that would be paid on the earnings from any one project. Taxable entities simply take the tax credits
they earn in these select industries, apply those credits to their overall operations, and, in total, pay less in
taxes than if they had not invested in the tax-credit generating industry. However, entities like tribes with no
tax burden cannot use this strategy. For example, taxable BigBank invests in WindFarm Alpha, which
generates $ 400,000 in earnings, on which BigBank would normally pay $ 140,000 in taxes. However, WindFarm Alpha
generates $ 190,000 in tax credits. WindFarm Alpha's tax credits wipe out any tax liability BigBank has from WindFarm Alpha; in
addition, BigBank can use the tax credits from WindFarm Alpha to wipe out $ 50,000 in additional tax liability from BigBank's other
operations. On the other hand, if GreatTribe also invests in a wind farm called WindFarm Beta, the situation is different. WindFarm Beta
[*276] is identical to WindFarm Alpha, and also produces $ 400,000 in earnings and $ 190,000 in tax credits. GreatTribe pays no taxes
on the earnings. However, GreatTribe cannot use any of the tax credits, and so the project's return is $ 50,000 less to GreatTribe than
WindFarm Alpha is to BigBank. To summarize, the tax credits, which are added to revenues after taxes are taken out, are sufficiently
large in this example to give the taxable entity (e.g., a corporation) a financial advantage over the non-taxable entity (e.g., a tribe). The
taxable entity can take those tax credits and apply them to offset tax liabilities in other parts of its operations,
thus making a diversified taxable entity better off than a diversified non-taxable entity if both invest in this
project.
PTC→ WIND
Tax-free status dooms native efforts at renewable energy
The origins of the tribal tax credit issues lie buried deep in the origin of the federal-tribal relationship. The
tax status of tribes is most closely analogized to that of the states, and is rooted, like state sovereignty, in the
idea of tribal sovereignty. 43 "Indians not taxed," of course, is written into the constitution. 44 In context, the
phrase "Indians not taxed" is not a guarantee of tax-free status, but part of the framers' articulation of the
apportionment of voting power among the states. 45 Nevertheless, the phrase is illustrative of the pre-twentieth
century view that tribes and Indians were excluded from the constituent body - what the solicitor general of
the Interior called the "non-application of all laws of general application to the Indians." 46 As this "non-
application" doctrine has faded with changing congressional and judicial attitudes, so has the non-taxable
status of Indians. 47 In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government is permitted to tax the income
of individual Indians. 48 Nevertheless, Indian tribes, as opposed to individual Indians, remain tax-free
entities. This non-taxability is one of the few bright-line rules in Indian law. "Income tax statutes do not tax
Indian tribes. The tribe is not a taxable entity," as the IRS has simply put it. 49 Some corporate forms, if owned
by tribes, are also not taxable. 50 This tax-free status has been a boon to some tribes and their subsidiary
corporations, allowing them to develop industries free from the burden of [*279] paying out 35% of their
income to the government. The Southern Ute Tribe has leveraged natural gas reserves on its land to amass a
business empire that holds $ 1.45 billion in assets. 51 Other tribes, such as the Mississippi Choctaw, have done
equally well. 52 Unfortunately, in some industries, such as wind power, this tax-free status has proven an
insurmountable handicap for tribes.
Lack of tax credits makes renewable energy unfeasible

And tribes are seemingly at a disadvantage when it comes to securing some incentives to develop wind
energy. Since they don't pay most federal taxes, tribes cannot get a production tax credit that makes wind
more competitive with other power, Gough said. The Blackfeet are working with developer SeaWest
WindPower Inc. to develop the wind farm. The Bonneville Power Administration, which acquires and
distributes power to utilities in the Northwest, also is involved and considering purchasing power from the
project. Separately, the tribe offered Anschutz Exploration Corp., which wanted to drill an exploratory oil
well at a site off the reservation considered sacred by several tribes, the chance to drill on reservation land
instead.
TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY

Tribally produced wind power will solve energy shortfalls
Tribes do not have experience with operating wind farms as businesses, but tribes do have long experience in
more traditional forms of energy development. The tribes of the Southwest, especially the Navajo and
Southern Utes, have long-developed their coal and oil and gas resources. The Utes have become quite
wealthy off revenues from energy development. 19 The U.S., especially the Western U.S., needs this tribally
produced power. The Western Governors' Association has convened an energy task force to address Western
states' concerns about shortfalls in energy production. The Governors' Association has called for 30,000MW
of clean power (including wind) development by 2015, 20 and has pointed out the need for federal, state, local
and tribal authorities to coordinate in siting wind projects. 21Yet tribes cannot fully participate in the
renewable energy industry because of their tax status and their lack of ability to use the tax credits the federal
government allocates to renewable energy companies. Despite the current wind boom, reservations have not
become wind development sites. In fact, [*272] only one major wind development exists on an Indian
reservation in the U.S. - a 50MW project on the land of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians near San
Diego, Calif. 22To address the handicap tribes face with regards to the impossibility of utilizing tax credits,
this paper proposes making federal tax credits tradable - tribes could trade the tax credits they would receive
as part of their investment in projects to business partners with tax liability in return for cash or other
consideration.
Tribal lands have the highest wind resource potential in the nation.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., have both introduced bills that would allow
tribes to be principal owners of renewable energy projects and would provide their non-Indian partners with
full tax credits. The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes,
since their lands often have some of the highest wind resource potential in the nation. Research from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located
close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is
about 535 billion kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004. South Dakota
alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52
percent of the nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including
Montana, Minnesota and Wyoming. ''We have always known that we have some of the best wind energy
resources in the country,'' said Renville, and recent wind measurement assessments have confirmed that
assumption. His tribe is currently preparing to find a partner to help them harness wind energy and ultimately
sell it to electric companies. Renville expects that the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe will soon be in the
position to install up to 50 wind turbines in an effort to diversify its economy. Thus far, the tribe has funded
all of its wind energy efforts on its own.
TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY

Projects can be set up and running in only a few months
Indian Country Today ’08 (Shadi Rahimi, “Native Company Launches Wind Energy Project”, April 11,
Tribes have tried to become investors in wind energy, ''but then you see how many projects have actually
seen light of day,'' Litefoot said. ''The equipment is toughest. We can have a project up and running in
months. We make wind and alternative energy a realistic solution, which it hasn't been.'' The cost to
manufacture wind turbines has declined over the last five years, but the demand for wind energy has been
growing so rapidly that many developers are now able to charge even more for equipment, Ahlbrand said.
Each of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's wind turbines, for example, is an estimated $370,000, he said.
Wind energy is low-cost and environmentally friendly.

Osborn, owner and president of Distributed Generation Systems, ’03 (Dale, “Winds of Change”, November,
http://www.solartoday.org/2003/nov_dec03/winds_of_change.htm)
Wind energy is a low-cost, environmentally beneficial component of the energy-generation sector and, as
such, should become a larger, but not dominant, participant in that sector. Wind development represents one
of the greatest opportunities for rural economic development in the past 100 years. Distributed deployment of
wind projects adds value, reliability and improved performance to the transmission system. And aggressive
deployment of wind energy systems supports a strategy of domestic energy independence and national
security.
CULTURE SOLVES EXTINCTION
Their attempt to weigh death vs. cultural genocide is horrific

If people suddenly lose their ‘prime symbol,’ the basis of their culture, their lives lose meaning. They become
disoriented, with no hope A social disorganization often follows such a loss, they are often unable to insure
their own survival.. .The loss and human suffering of those whose culture has been healthy and is suddenly
attacked and disintegrated are incalculable. Therefore, Davis and Zannis conclude, “One should not speak
lightly of ‘cultural genocide’ as if it were a fanciful invention. The consequence in real life is far too grim to
speak of cultural genocide as if it were a rhetorical device to beat the drums for ‘human rights.’ The cultural
mode of group extermination is genocide, a crime. Nor should ‘cultural genocide’ be used in the game:
‘Which is more horrible, to kill and torture; or remove [the prime cultural symbol which is] the will and
reason to live?’ Both are horrible.”
NA K/T BIODIVERSITY
The eradication of indigenous peoples destroys environmental knowledge
In sum, while change is forthcoming on several fronts, the premises guiding states in their relations with
indigenous peoples in the second half of this century largely reduce to these: the global economic
engagement is a river of no return; indigenous peoples are the least significant of the detritus that the river
washes up; they enjoy little if any rights as distinctive communities, neither to land nor voice; out of good
will, states will, on occasion, appoint a guardian or grant favors. Indigenous peoples, in other words, are
peoples that things are done to, or occasionally done for. But they are not peoples who themselves do, or
speak. Ironically, this silencing of indigenous peoples holds even when what they have to say could aid
others. For the present onrush on indigenous resources, it should be recalled, scatters not just peoples and
species, but also knowledge. This, at a time when the world has learned that the environment, its air, waters,
species and, in particular, rainforests are highly vulnerable to human onslaught. The focus on the rainforest,
of course, has given some visibility to the indigenous societies that inhabit it and long engaged in the
sustainable exploitation of its resources. But the world remains strangely slow in taking the next obvious
step, which would be to systematically enlist the scientific expertise of these societies— from which have
come the pre-eminent observers, stewards, and beneficiaries of the rainforest—in its project to save the
resource.
American Indian governments in the US are vital to successful development of alternative

energies
The experience in the United States also provides numerous examples of tribes that have suffered severe
cultural and social disruption because of the decimation of wildlife populations and other profound changes
in the natural environment caused by the dominant society. Part III suggests that the international recognition
of rights will be a hollow success for indigenous peoples unless the industrialized societies also achieve a
transition from environmentally destructive to environmentally sustainable development. In particular, Part
III focuses on energy consumption both in the industrialized societies and in the less developed countries.
This Article focuses on energy for one significant reason. In many parts of today's world, the kinds of
environmental damage that threaten the survival of indigenous peoples are driven by the ways in which the
economic engines of the industrialized and industrializing countries consume energy. Over the past two
decades, we have learned new ways to provide the kinds of services and benefits [*676] that in the past we
provided by consuming nonrenewable energy resources. These new ways render the environmental
destruction and pollution of the old ways both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Part III presents an overview of
the alternative energy development scenario, sometimes called the "soft energy path," which is based on
energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable solar and other renewable energy technologies. Taking soft
energy paths will not in itself solve the global environmental crisis, but it is an essential part of the solution. Part IV presents some
observations on critical needs that must be addressed if the vision of a soft-energy future is to become a reality; to meet these needs will
require action at all levels of government, as well as action by international and nongovernmental organizations. As will be explained in
the Article, American Indian governments in the United States are uniquely situated to help bring about the
transition to a soft-energy future. Part IV suggests a few of the ways in which Indian tribes could use their
governmental powers to help realize such a future.
NA K/T BIODIVERSITY
Restoration of indigenous cultures is imperative if new world order is to become a
sustainable one
The global environmental crisis is real -- unless we make some fundamental changes in the ways that our global economy extracts
resources from the earth and gives off pollution and wastes, the natural systems that support human societies will collapse. 6 Even if we
do succeed in expeditiously making the fundamental changes that are necessary, there still is no guarantee that we can avoid the
widespread collapse of ecosystems. 7 In his bestselling book on the global environmental crisis, Senator Albert Gore includes some
indigenous peoples [*677] among examples of "resistance fighters" who are on "the front lines of the war against nature now raging
throughout the world," 8 Senator Gore argues that the global environmental crisis is "rooted in the dysfunctional pattern of our
civilization's relationship to the natural world," 9 in which people have lost their sense of connection to the natural world. He believes
that healing the damage we have done to the earth and changing our dysfunctional civilization into one that is based on stewardship
rather than exploitation must be, in essence, spiritual endeavors. 10 Indigenous peoples, where their cultures remain
substantially intact, have not lost their spiritual connections to the natural world. Rather, they maintain
connections to the natural world. Rather, they maintain connections to the earth which are fundamentally
sacred in nature, and they know a great deal about stewardship that could be of benefit to the rest of
humankind. 11 Over the next several decades, sustainable energy technologies will figure prominently in a worldwide social
movement -- the "sustainability revolution" -- that will change human life on earth as profoundly as did the agricultural revolution of
eight thousand years ago or the industrial revolution of two hundred years ago. 12 The natural world will be changed
profoundly in any event, through global warming, the loss of biodiversity, the thinning of the ozone layer,
and other global trends that are already underway. If humankind is to accomplish the sustainability
revolution, we need to be able to envision a future world in which we would like to live and which we would
wish for future generations. 13 Our collective vision of a sustainable future also must include room for the
remaining indigenous peoples of the world to carry on their ancient cultures and to decide for themselves
how much of the "modern" world to allow into their cultures.
NA K/T BIODIVERSITY
Indigenous peoples sustainable way of life must be maintained if the industrial world is to
survive
SPRING AND SUMMER, 1992 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671 SELF-DETERMINATION FOR
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT THE DAWN OF THE SOLAR AGE, 1992.
This Article has presented an overview of the emerging international law of the human rights of indigenous
peoples and has argued that, for the promise of the international recognition of these rights to be fulfilled, the
industrialized countries and the LDCs must choose to take soft energy paths and must make concerted efforts
to achieve real progress along these paths. This Article also has suggested some ways in which tribal leaders
in the United States could help to expedite the global transition to the solar age. The reasons for choosing soft
energy paths are both principled and pragmatic. Indigenous peoples are part of the human family and, by that
simple fact, they deserve to be treated with dignity and with respect for their human rights. Aside from
principle, and although we may not realize it, the people of the industrialized world and the less developed
countries need indigenous peoples to survive as distinct societies. As the people of the world strive for
models of development that are sustainable over the long term, we need, as examples, indigenous peoples
whose ways of life have proven to be sustainable over countless generations, since the dawn of mythic time.
Several of the writers whose works have been cited in this Article have called for individuals and communities and nations to change the
way we think about the Earth. 353 Indigenous peoples also have called for such a global change of mind. 354 The oral history of the
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy provides an inspirational example of what can be accomplished when people change the way
they think. When the Peacemaker planted the Great Tree of Peace and brought together the Five Nations to form the Confederacy, one of
the keys to his success was persuading individuals to use their powers of rational thought [*749] to overcome fear and hatred and to act
for the common good. 355 This kind of reasoning is what is sometimes called the "discipline of the Good Mind." 356 If we are to cope
effectively with the global environmental crisis, we will need for people all over the world to exercise such positive mental discipline.
The authors of Beyond the Limits suggest that there are essentially three mental models among which we can choose, only one of which
offers a chance of avoiding ecological collapse on a global scale. 357 This model says That the limits are real and close, and that there is
just exactly enough time, with no time to waste. There is just exactly enough energy, enough material, enough money, enough
environmental resilience, and enough human virtue to bring about a revolution to a better world. That model might be wrong. All the
evidence we have seen, from the world data to the global computer models, suggests that it might be right. There is no way of knowing
for sure, other than to try it.This conclusion, based on scientific analysis, bears a striking similarity to a statement made by one of the
Kogi religious leaders, a similarity which I think is not entirely coincidental. The words of the Kogi spokesman are these: Many stories
have been heard that the sun will go out, the world will come to an end. But if we all act well and think well it will not end. That is why
we are still looking after the sun and the moon and the land. Around the world, indigenous peoples are doing their best
to fulfill their sacred duties to care for the Earth. The states of the world, nongovernmental organizations, and
concerned individuals can help by respecting, and by insisting that others respect, the human rights of
indigenous peoples, including the right of self-determination.
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Each new species extinction risks planetary extinction.—evidence is gender modified
MAJOR DAVID N. DINER, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review
Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the
United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the
abyss. ([ ] = correction}
Each extinction risks collapse.

KEITH SAXE, Hastings Law Journal JANUARY, 1988 39 Hastings L.J. 399
The essential role that wildlife plays in the maintenance of a healthy environment is undoubtedly its most
important economic contribution. Stable ecosystems depend upon the interdependencies of many species
performing different biological functions. When species are lost, ecosystems are disrupted, and
environmental instabilities follow that conceivably could result in a critical diminution of nature's "ability to
provide a moderate climate, cleanse air and water, recycle wastes, protect crops from pests, replenish soils,
and so on . . . ." n52 The cataclysmic "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s, which resulted from the displacement of natural ecosystems in the
Midwest to provide land for cereal grain production, is a familiar example of these potentially disastrous consequences. n53 The specter
of ecological catastrophe reveals the ultimate reason for concern about species extinction. For an ecosystem to adapt
biologically to environmental changes such as a warming of climate or the appearance of new parasites, it
must have in its "gene pool" some genetic material [*408] with which to exploit the new conditions. n54
Species diversity ensures the continuation of a robust gene pool. As humans replace diverse natural
ecosystems with such "monocultures" as agricultural lands, the environment becomes more vulnerable to
changes. Recognizing that biologists cannot predict the level of species diversity necessary to secure against
future changes in climate or environment, one commentator has likened the loss of species to the loss of
structural rivets on an airplane -- a dozen or so might never be missed, but the loss of the thirteenth might
spell disaster. n55
Invisible threshold means reject species extinctions at all costs.

Patrick Parenteau, Director, Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School. William and Mary
Environmental Law and Policy Review Spring, 1998 22 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 227
To summarize Part I, the biodiversity crisis is real, and the stakes are high. Extinction estimates may vary by
a wide margin, but they all agree on the central point that the curent rate is far beyond any definition of
"normal," and it is increasing. n127 Each extinction, no matter how inconsequential it may appear in
isolation, represents another strand removed from the fabric of life, another rivet popped from the wing of the
airplane. n128 Neo-classical economics tells us almost nothing about the dollar value of individual species, let alone the cumulative
value of the services that healthy ecosystems provide. n129 The emerging field of ecological economics is beginning to get a handle on
these values, and the numbers being generated, though soft, are huge. n130 Yet in the end it is not what we know but what
we do not know that may provide the most cogent argument for exercising the "precautionary principle," for
trying to save "every cog and wheel," not just for ourselves but for the next seven generations to come. n131
All well and good, you may be thinking, but isn't habitat loss and even extinction simply the inevitable, albeit
unfortunate, price we must pay for "progress?" A look at the roots of the biodiversity crisis might shed some
light on this question.
Each species extinction risks human extinction.
Holly Doremus, Professor of Law, University of California at Davis. J.D., University of California at Berkeley
(Boalt Hall), Ph.D., Washington & Lee Law Review Winter, 2000 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11 L
George Perkins Marsh suggested in his 1864 book that unbridled human exploitation of nature could threaten
human survival. n45 After lying dormant for nearly a century, that suggestion surfaced at the dawn of the modern era in a powerful
new form I call the ecological horror story. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, a book credited with inspiring the modern environmental
movement, contains the prototypical example of this story. Carson began her book with a chapter called "A Fable for Tomorrow." n46
In her fable, tragedy struck a bucolic village that was once alive with flowers, crops, wildlife, songbirds, and fish. People sickened,
livestock died, flowers withered, and streams became lifeless. The disappearance of the songbirds gave spring a [*20] strange stillness.
By the end of the brief fable, overuse of chemical pesticides had transformed the village into a biotic wasteland. n47 Nearly twenty
years later, Paul and Anne Ehrlich conveyed their version of this story through another brief tale. They put the
reader in the position of a horrified airline passenger watching a worker pry rivets out of the plane's wings.
n48 They characterized species as the rivets holding together the earth, a plane on which we are all
passengers. Removing too many species, or perhaps just a single critical one, could disable the plane,
precipitating an ecological catastrophe. n49 Environmentalists repeated the ecological horror story in various forms through
the 1960s and 1970s. n50 Growing recognition of both the power of human technology, brought home by nuclear weapons programs,
and the fragility of the earth, brought home by photographs of the earth from space, encouraged apocalyptic visions of the potential for
human destruction of the biotic world. n51 This story contributed to the passage of early federal endangered species legislation. In
1966, when the Endangered Species Preservation Act n52 was under consideration, the New York Times editorialized that "[i]f
[hu]man[kind] refuses to follow wise conservation practices in controlling his economic affairs, the ultimate
victim may be not natural beauty or birds and fish but [hu]man[kind] [it]himself." n53
There’s an ethical imperative to save species.

Patrick Parenteau, Director, Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School. William and Mary
Environmental Law and Policy Review Spring, 1998 22 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 227
Ethical arguments on behalf of biodiversity are often grounded on the concept of intergenerational equity, the
duty that each generation is said to owe succeeding generations. n112 The Iroquois Confederacy, which
served as the model for American democracy, expressed this ethic in the principle that every decision made
by a community ought to consider how it would affect the seventh generation hence. n113 This same ethic
can be [*245] found in the nineteenth century writings of George Perkins Marsh, n114 Henry David
Thoreau, n115 and John Muir; n116 and, in this century, Aldo Leopold, n117 Rachel Carson, n118
Wallace Stegner, n119 Terry Tempest Williams, n120 and Wendell Berry. n121 In Leopold's classic
articulation of the land ethic: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of
the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." n122 Today, this land ethic is found in the
concept of sustainability, which the United Nations Commission on Economic Development defines as
"meeting the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs." n123
Loss of species is ethically repugnant.

KEITH SAXE, Hastings Law Journal JANUARY, 1988 39 Hastings L.J. 399
While the number of existing species of wildlife is unknown, n40 it is undisputed that the rate of extinctions
occurring in modern times has increased tremendously. An incredible number of species are now at risk. n41
The decline and extinction of species have significant economic consequences. Consumptive recreational
uses like hunting and fishing, and nonconsumptive uses such as bird watching and wildlife photography, are
multi-billion dollar industries in the United States. n42 Direct economic loss, however, constitutes only one
of the concerns over the rate of extinction of species. Many Americans find the loss of species esthetically
and ethically repugnant. n43 Some argue that wildlife has as much of a "right" to exist as humans do, and
criticize as morally wrong the homocentric view that subordinates other species to our own. n44 Others
suggest that, because we have our evolutionary roots in prehistoric hunter-gatherer culture, our psychological
health may well depend upon continuing exposure to thriving ecosystems. n45 Aldo Leopold, in his seminal
statement on ecological awareness, wrote: "There are some who can live without wild things and some who
cannot. These essays [*407] are the delights and dilemmas of one who cannot." n46 Undoubtedly, many of
the millions of nature lovers in the United States would echo his sentiments. n47
Biodiversity Crucial to Human Life
Patrick Parenteau, Director, Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School. William and Mary Environmental
Law and Policy Review Spring, 1998 22 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 227
The consequences of this loss of biodiversity are not always readily apparent, but they are real and serious.
The consequences can be reckoned in at least two ways: from an anthropocentric perspective exclusively
concerned with human desires; and from a biocentric perspective that considers the intrinsic worth of all life
on earth. n57 Either [*237] approach reveals the significant value of biodiversity, and the high opportunity
costs that attend its demise. n58 Humans derive both direct and indirect benefits from biological resources.
Direct benefits include medicine, food, shelter, and clothing. For example, in the United States, forty percent
of health care prescriptions come from natural organisms (plants, animals and microorganisms). n59
Biodiversity supplies much of the protein and nutrition for humans, as well as the wild seeds used to
hybridize crops in the race to stay one step ahead of chemical-resistant pests. n60 Recreation and eco-
tourism, often enhanced by the presence of "charismatic megafauna," such as the wolf, the eagle and the
grizzly bear, also generate significant economic value. n61 The indirect benefits of biodiversity are even
more compelling. These include so-called ecosystem services such as air and water quality maintenance,
climate regulation, nutrient cycling, waste treatment, soil formation, pollination, flood control, and water
supply. n62 For example, wetlands act as sponges and buffers, soaking up floods and dissipating storms;
they also function as kidneys, filtering pollutants and helping to maintain water quality in rivers and lakes;
and they are the nurseries that [*238] support the nation's commercial and recreational fisheries. n63 The
destruction of wetlands throughout the Mississippi River Basin was a major contributing factor to the
devastating 1993 floods. n64 Likewise, wetland loss in major estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay reduces
their assimilative capacity, accelerating eutrophication and causing other water quality problems. n65
Pollination is another critical ecosystem service. Approximately ninety percent of the world's food supply
depends on a little over 100 species of plants. n66 An important question, therefore, is whether pollination is
a limiting factor in the productivity of these species. In a landmark field experiment conducted in 1993,
scientists found that forty-six percent of a representative sample of 186 species were "pollinator-limited,"
meaning that pollination was more important than all the other factors that affect plant growth, including
weather and soil fertility. n67 Assuming it accurately reflects natural conditions, the implications of this
finding are profound; it means that almost half of the world's food supply may depend on wild pollinators,
lending credence to Dr. Wilson's thesis that "little things" may indeed "run the world." n68 Although putting
a dollar value onthese natural services is difficult, economists have begun to try. In a path-breaking study in
1996, a team of scientists and ecological economists, headed by Robert Costanza of the University of
Maryland, estimated the value of seventeen ecosystem services for sixteen biomes n69 to be in the range of
$ 16 to 54 trillion. n70 At [*239] an average of $ 33 trillion per year, this represents almost twice the total
gross national product of all the nations of the world combined. n71 Further, according to the authors, these
are conservative estimates that probably understate the true value. n72 The authors also acknowledge that
some ecosystem functions are irreplaceable, and some values are priceless. n73 These numbers are
admittedly "soft," though perhaps no more so than the benefit calculations used to justify federal water
resource projects and National Forest timber sales. n74 In any case they are better than nothing, and nothing
is the value typically assigned to ecosystems by conventional economic analysis. n75 In point of fact, the
Costanza study did use conventional valuation techniques, such as "avoided cost," n76 whenever they were
available, and used more "cutting-edge" techniques like contingent valuation (i.e., "willingness to pay")
where they were not. n77 Many conservationists object in principle to accepting economic theories as a
legitimate basis to decide the fate of species. n78 I tend to agree that wholesale adoption of economic
measures to justify biodiversity preservation would be misguided and myopic.
COLONIALISM O/W
Colonialism inflicts massive daily suffering. The impact is sustained and perpetual. It
outweighs their one-shot impact
Russel Lawrence Barsh, Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge and United Nations
Representative of the Mikmaq Grand Council and Four Directions Council, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, Winter, 1993, 26 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 277
If there is a fundamental cause of American Indian isolationism, it is 500 years of abuse. Colonialism and
oppression operate at a personal, psychological, and cultural level, as well as in the realms of political and
economic structures. The children of dysfunctional, abusive parents grow up in a capricious world of
arbitrary punishment, humiliation, and powerlessness. They suffer from insecurity, low self-esteem, and a
loss of trust in others. Colonialism is the abuse of an entire civilization for generations. It creates a culture
of mistrust, defensiveness, and "self-rejection." The effect is greatest on women, who already are suffering
from patriarchal domination in some cultures, and in others, are subjected to patriarchal domination for the
first time by the colonizers. This can produce a politics of resignation, reactiveness, and continuing
dependence on outsiders for leadership. Arguably the worst abuse of indigenous peoples worldwide has
taken place in the United States, which not only pursued an aggressive and intrusive policy of cultural
assimilation for more than a century, but also has preserved a particularly self-confident cultural arrogance to
this day, denying Indians the recognition that they need to begin healing themselves. The negative effects
of cultural abuse are proportional to the thoroughness with which the colonizer intervenes in the daily lives
of ordinary people. Intense warfare can be less damaging than the captivity and daily "disciplining" of an
entire population, which characterized reservation life at the end of the last century. Under these
conditions, the only avenue of escape permitted is to embrace the habits and values of the oppressor, leaving
people with a cruel choice between being victimized as "inferior" Indians or as second-class whites. In either
case, much more was lost than cultural knowledge. Also lost was confidence in the possibility of genuine
self-determination.
M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

The continued silencing of indigenous voices leads to the involuntary repetition of cycles of
violence. Reparations are crucial to disrupt this cycle.
Schwab 2006[Gabriele, “Writing against memory and forgetting” Literature and Medicine 25.1 (2006) 95-121]
Human beings have always silenced violent histories. Some histories, collective and personal, are so violent
we would not be able to live our daily lives if we did not at least temporarily silence them. A certain amount
of splitting is conducive to survival. Too much silence, however, becomes haunting. Abraham and Torok link
the formation of the crypt with silencing, secrecy, and the phantomatic return of the past. While the secret is
intrapsychic and indicates an internal psychic splitting, it can be collectively deployed and shared by a people
or a nation. The collective or communal silencing of violent histories leads to the transgenerational
transmission of trauma and the specter of an involuntary repetition of cycles of violence. We know this from
history, from literature, and from trauma studies. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, for example, Hannah Arendt writes
about the "phantom world of the dark continent."5 Referring to the adventurers, gamblers, and criminals who came as luck hunters to
South Africa during the gold rush, Arendt describes them as "an inevitable residue of the capitalist system and even the representatives
of an economy that relentlessly produced a superfluity of men and capital" (189). "They were not individuals like the old adventurers,"
she continues, drawing on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "they were the shadows of events with which they had nothing to do"
(189). They found the full realization of their "phantomlike-existence" in the destruction of native life: "Native life lent these ghostlike
events a seeming guarantee against all consequences because anyhow it looked to these men like a 'mere play of shadows. A play of
shadows, the dominant race could walk through unaffected and disregarded in the pursuit of incomprehensible aims and needs'" (190).
When European men massacred these indigenous peoples, Arendt argues, they did so without allowing
themselves to become aware of the fact that they had committed murder. Like Conrad's character [End Page
100] Kurtz, many of these adventurers went insane. They had buried and silenced their guilt; they had buried
and silenced their humanity. But their deeds came back to haunt them in a vicious cycle of repetition. Arendt
identifies two main political devices for imperialist rule: race and bureaucracy. "Race . . . ," she writes, "was an escape into an
irresponsibility where nothing human could any longer exist, and bureaucracy was the result of a responsibility that no man can bear for
his fellow-man and no people for another people" (207). While the genocide of indigenous peoples under colonial and
imperial rule was silenced in a defensive discourse of progressing civilization, it returned with a vengeance.
Race and bureaucracy were the two main devices used under fascism during the haunting return to the heart of Europe of the violence
against other humans developed under colonial and imperial rule. The ghosts of colonial and imperial violence propelled
the Jewish holocaust, Arendt shows. In a similar vein, in Discourse on Colonialism, Aime Cesaire talks
about the rise of Nazism in Europe as a "terrific boomerang effect."6 He argues that before the people in
Europe became the victims of Nazism, they were its accomplices, that "they tolerated that Nazism before it
was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it [had]
been applied only to non-European peoples" (36). Cesaire continues, "Yes, it would be worthwhile to study
clinically, in detail, the steps taken by Hitler and Hitlerism and to reveal to the very distinguished, very
humanistic, very Christian bourgeois of the twentieth century that without being aware of it, he has a Hitler
inside him, that Hitler inhabits him, that Hitler is his demon" (36, Cesaire's italics). This is as close as we can
come to the argument that, until they face the ghosts of their own history and take responsibility for all the
histories of violence committed under their rule, Europeans encrypt the ghost of Hitler in their psychic life.
Cesaire's statement also contains an argument about what Ashis Nandy calls "isomorphic oppressions," that is, about the fact that
histories of violence create psychic deformations not only in the victims but also in the perpetrators.7 No one
colonizes innocently, Cesaire asserts, and no one colonizes with impunity either. One of the psychic
deformations of the perpetrator is that he turns himself into the very thing that he projects onto and tries to
destroy in the other: "[T]he colonizer, who in order to ease his conscience gets into the habit of seeing the
other man as an animal, accustoms himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transform
himself into an animal. It is this result, this boomerang effect of colonization that I wanted to point [End Page
101] out" (41, Cesaire's italics).8 What Cesaire calls the "boomerang effect" emerges from a dialectics of
isomorphic oppression that as a rule remains largely unacknowledged and relegated to the cultural
unconscious. Together with the ghost effect that emerges from the silencing of traumatic memories, this
boomerang effect increases the danger of the repetition and ghostly return of violent histories. What do we
have to offset such a vicious circle of violent returns? Many victims emphasize testimony, witnessing,
mourning, and reparation. Many theories, including psychoanalysis, concur with this assumption.
M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY
Nothing can be right about US policy until the economic field with respect to indigenous
Americans is leveled
Waters 2003 [Barbara, J.D and PhD] “Indigenous Genocide: The United States of North America,” prepared for
presentation at the American Academy of Religion conference.
In the eyes of indigenous peoples in the Americas, however, and in the eyes of individuals not honoring
genocidal tactics of economic imperialism of empire state building, these same acts are (and were) viewed as
horrific, detestable, unconscionable, illegal, and unjust. From this perspective nothing can be right about
USA political policy until past acts of genocide against indigenous people can be recognized, and apologies
and reparations be completed that give back to indigenous people what was taken by the USA over the past
five centuries. The scales of justice must be weighed. This giving back would include not only large land
bases (which can be negotiated, on an equal playing field), but also leveling the economic field with respect
to America’s indigenous nations and the USA. Quite simply, relations between the USA and indigenous
nations cannot be normalized until the USA gives back what they took, in land and resources. The legal
principles here are quite elementary to anyone who has done any research on the historical construction of
the USA, or has any sense of equity and justice. The moral principles are also clarifying: Fact 1) I belong to
the land; Fact 2) you took the land away; Fact 3) you nearly totally destroyed me; Fact 4) give the land back
(or, repair your damage done to me!). If the subject of discussion were a hat rather than land, it would not be
so difficult, perhaps, to have it returned!
It is the responsibility of academics to force recognition of the historical and sustained

inequality to which indigenous Americans have been subjected.
Arguments on behalf of remunerations to Native American Indians may be countered with arguments
portending to prove that significant remunerations of land and capital would necessitate the USA decline in
economic and imperial international power. This may not be such a bad thing, internationally, and may
improve the character of the USA and its citizens, requiring a playing field that is more equitable than the
current playing field. It may force recognition that the USA was not founded upon vacant land, that it’s
democratic republic created was not one where all persons were equal, and its subsequent legal and economic
systems were never intended to, and never have, brought equality or equity to its citizens or indigenous
people. The founders built, and their subsequent descendants continue to build, a colonial economic and
cultural power empire, capitalist in nature, racist in culture, sexist in rule, and facist in law. This claim is
substantiated by several law texts that interpret the aggregate history of US Supreme Court decisions.10
Moreover, descendants of those who colonized the USA continue to benefit from this colonization, and thus
continue to benefit from the genocide of indigenous people, and from the labor of groups whose descendants
continue to be treated unjustly, with their oppressors portending these groups are justifiably members of a
lower caste (eg. African and Asian Americans). Politically, and historically, it is time for a reinterpretation of
America’s history as written by its betrayers of indigenous people, and a reassessment of the imperial
colonial settler empire’s collective responsibilities to its citizens, and the rest of the world. Indigenous people
of the world call upon academics to play their role in this process. To the extent that settlers and European
nations continue to benefit from their colonization of the Americas, contemporary academics have academic
duties in this struggle to speak out. As an indigenous person, as a Seminoli, a free person, I stand as witness
to this calling. And I ask academics to stand with me, to witness the historical and contemporary reality that
almost all(and possibly all) non-Indian title to the Americas is flawed, illegitimate, and illegal, because the
treaty processes of sovereign relations were either defective or broken, before, during, or after negotiations,
and by the rulings of the US Supreme Court. As Ward Churchill would say, “it is illegitimate11 and the lands
sought for actual recovery have been governmentally and corporately held.
NA K/T REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE

Revelatory Knowledge Acquired through Prolong Cohabitation with the Land Provides
Unique Insight into What Land Is and Provides a Portal for Policies to Transcend Linear
Limitations
Vine Deloria, Jr. retired professor emeritus of history at the University of Colorado. 1999. For This Land. Pg.
250-260
Revelatory experiences are another thing altogether. They tell us things we cannot possibly know in any other
way. Moses approaches the burning bush, is told that it is a holy place, learns the name of God, and is given a
vocational task to perform on behalf of his community. With this information come directions through which
a new future is possible. Encountering a holy place always involves the manifestation of a personal spirit of
immense and unmeasured power, a real spirit of place with which our species must have communion
thereafter. Holy places exist in all countries and form the sacred configuration of the land. These places speak
of the ultimate holiness of creation. They give a meaningful context to the reflective locations. This
distinction between reflective and revelatory places is not intended to downgrade the validity of reflective
experiences of lands. It is the ability to reflect that creates the awareness and sensitivity of peoples to the
qualitative intensity of revelatory places. But the distinction is necessary because revelatory places are known
only through the experience of prolonged occupation of land, and they cannot be set aside because of the
aesthetic or emotional appeal of particular places. The most common experience of Indian tribes today is that
of reflective places. One must suspect that common knowledge of lands among Indians always featured a
high percentage of reflective places throughout Indian occupation of this continent. ‘ilibal histories, for the
most part, are land-centered. That is to say, every feature of a landscape has stories attached to it. If a tribal
group is very large or has lived on a particular piece of land for many generations, some natural features will
have many stories attached to them. I know some places in the Dakotas about which at least a dozen stories
are told. These stories relate both secular events such as tales of hunting and warfare and sacred events such
as personal or tribal religious experiences. Each family within a tribe has its own tradition of stories about
tribal ancestral lands. In theory it would be possible to gather from the people of the tribe all the stories that
relate to every feature of the landscape. If these stories were then arranged chronologically, the result would
be a history of the people somewhat similar to what whites mean by history. But the history would be
considered artificial by most Indians because the intensity of the original experience—which was a function
of the place and important in explaining the incident or event—would have been abandoned in favor of the
chronology.
REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE K/T ENVIRONMENT

Only an Approach Beginning with Revelatory Knowledge and Incorporating Indigenous
Perspectives Can Achieve Environmental Interconnectedness and a Prolonged Co-existence
With the Land
250-260
If we recognize the two kinds of sacred lands and admit the objectification of the holy as a particular event at
a specific place, the question arises as to whether one can have the sacred experience of relationship to land.
Is this experience restricted to American Indians, or is it possible for any devout and sincere individual
seeking a higher spiritual reality? We can only discuss theoretical possibilities since it would be
presumptuous to argue that fundamental experiences are limited to American Indians. But there are certain
preconditions that make it unlikely that non-Indians would have these kinds of experiences, and these
conditions also make it probable that it will be increasingly difficult for most American Indians to enter into
or maintain such relationships with places. Civilized life precludes most of the fundamental experiences that
our species once had in relating to lands and the natural order. Today we rely entirely too much upon the
artificial universe that we have created, the world of machines and electricity. In most respects we have been
trained to merge our emotions and beliefs so that they mesh with the machines and institutions of the
civilized world. Thus many things that were a matter of belief for the old people have become objects of
scorn and ridicule for modern people. We have great difficulty in understanding simple things because we
have been trained to deal with extremely complicated things, and we respond that way almost
instantaneously. The old traditional Indians were in tune with the rhythms of life. They were accustomed to
bringing in and relating to a whole picture of the land, the plants, and the animals around them. They
responded to things as a part of a larger whole which was a subjective reality to them. We could say the
traditional Indian stood in the center of a circle and brought everything together in that circle. ‘Today we
stand at the end of a line and work our way along that line, discarding or avoiding everything on either side
of us. In our electronic/electric, mechanical world, we rely on instruments of our own construction to enable
us to relate to the rest of the world. The world becomes an object of our actions in an entirely new way, for
we are able to overcome certain aspects of the natural world such as time and space that had always stood as
barriers to us. But our mechanical instruments cannot help us relate to the rest of life except by reducing it to
an object also. Consequently any apprehension of the sacredness of land must be filtered through our
mechanical devices, and consequently we attribute to landscape only the aesthetic and not the sacred
perspective.
REVELATORY K/T ENVIRONMENT

We Must Include Indigenous Voices in Policy Formulation
Melina Selverston 1999,Negotiating Kyoto: Indigenous Peoples and the Complex Path to Global Solutions
Native Americas Fall 1999
It is important that the UNFCCC include strong language to protect the rights of indigenous people. It is a
powerful and binding convention in the United Nations hierarchy of treaties, considerably more important
than, for example, the Convention on Biodiversity, which does contain language concerning indigenous
peoples. The CDM, in particular, will directly affect indigenous and local communities, so their voices must
be included in the discussions to define the legal framework governing it. At a minimum, issues of "prior and
informed consent" and "benefit sharing," already addressed in the UN body of international laws, must be
clearly defined in the CDM. It is difficult to consider the long-term effects of international policies when
indigenous people throughout the hemisphere are faced with the daily struggle to survive. In Latin America
most indigenous people do not have land titles and do not benefit from the basic rights of citizenship. Yet the
policies developed in the climate negotiations will directly impact indigenous peoples and their homes.
Yaritza Array, an indigenous leader from Venezuela who has studied the UNFCCC, made an urgent call for
indigenous organizations to educate each other about the UNFCCC, and to demand participation in the
negotiations. "We have to intervene so they take serious measures against the current model of development-
our survival is at stake."5 Notes
WEST NOT ACCESS REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE

Western Logical Policy Formulation Its Roots are Entrenched in Reflective Knowledge
250-260
Within tribal traditions there is a real apprehension of and appreciation for the sacredness of land, and more
specifically, for the sacred nature of places; the two ideas are but different expressions of the underlying
relationship of humans with the world around them. It is possible to dissect this knowledge for the purpose of
discussion, but the discussion should follow a particular sequence. It should not rely wholly on the goodwill
of the listener We can analyze what constitutes sacredness, but we must also recognize that some of what we
say can be understood only by experience. Our task is to live in such a way that the information we receive
through analysis becomes—over the passage of time and through grace and good fortune—our experience
also. The sacredness of land is first and foremost an emotional experience. It is that feeling of unity with a
place that is complete, whatever specific feelings it may engender in an individual. There are two
fundamental categories of emotional responses to sacred places: reflective and revelatory. The vast number of
experiences we have with land, and in particular with places, are of a reflective kind. We experience the
uniqueness of places and survey the majesty of lands. There we begin to meditate on who we are, what our
society is, where we came from, quite possibly where we are going, and what it all means. Lands somehow
call forth from us these questions and give us a feeling of being within something larger and more powerful
than ourselves. We are able to reflect upon what we know, and in reflection we see a different arrangement,
perhaps a different interpretation, of what life can mean. A wise person might be able to discern the
intellectual content of these reflective experiences by intense thought, but his or her conclusion would be
only a logical proposition and would lack the intensity of the emotion which lands and places evoke. Land
has the ability to short-circuit logical processes; it enables us to apprehend underlying unities we did not
suspect.
REVELATORY SOLVES OBJECTIVICATION

Objectification of the Land as A Location of an Ecological Crisis Limits its Revelatory
Potential
250-260
Another phenomenon attached to holy places is that the more information an individual has about the
location, the more likely he or she is to encounter unique emotions and experiences there. Information
heightens awareness by providing a context within which experiences can be understood. The intensity of
dread is partially defused by a framework to make the experience comprehensible. We have reports of
religious experiences similar to those of American Indians from mystics of other religious and philosophical
traditions. Common themes in these traditions are the disappearance or transformation of familiar
apprehensions of time and space, and the appearance of a reality undergirding or transcending physical
reality. These traditions do not, as a rule, rely on specific locations as does the American Indian tradition.
There can be no denying that the European continent has a multitude of sacred places, and it is no accident
that, as different religions have come and gone, the same locations appear as sacred and receive adoration,
even though the language and religious context continues to change. One can project, then, that sacred places
in North America may yet see a series of transformations in which new peoples using new languages rely on
them for spiritual sustenance. Quite frequently the result of a revelatory experience is the creation of a new
ceremony, but not all ceremonies arise in this manner. So we cannot say that the creation of a ceremony is
one criterion by which we judge whether a place has sufficient holiness to provide new ways of relating to
higher spiritual powers. Since the primary content of most revelations within the Indian traditions is the
definition of individual vocations that will serve the people in the immediate future, it is exceedingly difficult
to classify most locations by a precise description of their primary content. Historically Indians believed that
they lived between the physical and spiritual worlds, and consequently there was not much effort to make the
kinds of distinctions that non-Indians find useful in understanding topics. Ceremonies were supposed to help
keep the people attuned to the rhythms of the spiritual world, and therefore what was important was whether
they fulfilled that function. The most important aspect of sacred places, and in particular the holy places of
which we have knowledge, is that they mark the location and circumstances of an event in which the holy
became an objective fact of existence. Christians have the same idea in the doctrine of the Incarnation, except
that they restrict holiness to the human species. Indians understand that there is holiness in everything, and
that human beings are simply a part of the larger whole which must be shaped and informed by the holy. We
can see some of the mystery of these things in Black Elk’s vision when he meets the Six Grandfathers, and
also later when as an old man he stands on Harney Peak and invokes them to help him and take pity on him.
The complaint of many traditional Indians against the white man s understanding of things sacred is the
tendency to reduce the holy to a subjective category of experience, and to fail to come to grips with the
meaning of the objectification of the holy. Indians and New Agers part company at the point where New
Agers argue that it is possible to create one s own reality—that belief is an avoidance of sacred experiences
and hence detaches one from real relationship with the land.
***SELF-DETERMINATION***
NO—US SELF-D
U.S. support for self-determination has dramatically waned.
A second idea is that conflict between modern and traditional populations, manifested by clashes of religions
and cultures, will be a major driver of world politics. This vision of the future is closely related to a third idea
with a wide following: That world politics will increasingly be defined by battles between the rich and poor
—between those who are benefiting from the fruits of an increasingly globalized world economic system and
the great masses of people who are shut out of such prosperity. Each of these ideas holds important clues
about the future. But something is sorely missing from current debates: An appreciation of the decisive role
that self-determination movements and ethnic conflict will likely have in shaping world politics and
American foreign policy in the decades ahead.*During much of the 1990s, self-determination issues received
a tremendous amount of attention, and for good reason. Conflicts between different ethnic groups in Bosnia,
Rwanda, Kosovo, and the former Soviet Union dominated international news and drew NATO, America and
the United Nations into several major interventions. And yet, even before September 11th, self-determination
issues had largely lost their central place in debates about world affairs and U.S. foreign policy. The fast
changing currents of these debates had carried elite attention to other problems: managing globalization and
its backlash; trading off cold war arms control agreements for the dream of national missile defense; dealing
with growing Chinese power; and so on. Before September 11th, even as international aid workers worked to
rebuild Kosovo and Bosnia, and even as Macedonia teetered on the brink of full-fledged ethnic warfare, self
determination problems ceased to receive a great deal of attention.
US right to self-determination has been constrained the plan will mobilize political
autonomy
Indian Country Today, March 7th.(“Assessing the past and future of self-determination,” 2008,
Further restraints to self-determination arose in the 1980s and later, owing to increasingly conservative and
less favorable court cases and declining federal budgets, as well as less favorable attention to Indian affairs
by U.S. presidents. The self-determination policy has many legal, political, legislative and bureaucratic
constraints. The hope for further renewing tribal communities lies in mobilization and activism. We
commend those communities that are working to develop culturally informed solutions to economic
development, political autonomy and democratic and consensual relations with the U.S. government. The
future of self-determination policy will consist of give-and-take with federal and international policies, but its
most creative and sustained means will rely upon the aspirations, work and visions of the tribal communities
and leaders.
US attempts to promote self-determination have only been gestures

Indian Country Today, June 20.( “Building on Nixon's 'new' Indian policy,” 2008,
During the 1950s and in the Eisenhower administration, Nixon was vice president. Eisenhower supported the
termination policy that was orchestrated largely by congressional House committees. Vice President Nixon
probably had little influence in Indian policy, but did not officially deny termination policy. However, in
1970, Nixon directly challenged and dismantled the termination policies of the Eisenhower administration.
Nixon left a legacy of self-determination policy, but presidential policies since his time have made few
conceptual improvements. Several administrations have only paid lip service to self-determination policy.
NO—US SELF-D
Despite conventions and treaties the destruction of indigenous peoples continues

Under the Working Group's definition, cultural genocide has taken place all over the world, even recently in
the United States. For instance, the United States' "termination" policy of the 1950s [*697] and early 1960s
clearly fits the concept. 102 Racial prejudice and notions of racial superiority provide the rationalizations for
cultural genocide. 103 Despite the human rights norm inherent in the Genocide Convention that all cultural
groupings have the right to exist, 104 the destruction of indigenous peoples continues, in part because of the
notion that indigenous ways of life are somehow inferior to those of modern industrialized societies. Those
who seek to defend the rights of indigenous peoples must work to make this notion simply untenable.
Indigenous peoples believe that their right to survive and to control their own territories should be respected
not only because they are entitled to basic human rights but also because they have some values and wisdom
to share with the other peoples of the Earth. To put an end to the destruction of indigenous peoples,
indigenous rights advocates must help the rest of the world to see that there is real value in what indigenous
peoples have to offer, especially in their spiritual relationships with the Earth and with nonhuman living
things.
Indigenous Americans are turning to the international arena in an effort to force the USFG
to honorable fulfill its trust responsibility
In addition, the tribes' proprietary rights as landowners are subject to the "trust responsibility" of the federal
government. [*701] This trust responsibility is based largely on the unusual nature of Indian land
ownership, in which the federal government imposes restraints on alienation of Indian land and holds legal
title to most Indian land in trust for the benefit of Indians. 122 But the federal government frequently has not
fulfilled its trust responsibility. Furthermore, the doctrine of the plenary power of Congress, under which the
federal government unilaterally has changed the terms of its relationships with tribes, is fundamentally
inconsistent with the emerging principle that indigenous peoples "freely determine" their relationships with
states. 123 Federal policy toward some of the indigenous peoples of the United States, in particular, Alaska
natives, native Hawaiians, and the many "terminated" tribes, has been particularly dishonorable. 124 In light
of this, some Indian-rights advocates have suggested that tribes urge courts to consider the emerging
international law of indigenous rights in cases involving challenges to tribal sovereignty. 125 The recent trend
among tribal leaders, however, is to persuade Congress to use its plenary power in an honorable way to
enhance and reinforce tribal authority. 126
NO—US SELF-D
The US does not support self-determination. The State Dept has consistently tried to
narrow the scope of self-determination in international law
Ryser 99. [Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. “Self Determination: International Law & Practice: Killing for Self-
Determination.” June 1999. http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/99ryser.htm]
Self-determination is a right guaranteed under international law to all peoples seeking to freely choose their
social, economic, political and cultural future without external interference. It is a human right written into
the United Nations Charter, it is a guarantee written into human rights conventions and treaties, and it is a
right for which the United States and other European states have committed their lives and treasures. Simply
stated, the principle as written into the Convention on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States
in 1992 asserts: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of the right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development The United States
government agreed to the principle slightly modified as it appeared in the Helsinki Act of 1975. All peoples always have the right, in full
freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as
they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development. The principle is unambiguous in its application to peoples having
the collective right to freely choose their own future. The right to choose is what the United States and other states like France, Britain
and Canada seek to deny Fourth World peoples. In response to this slightly more than eighty-year-old principle of international law
empires have crumbled, states have lost direct control over vast resources and hundreds of millions of peoples became citizens of new
states. One might suggest that the principle of self-determination is responsible for the creation of perhaps as many as 160 of the world’s
193 states. Even as these new states were created over the last eighty years they enclosed hundreds, if not thousands of indigenous
nations that did not freely choose to be within the state. They became nations captive inside often hostile states… The self-determination
principle stood for the right to choose without external influences for the peoples of Moldova too. It is a stunning fact to consider that
just as the United States, France, England, Germany, Russia and Italy roll their troops into Kosovo to preserve the peace and secure
human rights and self-determination, these same states have become active leaders in the drive to rewrite international law denying self-
determination to Fourth World nations all around the world. Curiously, the United States Department of State (and
specifically the Office of Legal Affairs) has been the most vigorous manipulator of decisions in multi-lateral
organizations to limit the social, economic and political scope of self-determination as it might be applied to
indigenous peoples. The United States has actively worked to achieve a drastic narrowing of the term’s
meaning in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, and in
the Organization of American States. The U.S. Department of State’s success is written in the rewritten
version of the International Labour Organization’s 1957 Convention "tribal and semi tribal populations" in
the form of the ILO’s 1989 Convention 169. It is written in the Commission on Human Rights stalled
consideration of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
YES—US SELF-D
Tribal Self-Governance legislation solves indigenous self-determination
Keohane, 06. (Jeff R., Spring 2006 Human Rights Magazine, “Protecting the Sacred,” The Rise of Tribal Self-
The past three decades have seen American Indians and Alaskan Natives—collectively referred to as Native
Americans here—make the first widespread economic gains since their territories were incorporated within
the United States. This unprecedented growth correlates strongly with increased tribal autonomy and is not
primarily due to the growth of tribal casinos. The federal government historically dominated nearly every
aspect of tribal life, from the exercise of religion and cultural practices to land tenure and the structure of
tribal government. Moreover, with the exception of a brief, protribal interregnum under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. policy
has generally aimed to eliminate tribal governments. Native American activism rose quietly in parallel to other civil rights movements in
the 1960s, reaching a crescendo in the early 1970s with the occupation of Alcatraz (1969), the Trail of Broken Treaties and takeover of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs offices (1972), and the siege at Wounded Knee (1973). These and other protests, for the first time, focused
the nation’s attention on the political oppression and poverty in tribal areas. President Richard Nixon reacted to this Native American
activism in 1970 by repudiating past antitribal policies. He also formally identified tribal government as the appropriate form of
government in Indian country, adopting a policy of “tribal self-determination.” Congress followed suit, increasing funding for Native
American services and enacting the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Self-Determination Act) and other
legislation. The Self-Determination Act entitles tribes and intertribal consortia to take over administration of federal programs for the
benefit of their members through “self-determination contracts” with the Departments of the Interior and of Health and Human Services.
Tribes experienced the beneficial economic effects of increased appropriations and the Self-Determination Act almost immediately. Per
capita income on reservations rose from $4,300 in 1970 to $6,500 in 1980 (in year-2000 dollars), and poverty fell from 57 percent of
families to 43 percent. Congress cut funding by one-third in the 1980s, however, and reservation family poverty increased to 51 percent
while incomes increased a scant $500 by 1990. By contrast, per capita income for all Americans rose steadily from $13,000 in 1970 to
$19,400 in 1990, and family poverty remained fairly constant between 13.7 percent in 1969 and 13.1 percent in 1989. Two decades later,
Congress extended the tribal self-determination concept to many other federal programs serving tribes and
offered tribes the option of administering federal programs independently under the Tribal Self-Governance
Act of 1994.
The US has empirically sponsored NA sovereignty and served as a model for self-
determination internationally
Hu and Thomas, 06. (Peggy B. and Jeffrey, The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. “United States Respects Indian Tribes' Right to Self-
Determination,” 06 November 2006,
http://www.america.gov/st/washfileenglish/2006/November/20061103120126cjsamoht0.4840967.html)
In his November 1 proclamation marking National American Indian Heritage Month, 2006, President Bush
reaffirmed his administration's adherence to a national policy of self-determination for Indian tribes, a policy
that began under President Richard Nixon. The United States “will continue to work on a government-to-
government basis with tribal governments, honor the principles of tribal sovereignty and the right to self-
determination,” Bush said, “and help ensure America remains a land of promise for American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and all our citizens.” (See text of proclamation.) During a February meeting of governmental and
indigenous delegates to draft an "Inter-American Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People," U.S.
Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States John Maisto said the United States "is
proud of its longstanding commitment to tribal sovereignty [and] self-determination, and government-to-
government relationships with federally recognized tribes.” (See related article.) “A policy of self-
determination for American Indians is one of the most positive aspects of the U.S. experience, and may
potentially serve as a model for better relations between other countries and indigenous peoples and
populations," he said.
NO—US/INT’L SELF-D
The declaration of independence made by Kosovo will not signal the emergence of
permissiveness toward self-determination claims
Bose 08. [Sumantra Bose. Professor of international and comparative politics at the London School of Economics
and Political Science (LSE). “Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma”. 22 - 05 – 2008.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy]
The global controversy over Kosovo has aroused much excitement among aspirants to self-determination
worldwide, and, concurrently, considerable alarm in capitals where such state-seeking movements are a long-
term headache, from Ottawa and Madrid to Delhi and Beijing (see Fred Halliday, "Tibet, Palestine, and the
politics of failure", 9 May 2008). But both the excitement and the alarm are unwarranted. The position of the
United States and most of its major allies on this matter does not signal the emergence of a more general
permissiveness towards self-determination claims among these influential players in the international system
(at the other end of the spectrum, Russia's position on Kosovo is determined by the Kremlin's decision to
promote a muscular foreign policy in Europe and Eurasia; remote and peripheral Kosovo is merely a pawn in
that strategy). So while the Ahtisaari plan describes Kosovo as "a unique case that demands a unique
solution", its recommendation of "independence, to be supervised for an initial period by the international
community", can be characterised as a nearly unique solution to a not particularly unique case. And that is
where the espousal by most of "the west" of Kosovo's independence throws up some troubling questions.
The international community is reluctant to recognize rights to self-determination—

support for new sovereign territories will upset India and China
Bose, May 22.(Sumantra, Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics
and Political Science, “Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma,” 2008.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy)
This status-quo proclivity of the international system is not surprising. The most influential member-states of
the international system have an obvious interest in not rocking the boat, and this is reflected in the behaviour
of international institutions. The international system is apprehensive of encouraging, or seeming to
encourage, instability and fractiousness. It is alive to the sensitivities and clout of major states, such as India
or China, that contain groups seeking self-determination. It is acutely conscious of the risk of regional
destabilisation - the blocked independence aspirations of the Kurds of northern Iraq are a case in point. And it
is reluctant to admit new members to the club of sovereign states except in instances of a fait accompli on the
ground - such as Bangladesh, Eritrea in the early 1990s, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the "velvet
divorce" of the Czechs and Slovaks.
The international community is blocking independence aspirations of the Kurds of

northern Iraq
This status-quo proclivity of the international system is not surprising. The most influential member-states of
the international system have an obvious interest in not rocking the boat, and this is reflected in the behaviour
of international institutions. The international system is apprehensive of encouraging, or seeming to
encourage, instability and fractiousness. It is alive to the sensitivities and clout of major states, such as India
or China, that contain groups seeking self-determination. It is acutely conscious of the risk of regional
destabilisation - the blocked independence aspirations of the Kurds of northern Iraq are a case in point. And it
is reluctant to admit new members to the club of sovereign states except in instances of a fait accompli on the
ground - such as Bangladesh, Eritrea in the early 1990s, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the "velvet
divorce" of the Czechs and Slovaks.
NO—US/INT’L SELF-D
The US and international community no longer take claims for self-determination seriously
This may read like a potted history of Kosovo between 1989 and 1999. It is, however, a potted history of
Indian policy towards Kashmir, and its consequences, between 1953 and 1990. So do the United States and
its allies in Europe support self-determination for Kashmir, and threaten multilateral intervention to that end?
Of course not. The oft-stated American position on Kashmir is that India and Pakistan should negotiate a
bilateral solution to the Kashmir dispute while taking into account the wishes of "the Kashmiri people" (a
description that itself grossly over-simplifies the society and politics of Kashmir, which contains a diversity
of regions, religions, ethnicities and languages, and whose citizens are split into pro-independence, pro-
Pakistan and pro-India segments). Nonetheless, the caution and circumspection that define the stance of
the United States and major European Union countries towards the Kashmir dispute are typical of the
attitude of the "international community" and its dominant players towards claims to self-
determination. The record of the international order since 1945 is that self-determination movements
tend to receive a sceptical hearing at best, and no hearing at all in many cases. The vague and somewhat
outdated principles of international law relevant to the issue of secession are broadly supportive of the
territorial integrity of states, and recognise the legitimacy of self-determination only in situations of
colonialism. Between 1945 and 1990 the only fully realised case of national self-determination outside the
decolonisation framework was Bangladesh in the early 1970s, facilitated by an Indian military intervention
that resulted in the total defeat of Pakistani forces in the former East Pakistan. During those decades, dozens
of other self-determination movements struggled in vain.
YES—INT’L SELF-D
There is international support for the principle of self-determination.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 07.(“International Legal Prohibitions on
Conventional Arms Transfers,” September 28, http://www.dfait-
maeci.gc.ca/arms/isrop/research/mason_2003/section06-en.asp
A state cannot use force against a people legally exercising its right of self-determination, whether ‘internal’
or ‘external’ in nature. The Friendly Relations Declaration provides that: Every state has the duty to refrain
from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of that right to self-determination and freedom and independence. Unlike the legal
ambiguity surrounding use of force by or in support of self-determination movements, this principle is not
controversial and has achieved general international support
States are already willing to recognize right to internal self-determination

To recapitulate, states that have refused to recognize the self-determination of indigenous peoples have
employed a number of strategies, singly or in combination. The United States, in particular, has deployed all
these arguments: that international law does not recognize collective rights; that indigenous peoples are not
“peoples”; and that the right of self-determination applies only in the colonial context, which does not
include the situation of indigenous peoples. Several Asian countries, for their part, until recently deflected the
issue of self-determination, and indeed the entire Draft Declaration, by declaring that their region does not
contain a relevant category of indigenous peoples. Pragmatic considerations, however, may well prompt this
group to modify its stance as several prominent intergovernmental organizations active in its region,
including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, now recognize the category in Asia and impose
protective obligations. The recent retreat of the Asian states from their earlier insistence at the United Nations
on a definition of “indigenous peoples” certainly suggests that they are re-assessing their policies. In any
event, two things are now clear: a large majority of states is ready to recognize the right of indigenous peo-
ples to self-determination; at the same time, nearly all states seek to limit the right from being exercised to
alter their boundaries. The only question now dividing these states appears to be whether the limitation
should be encoded in the Draft Declaration itself, via a clause like that in the Declaration on Friendly
Relations and Co-operation Among States or one specifying an “internal” exercise of self-determination, or
whether it can be expressed extra-textually as the sense of the drafter states regarding Article 3.
YES—SELF-D MOVEMENTS--KOSOVO
The recent declaration of independence in Kosovo has emboldened separatist movements

around the globe and divided major power players over the legitimacy of the unilateral
declaration
South China Morning Post 08. [“Serbia says Kosovo split sets separatists a bad example”. South China
Morning Post. Wednesday March 26, 2008. Lexis]
The declaration of independence in Kosovo has set a dangerous precedent that could encourage separatist
movements in other parts of the world, says Serbia's foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, who is in Asia seeking
support to bring the Albanian-dominated region back into the fold. Kosovo, a Serbian province under United
Nations' administration since 1999, unilaterally declared its independence on February 17. And although the
majority of Kosovo's population of 2 million people are ethnic Albanians who welcomed the split from
Serbia, the act brought fresh tension and turmoil in the Balkans. The declaration also divided the major
powers around the world. Violent protests broke out in Serbia and Kosovo following the split. The escalation
of violence prompted Nato to deploy troops in northern Kosovo and raised fears of possible further conflict.
Despite the tense situation, Mr Jeremic said Serbia would not resort to the use of force. It would look to solve
the issue through diplomatic and legal means instead. "The Serbian government has always believed in a
peaceful solution of Kosovo and this will continue to be our stance. We will not resort to force," he told the
South China Morning Post during a stopover in Hong Kong on Sunday. The Serbian foreign minister hopes
to use the trip to persuade Asian governments not to recognise Kosovo and to spread the message of the
danger of ethnic separatist movements which he said had been fuelled by the Kosovo development. "What
we have here is an ethnic minority group wanting independence from a recognised sovereign state and they
just declare it unilaterally. Even more unfortunately some countries choose to recognise this unilateral
secession," Mr Jeremic said, adding that such behaviour violated the UN charter and defied the norms of
international order. "As a result, we already have a number of separatist movements around the world -
emboldened and encouraged by the Kosovo example. There are separatist movements in Asia, there are
separatist movements in Europe ... right now we are on a very slippery slope," he said. The minister, who will
visit Vietnam and Indonesia this week, said his government would conduct vigorous diplomacy in the coming
months to persuade countries not to recognise Kosovo. "Our goal is to make sure that the majority of nations
in the world do not recognise Kosovo independence and Kosovo does not become a member of key
international organisations," he said, "Once it becomes obvious that unilateralism does not deliver
international recognition of sovereignty to this entity, it will encourage the party to go back to the negotiation
table." So far about 30 countries have recognised Kosovo, including the United States, Britain and France.
But China, Russia and Spain have voiced their opposition to the declaration of independence. Mr Jeremic
admitted they were fighting a hard battle. "We are running against some of the most powerful and influential countries of the world.
Nonetheless, we believe that international law is on our side. We will work hard to make sure we reach out to as many countries as
possible. "We don't have much trouble in reaching out to countries that are fully aware of the danger of unilateral ethnic minority
secession. We'll have a far more difficult job convincing some other countries where ethnic secession is not a danger," he said, citing the
example of Latin America. To aid his case, Mr Jeremic said the Serbian government was also seeking a vote in the UN General
Assembly in September to obtain a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He was confident that the legal opinion
would be in favour of Serbia. "Serbia is going to try and make sure that the general assembly would ask the ICJ to give a legal opinion
on whether or not this declaration of independence is conducted in line with the international law," he said. "Once we obtain and are
armed with this legal opinion, the governments around the world will have a much easier job to decide [if they should recognise
Kosovo]."
NO-US SELF-D--YES INT’L SELF-D

No U.S. support for self-d now – Puerto Rico proves.
BBC News, June 10. (“Puerto Rico in independence bid,” 2008,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7445615.stm)
Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila has called on the UN to back his people's right to self-
determination. Speaking to a UN committee, Mr Acevedo Vila accused the Bush administration of denying
the US territory its democratic right to choose its own course. Puerto Rico has been a US territory since the
late 19th Century, but gained greater autonomy in 1952. The UN panel voted to support a motion calling on
the US to grant Puerto Rico the right to determine its own status. Mr Acevedo Vila's appeal to the UN
reflected a change in tone for the governor's party, analysts said. The governing Popular Democratic Party
has previously supported the Caribbean island's commonwealth status. The opposition New Progressive Party
favours full integration into the US as the 51st state. The Puerto Rico Independence Party wants to achieve
full independence. In March, Mr Acevedo Vila pleaded not guilty to corruption charges brought by the FBI
linked to allegations of raising and then hiding thousands of dollars in illegal election campaign
contributions. 'Right to grow' Mr Acevedo Vila told the UN Special Political and Decolonisation Committee
that the US had failed to live up to the promises it made in the 1950s when it gave the island greater self-
governing powers in return for remaining a commonwealth. He said he was there to defend the territory's
"right to grow" under the terms of the 1953 agreement and to build on the sovereignty it was promised. The
people of Puerto Rico would then be able to choose whether they wanted to become a US state or achieve
independence, he said. He accused the US government under President George W Bush of being "clumsy and
partisan" in its treatment of the issue. The resolution approved by the committee was put forward by Cuba
and Venezuela. It also called for the US to release all Puerto Rican prisoners serving sentences for cases
relating to the territory's independence movement. Mr Acevedo Vila has previously strongly opposed moves
by the US Congress in Washington that he maintains would force Puerto Rico to lose its autonomy and
become a US state. Residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote in US presidential elections. However, they can
vote in presidential preference primaries and do elect a non-voting delegate to the US Congress.
US international credibility has been undermined by its failure to address growing

international movement to recognize Puerto Rican indepence
Periodico, June 22.(“U.S. Contempt Before New Debate on Puerto Rico at the United Nations,” Cuba, 2008,
http://www.periodico26.cu/english/opinion/june2008/us-prico061308.html)
A scornful reaction has been the only answer of the U.S. government towards the recent debate on the case of
Puerto Rico in the UN Decolonization Committee, reaffirming its refusal to respect the right of self-
determination of the Caribbean island. The President of the U.S. Senate, Kenneth McClintoch, unemotionally
said that the discussion of Puerto Rico's status at the United Nations is nothing short of trivial. As always,
U.S. administrations mock the resolutions of the UN Decolonization Committee, an international body that
has voted in favor of the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to decide their own future on 26
previous occasions. The recent declaration reaffirms the right of Puerto Rico to freely determine its
independence if the people so choose. The agreement was considered a political victory of the Puerto Rican
independence movement -- just when the 110th anniversary of the colonial character of the island is about to
be commemorated on June 25th. Subjected to being what is called a Free Associated State -- an euphemism
for its state as a colony of the United States -- Puerto Rico has been mocked by Washington since it fell under
U.S. jurisdiction in 1898. The case was debated in the General Assembly until 1953 when the United States
decided to give Puerto Rico the status of a so-called Free Associated State, to try to get the island off the list
of colonial territories. But even the White House determined in 2005 that the future of Puerto Rico
exclusively depends on the U.S. Congress. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has closed
the door to any possibility of advancing a popular initiative that might approve of Puerto Ricans deciding
their own future. Despite the obstacles in Washington, the recent determination of the UN Decolonization
Committee to request that the General Assembly take up the case of Puerto Rico is a significant achievement.
NO-US SELF-D--YES INT’L SELF-D

The international arena has become the forum to which Native Americans appeal for
sovereignty making the US’ promotion of human rights seem hypocritical to American
Indians and the globe
Sorum 2007 [Alan, “International Law as an Instrument to Mitigate Cultural Oppression,
http://aboriginalrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/intervention_for_indigenous_rights, June 16, 2007]
Native groups have turned to the United Nations and international law to better protect their self-
determination and group rights. Protection of basic human rights for indigenous peoples of the United States
is at a curious juncture. Historically international law has seen as an instrument of oppression used against
indigenous peoples. Ironically, indigenous peoples now find international law is a way to mitigate cultural
oppression. Human rights associated with land, language, food, education and self-determination are all part
of the debate. Testimony by indigenous groups supports the hallmark that self-determination is the
prerequisite right. Enjoyment of any other human right hinges on self-determination. Most indigenous peoples do
not see a conflict between group and individual rights of self-determination, but some governments do. The United Nations (UN) has
debated the establishment of a permanent forum for protection of indigenous rights. The United States publicly promotes
international support of human rights. Human rights are at the forefront of many foreign policy objectives.
Granting similar protections to indigenous groups in an entirely different story. Throughout the developmental
history of UN declarations concerning the human rights of indigenous peoples, there has always been concern for group and individual
rights. Human rights of an individual cannot be guaranteed without protecting the rights of an entire
indigenous group.The term “peoples” provokes apprehension from many governments. Concerns center
around two issues, collective rights and group self-determination. The first matter involving collective rights
is easy to document. Subsistence rights for rural residents in Alaska, at the expense of urban residents is a
good example. People in the United States have historically objected to preferential rights being given to one
group at the detriment of another.
UN declaration for self-determination signals international support the right. The US has
led a coalition of the unwilling due to their concerns over indigenous management of
resources.
Africa News, September 17, 2007 [Namibia; UN Adopts Declaration On Indigenous People, LexisNexis]
THE United Nations General Assembly on Thursday adopted a non-binding declaration upholding the
human, land and resources rights of the world's 370 million indigenous people, including Namibia's San
people, brushing off opposition from powerful countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the
United States. The vote in the assembly was 143 in favour and four against. Eleven countries, including Russia and
Colombia, abstained. Namibia, despite raising concerns earlier, supported the declaration after co-sponsors amended an article to read
that "nothing in the declaration may be ...construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally
or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states." The declaration, which ended more
than 20 years of debate at the UN, also recognises the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and
sets global human rights standards for them. Under it, native people now have the right "to the recognition,
observance and enforcement of treaties" concluded with states or their successors. The Namibian was unable to get
Namibian Ambassador to the UN Dr Kaire Mbuende's immediate comment although request for comment was forwarded to his office in
New York. The international pressure group Survival International welcomed the declaration, saying it will raise international standards
in the same way as the universal declaration on human rights did nearly 60 years ago. "It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of
tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated,"
said Survival's director, Stephen Corry. Survival said the declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to ownership of their
land and to live as they wish. It also affirms that they should not be moved from their lands without their free and informed consent.
Indigenous peoples argued that their lands and territories were endangered by such threats as mineral extraction, logging, environmental
contamination, privatisation and development projects, classification of lands as protected areas or game reserves and use of genetically
modified seeds and technology. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, all countries with sizeable
indigenous populations, said they could not support the declaration because of their concerns over provisions
on self-determination, land and resources rights and giving indigenous peoples a veto right over national
legislation and state management of resources. Among the contentious issues was one article stating: "States shall give legal
recognition and protection to lands, territories and resources traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired" by indigenous
peoples". Another bone of contention was an article upholding native peoples' right to redress - by means that can include restitution or
fair compensation - for lands and resources "which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior ad
informed consent". Adoption of the declaration by the assembly had been deferred late last year at the behest of African countries led by
Namibia, which raised objections about language on self-determination and the definition of "indigenous" people.
DEVELOPMENT SELF-D
Development is a means to an end to further self-determination

Dean Howard Smith, National Education Program for Native American Leadership, Modern Tribal Development,
2000, p.14
Another example helps to bring this point further into the open. During classroom discussion,2 one student
mentioned the following. He visited his grandparents’ home on the Navajo Reservation every weekend and
returned to the university during the week. He said, “Out there they have everything they need. They have
sheep and corn and everything. They don’t want any development. I come back to the city [Flagstaffl, and
there is all this noise. You can’t think. I go home, and I’m comfortable. Why do we need any development?”
Thus those tribes desiring to live in traditional ways, and are able to sustain that lifestyle, are making rational
choices concerning their resources: this is the very definition of self-determination. Other tribes, however, are
interested in developing their economies as a means toward the end of self-determination. In other words,
developing natural and human resources can strengthen their culture. For instance, Marilyn Enfield of
Apache Aerospace stated that her goal as general manager is to be “profit driven, but balanced with Apache
values.”3 Reaching this goal included activities ranging from testifying to Congress to participating in Sunrise
Dances, and from negotiating with McDonnell-Douglas to meeting individually with traditional council
members and explaining, in Apache, how Apache Aerospace could help lead the tribe achieve true self-
determination. The point is that economic development can help tribes become selfsufficient without
undermining their cultural integrity. determination. As tribes truly begin to manage their resources, they can
maintain and strengthen their cultural values. As development occurs, tribal members have an opportunity for
increased pride in their culture and heritage, and the individual civilization prospers in more ways than rising
income. As a counterexample, consider for a moment an economy continuing the problems currently present
on reservations. The likelihood of such a society maintaining its cultural integrity in the face of poverty,
alcoholism, malnutrition, and the like is rather low.
Economic development can help tribes to maintain and develop their cultures
2000, p.19
The social theory being presented here can be used to explain how economic development can aid tribes in
maintaining and developing their cultures. The following statement, supposedly made by Chief Seattle, helps
explain our social paradigm: “And what will happen when we say good-by to the swift pony and the hunt? It will be the end of living
and the beginning of survival” (Jeffers 1991, 20).8 Chief Seattle foretold the results of the reservation system in the United States and
Canada. The disruption of a very profitable economic system, the end of the hunt in this case, clearly caused a downward spiral of the
social system for tribes as they moved onto reservations. In many instances the move from the traditional lands to a distant reservation
site completely destroyed the traditional economy. Even as the traditional governmental and spiritual structures were destroyed, Chief
Seattle’s foreboding came true as the various subsystems of the social structure reached a new level of compatibility. Given the lack of
governance, economy, and spiritual sustenance, it is hardly surprising that many reservation populations simply survived—or worse.
Another aspect of Chief Seattle’s comments further illustrates how our social theory works: the pony is a post-contact technology! Yet in
the couple of centuries between the introduction of this technology, including the biological production of sufficient productive units,
and Chief Seattle’s comments, this new technology had permeated the social structures of many tribes. The equine-based economic and
defense systems infiltrated the rest of the social structure as other subsystems reached a new level of compatibility with the increased
profitability of the economic system and the increased effectiveness of the defense system.9 Chief Seattle’s statement shows both aspects
of our theory. In the first instance a disruption of the status quo can lead to a downward spiral of the social structure when an exogenous
change moves the system out of equilibrium. On the other hand, a positive exogenous change can lead to improvements in
other aspects of the social structure. In later chapters I describe how and why Native American social systems
have faltered in the face of two hundred years of federal policy and, for current purposes, how indigenous
cultures can lead the Native American reservations toward a successful future by developing their economies.
Developing reservation economies is vital to sustaining and developing Native American cultural identities.
The theory explains that culture is a dynamically moving set of social subsystems and that when any one
subsystem is knocked out of equilibrium with the others, then the whole set of subsystems must adjust to the
new environment. Subsystems can be described as involving sectors of the social fabric. For example,
subsystems include the economic system, religious system, familial system, artistic system, and
environmental system. An equilibrium is reached when the various subsystems reach a point of stasis. This
by no means implies that the social ~structure has reached a point of unconstrained or even constrained
optimization; rather, given the governing body of constraints, the system has reached a steady state.
DEVELOPMENT SELF-D
Economic development can help tribes to maintain and develop their cultures
2000, p.19
The social theory being presented here can be used to explain how economic development can aid tribes in
maintaining and developing their cultures. The following statement, supposedly made by Chief Seattle, helps
explain our social paradigm: “And what will happen when we say good-by to the swift pony and the hunt? It
will be the end of living and the beginning of survival” (Jeffers 1991, 20).8 Chief Seattle foretold the results
of the reservation system in the United States and Canada. The disruption of a very profitable economic
system, the end of the hunt in this case, clearly caused a downward spiral of the social system for tribes as
they moved onto reservations. In many instances the move from the traditional lands to a distant reservation
site completely destroyed the traditional economy. Even as the traditional governmental and spiritual
structures were destroyed, Chief Seattle’s foreboding came true as the various subsystems of the social
structure reached a new level of compatibility. Given the lack of governance, economy, and spiritual
sustenance, it is hardly surprising that many reservation populations simply survived—or worse. Another
aspect of Chief Seattle’s comments further illustrates how our social theory works: the pony is a post-contact
technology! Yet in the couple of centuries between the introduction of this technology, including the
biological production of sufficient productive units, and Chief Seattle’s comments, this new technology had
permeated the social structures of many tribes. The equine-based economic and defense systems infiltrated
the rest of the social structure as other subsystems reached a new level of compatibility with the increased
profitability of the economic system and the increased effectiveness of the defense system.9 Chief Seattle’s
statement shows both aspects of our theory. In the first instance a disruption of the status quo can lead to a
downward spiral of the social structure when an exogenous change moves the system out of equilibrium. On
the other hand, a positive exogenous change can lead to improvements in other aspects of the social structure.
In later chapters I describe how and why Native American social systems have faltered in the face of two
hundred years of federal policy and, for current purposes, how indigenous cultures can lead the Native Amer-
ican reservations toward a successful future by developing their economies. Developing reservation
economies is vital to sustaining and developing Native American cultural identities. The theory explains that
culture is a dynamically moving set of social subsystems and that when any one subsystem is knocked out of
equilibrium with the others, then the whole set of subsystems must adjust to the new environment.
Subsystems can be described as involving sectors of the social fabric. For example, subsystems include the
economic system, religious system, familial system, artistic system, and environmental system. An
equilibrium is reached when the various subsystems reach a point of stasis. This by no means implies that the
social ~structure has reached a point of unconstrained or even constrained optimization; rather, given the
governing body of constraints, the system has reached a steady state.
DEVELOPMENT SELF-D
Tribal sovereignty can only be realized if tribes become self-supporting

2000, p. 68
Tribal sovereignty and self-determination are the mainstays of current development plans. These goals can
only be truly realized if and when the population becomes self-supporting and the tribe overcomes its
dependency on the federal government. By developing a vigorous cycle of economic growth, the tribe will be
able to fulfill these goals. To fully develop the available human and natural resources, the tribe must do the
following. First, it must formulate a positive atmosphere for growth. This includes supporting and
maintaining a stable tribal government. It may be necessary for tribal members to forgo short-term political
nitpicking in order to develop long-term stability. Second, the tribe needs to actively recruit outside investors
and partners in the development process. Again, this may allow for short-term interference in tribal activities,
but the long-term gain will offset this disruption. Third, the tribe must aid tribal members in their individual
entrepreneurial activities. This may include streamlining the inevitable red tape as well as providing technical
assistance. The tribe also needs to invest in its members by reducing the restrictions on site leases and the
like. Fourth, the tribe must develop a comprehensive plan of action, but this plan must be flexible enough to
address alternatives as they become apparent. A mixture of tribal enterprises, partnerships, and private
enterprise is required for development. The tribe must negotiate from a position of strength as a sovereign
nation and must encourage partnerships between tribal members and outside investors. This combination of
activity can lead to a vigorous cycle of economic growth. The resulting education, training, risk taking,
income growth, and cultural integrity will be well worth the investment as the tribe becomes a truly
sovereign nation determining its own path.
Economic development is directly linked to Tribal Sovereignty

Susan Masten, Chairwoman National Congress of American Indians and Yurok Tribe President, Capitol Hill
Hearing Testimony, July 18, 2001
Capacity-building is the first step towards good-governance. Only when Indian Tribes have the ability to
administer their programs and manage the affairs of their own people will they be able to move forward on the
path of self-determination. The issue of Tribal economic development is not only one of increased standard of
living in Indian communities, but is a larger issue of sovereignty. Allowing Tribes to engage in economic
development initiatives by enabling the expansion of Tribes' capacity to govern is directly linked to Tribal
sovereignty and self- determination.
Economic development is the leading concern in Indian Country

As you know, economic development is perhaps the leading concern in Indian Country. Almost all of the
well-documented social problems in Indian Country, including issues involving health care, education,
housing, substance abuse, suicide, teen pregnancies, and law enforcement, are related to the overwhelming
poverty that is felt throughout most Indian reservations. Decreasing unemployment, eliminating
homelessness, decreasing dependence on welfare, and increasing education are all linked to building
economic activity within Indian communities. We all know that Tribes face many obstacles to economic
development, including lack of infrastructure, poor access to training and technical assistance, shortage of
equitable financing mechanisms, remote locations, and dual taxation, among other things. Many Tribes have
found ways to remedy these problems, and Indian Country has developed a range of creative means to deal
with barriers to economic development. However, some of the problems are too large to be addressed by
ingenuity alone-the incomparable structural and legal obstacles that Tribes face are simply too large. NCAI is
poised to make the issue of economic development in Indian communities paramount in our work to promote
and defend the concerns of Indian people. Following that commitment to offer Tribes some support in their
ongoing efforts, I will focus my testimony today on the policy changes that we believe Congress should
consider in order to reduce the barriers that face Tribal governments in their pursuit of economic
development.
DEVELOPMENTSELF-D
No solution is possible without economic self-sufficiency
John Wunder, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Great Plains Studies at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Native American Sovereignty, 1996,p. 375
The idea of self-government for Indians began almost as soon as Indians had fairly continuous contact with
non-Indians. It has been the subject of wholly arbitrary bureaucratic action and very spontaneous Indian
militant activities. Generally, the structure put in place to achieve Indian self-government is premised upon a
deep mistrust by the government of the actual process of self-government. Federal officials fear a loss of
control over the decisions that Indian communities might make, and therefore, although federal policy
several times has declared self-government for tribes, it has not been realized to any great extent. Indians
have preserved the idea of nationhood or peoplehood throughout their period of contact with the non-Indian
world but have had great difficulty communicating the essence of what they believe to the larger society. In
many respects during the postwar period Indians have acted like other racial minorities in their approach to
problems and in their efforts to get the attention of the federal government. But this movement to be a
recognized minority group within American society has spawned an Indian traditional backlash, which seems
to have directed Indian attention to a deeper appreciation of the old ways. Apart from some structural
changes, there is no good solution to the question of self-government today. Indians have few viable options
open to them because they lack the substantial economic and social freedom to experiment with alternative
ways of doing things. Self-government is in large part social and community growth, and this growth takes
both time and realizations about the world that are not capable of being programmed. A change in perception
by both Indians and federal and state officials who deal with Indians is imperative if any substantial progress
is to be achieved in the future. Until Indians resolve for themselves a comfortable modern identity that can be
used to energize reservation institutions, radical changes will not be of much assistance but will only serve to
confuse people. Self-government is basically a political idea, arid it has been superceded in our generation by
the demand for self-determination. Indian affairs has thus moved beyond political institutions into an arena
primarily cultural, religious, and sociological and there are no good guidelines for either policy or programs
in this new area of activity. The old scholarship that treated political and economic activities as separate from
the rest of human experience can no longer describe political and economic developments in Indian tribes
without reference to the profound cultural and emotional energies that are influencing Indians today. It is
probably too late to put the Indian genie back into the bottle. John Collier planned too well in his efforts to
give Indians self-government. In setting the theoretical framework for reconstituting an ancient feeling of
sovereignty, he prepared the ground for an entirely new expression of Indian communal and corporate
existence. We are just beginning to recognize the nature of this expression.
Economic sovereignty is necessary for any real Native American independence

Vicki Limas, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, Arizona State Law Journal, Fall,
1994
An economic means of attaining self-determination and self-sufficiency may be accomplished through the operation of
tribal businesses, which may be a tribe's only source of income apart from federal subsidies. n61 Tribes operate
commercial enterprises to sustain their economies and thereby gain independence from federal support. In that way, the
businesses are an integral aspect of tribal sovereignty, as they enable tribes to realize the goal of self-determination. A
recent book chronicling the economic "success stories" of four tribes explains this relationship between economic
independence and sovereignty: Without the means to establish economic sovereignty, most Native Americans remain
America's internal exiles, living within confines established by their conquerors hundreds of years ago. The tragedy is
that Indian destitution is entirely unnecessary. Many Native communities hold the raw materials of true self-
determination in their hands. . . . In the last two decades, several tribes have recognized the extraordinary value of these
assets, not only in terms of their material worth but in terms of what they mean for the quality of Native life. After
centuries of decline as the objects of subjugation and neglect, these tribes have established and sustained profitable tribal
economies -- internally generated, not federally imposed -- as a strategy for addressing longstanding social problems and
establishing authentic independence. Employing every strategy from congressional lobbying to leveraged buy-outs, each
community, in its own way, has learned to play white society's games, but by different rules and according to different
scorecards. These communities are beginning to enter the mainstream economy so long denied them to mount a quiet
economic revolution, which has the potential for reestablishing a Native American independence based on economic
sovereignty. n62 or for global survival.
PTC SELF-D (WIND)
Developing new energy sources can solve for the subordination and economic inequity
confronting Natives
In many geographical areas indigenous people constitute the majority population, yet are subordinated,
disenfranchised, and waged war against by settler populations. These populations refuse to recognize the
political sovereignty of indigenous nations, which results in armed conflicts over the land, its resources, and
cultural continuance as arrives from living with the land. Indigenous identity springs forth from the
environmental conditions of the land; we are, in essence, born of the land, and hence bear a special relationship with that land
that gives us birth. Moreover, our indigenous nations bear unique identity based upon our interdependencies and histories with all our
relations.Land recovery, for indigenous nations, is crucial to our self-determination for economic and all other forms of sovereignty. A
nation requires a land base to be self-sustaining, to ground religion, to have vision, and to see a future for a community. Without such
land-bases, no nation can survive. The historical operations of corporate capitalist enterprises have used (il)legal instruments, usually in
collusion with an aristocratic federal government, to control human global resources. The over-riding historical code of USA corporate
management and stockholders/stakeholders has continued to be to increase profit. From the first of Spain setting foot upon the
Americas, the gold, labor, and all other resources of indigenous groups have been used by the settlers for the purpose of empire building
to benefit “their own”-- first in Spain,then England, and then in the indigenous lands. Such empire building has devastated much of
America’s lands and indigenous people/s that spring from these lands. Finally, there are several strategies to build local
economies in environmentally protective ways. One way to begin dismantling corporate control is for indigenous
communities to begin taking control of local traditional medicines.14 Creating an economy of sustainability is possible via fairly trading
indigenous medicines, for example, in an international market. Such a market could begin to develop with other indigenous nations and
whoever else wanted to join the scientific/economic enterprise, with a will toward ensuring indigenous communities maintain sovereign
control over these enterprises. An important benefit of this project would be the protection of traditional fauna and flora that might
otherwise disappear. Traditional methods of learning could accompany such efforts.Strategies like supporting local indigenous healing
may help to stop some of the appropriation and distortion of indigenous resources and traditions. Other strategies include innovative
ways to protect water, creating new energy sources and developing other sustainable ways to protect our
environment.15 In this way we can continue to act as humans ought to behave, interdependently with all our relations. Since “women
have formed the very core of indigenous resistance to genocide and colonization since the first moment of conflict between Indians and
invaders16” it is appropriate that women step up to crucial leadership positions and take the lead in this field. My hope is that we will
support our traditional elders and join our sisters and brothers who feel the call to this, and other projects that will provide desperately
needed alternative paths for our youth, to sustain our communities for future generations.
YES—US MODELED
U.S. Indian policy is modeled
Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics (Marc Sills and Glenn Morris),
Spring/Summer 1996, Fourth World Bulletin, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/fwc/Issue10/fwbtoc.html
In the summer of 1994, following the conclusion of the 12th session of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, the Sub-
Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities sent the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples to the UN Commission on Human Rights. This was a necessary step for the Draft in route to the ultimate approval by the UN
General Assembly that its proponents hope to achieve. But in February 1995, the Draft Declaration was put in jeopardy of de-railment
when the Human Rights Commission ordered the Draft reviewed by a new working group. That group, named the "Open-ended Inter-
sessional Working Group" (referred to herein as the "Inter-sessional"), held its first meeting from 20 November to 1 December 1995.
The proceedings from the meeting demonstrate an attempt by a coterie of states, led by the United States, to commandeer the debate on
indigenous rights, as they try to maintain their control of international law and the United Nations' role in enforcing the principles found
in the Draft Declaration. Because of its role as the one surviving super-power at the end of the Cold War, with the
financial leverage to determine the future of the United Nations, the US has inordinate control over the way
the Draft Declaration is being worded and what exactly the document will imply as policy. The United States
intends that its own model for treatment of indigenous peoples should be emulated by other states, and
therefore that the Draft Declaration should reflect the order of US Indian Law. The agenda is not merely to
define a simple moral order; more important, the US is attempting to create a broader, more encompassing
hegemony that minimizes the possibility that indigenous peoples might actually be protagonists of their own
destinies.
Successful bids for self-determination leads to emulation by other groups

Kamal Shehadi, Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, December 1993, Ethnic
Self Determination And the Break Up of States, p. 54-56
It is frequently argued that a successful bid for self-determination in one state will encourage groups in other
states to do the same. For this demonstration effect to work, the same causes of, and the same conditions for,
self-determination need not exist. Politicians learn selectively from historical and contemporary events. The
demonstration effect may work if, at the outset, claimants are deterred from asserting self-determination by a
supposed regional and international opposition. The demonstration of the contrary, of a permissive or even
supportive environment for self-determination, will help them overcome their own reluctance. Regional and
international reaction to a preceding self-determination movement may convince would-be claimants that the
regional powers are divided over how to respond to such claims, that they are unable to oppose them or that they are indifferent and
therefore unwilling to oppose them. The demonstration effect thus assumes that self-determination claimants are very sensitive to their
international environment. This may be true of leaders who are heavily dependent on international support and who frequently deal with
foreign leaders. In this case, action may be needed to avoid the conflict from spilling over to other countries. For years, African states
have adhered to the principle of uti possidetis, of keeping borders as they are. This strong consensus has been the main deterrent to John
Garang — the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and its military wing the SPLA — from demanding secession
from Sudan. He was certain that his African backers would not support such a move.5 Now that the Organisation of African Unity has
accepted Eritrea’ s secession from Ethiopia, Garang may draw a different conclusion about African support for the inviolability of
frontiers. In subsequent negotiations with the Sudanese government in Abuja, Nigeria, Garang demanded a confederal system for Sudan,
an escalation of his earlier demand for a federal state. Similarly, leaders of the self-proclaimed ‘Republic of Somaliland’ consider the
Eritrean referendum a symbolic watershed which will boost their claim. For both the SPLM and Somaliland, the fact that Addis Ababa
accepted Eritrea’s secession is irrelevant. The SPLM hopes to defeat the government militarily and force it to accept its demands,
whereas Somaliland hopes to achieve independence by stealth, by quietly building a state in north-western Somalia while various tribes
and clans battle it out in the rest of the country. The demonstration effect is also likely to operate within the borders of the same state. It
may encourage the escalation of demands for selfdetermination or their assertion by force, but it will not cause
new claims to be made. If a group succeeds in asserting its claim, other communal groups will see this as a demonstration of the
weakness of the state and an opportunity to demand greater degrees of self-determination. The first rebellion can identify the Achilles’
heel of the state. The reawakening of Armenian nationalism in the late 1980s encouraged the Baltic states to agitate for their nationalist
agenda. Gagauz and Dniestr separatism in Moldova have fuelled each other. Similarly, the North Caucasian separatisms have not just
inspired one another, they have also actively supported each other within their limited means. If a state seems on the verge of breaking
apart under the strain of a civil war with one communal group, other groups may decide that it is time to jump off what is potentially a
sinking ship. Once Croatia and Slovenia had declared their independence (or secession) and had demonstrated some international
support for their move, the leaders of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to follow suit. When, during the August 1991 coup against Mikhail
Gorbachev, the leaders of the autonomous republics in Russia declared sovereignty, it was in anticipation of the breakup of the Soviet
Union and in the hope of improving their bargaining position for the future.
YES—US MODELED
Western developmental projects have been modeled internationally undermining attempts

at self-determination
Bills, 2001.(Scott L., The International Journal of Peace Studies, Autumn/Winter. “CYBERSPACE AND THE
TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE: COLONIZATION, IDENTITY, AND THE EVOLUTION OF PEACE
CULTURES,” http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol6_2/Bills.htm)
However, self-determination was undermined by the persistence of neocolonial regimes dominated by local
elites modeling variations of Western developmentalist projects. “Nationalism” and “revolution” remained,
for the most part, imported strategies for liberation infiltrated by identifiable strands of such lingering
colonized matrices as nation-states, artificial boundaries, militarized bureaucracies, market-conscious elites,
and Socialist Man. The decolonization drive of the 1940s-60s was the last gasp of indigenous reclamation of
territory, governance, and identity on modernist terms, relying on formulaic ideologies of guerrilla resistance
and nationalist discourses. Afterward, indigenous self-assertion would itself come to reflect (and refract) the
widespread societal malaise within the Cold War metropoles.
Self-determination spreads globally

Ward Churchill, associate chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies and professor of American Indian Studies at
UC Boulder, “The Tragedy and the Travesty: The Subversion of Indigenous Sovereignty in North America,”
Contemporary Native American Political Issues, ed. Troy Johnson, 1999, p.
Ultimately, such issues can be resolved only on the basis of a logically consistent determination of whether
indigenous peoples actually constitute “peoples” in a legal sense. While the deliberately obfuscatory
arguments entered on the matter by the United States, Canada, and several other settler states during the
1980s have by this point thoroughly muddied the situation with respect to a host of untreatied peoples
throughout the world, the same cannot be said with respect to the treatied peoples of North America. As has
been discussed in this essay, we have long since been formally recognized by our colonizers not only as
peoples, but as Nations, and are thereby entitled in existing law to exercise the rights of such regardless of
our geographic disposition.238 The path leading to an alternative destiny for indigenous peoples is thus just
as clear as that the settler states would prescribe for us. By relentless and undeviating assertion of the basic
rights of treatied peoples—at all levels, through every available venue and excluding no conceivable means
of doing so—we can begin to (re)secure them, restoring to ourselves and our posterity our/their rightful status
as sovereign and coequal members of the community of nations, free of such pretense as IRA-style ‘self-
governance” and subterfuges like the “Self-Determination” Act. In achieving success in this endeavor, we
will eventually position ourselves to assist our relatives in other parts of the world, untreatied and thus
unrecognized as being imbued with the same self-determining rights as we, to overcome the
juridical/diplomatic quandary in which this circumstance places them.
Empirically, U.S. support of human rights and self-determination has been modeled by
other countries and international organizations
Thomas Buergenthal, International Court of Justice, 2006 [The Evolving International Human Rights System, The
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 4, (Oct., 2006), pp. 783-807, JSTOR]
The activities of international and regional human rights institutions, as well as the work of human rights
NGOs, have gradually changed governmental perceptions of the role human rights play in contemporary
international relations. The decision of the Carter administration to elevate human rights to a high-priority
item on the foreign policy agenda of the United States115 not only reflected the political importance it
attached to the protection of human rights. The decision had a domino effect, leading some other
governments to take similar positions and helping to transform a subject that had been treated as generally
irrelevant from the point of view of Realpolitik into an issue that gradually gained substantial international
political significance. As a result, more and more human rights issues began to appear on the agendas of
intergovernmental conferences and bilateral diplomatic meetings. As international human rights gained
currency, an increasing number of governments established special bureaus in their foreign or justice
ministries to deal with such matters, giving the subject domestic bureaucratic relevance and policymaking
clout it had not previously enjoyed.
US MODEL KEY
Self-determination conflicts are inevitable—US policy makers should shape these

developments with peaceful models
As significant as the obstacles are to resolving internal conflicts, they are far greater when the United States
and others in the international community do not tap all the knowledge available to them. Too often, hard-
learned lessons from previous conflicts are not applied to new conflicts and, as maybe the case with current
U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, mistakes are repeated. In particular, a major disconnect exists between the
growing body of scholarship on ethnic conflict, intervention, and nation-building—and the policymaking
organs of national and international institutions. In truth, however, the greatest disconnect exists between
what policymakers know should be done in this area and what they can or will do given limitations on
political capital and financial resources. Nowhere is this more true than in Washington, D.C., where U.S.
political leaders seem to live in a perpetual state of denial about the considerable financial resources and
high-level attention that ethnic conflict and self-determination issues demand. This denial leaves
policymakers frequently behind the curve of conflicts, reacting to developments rather than anticipating and
shaping developments. One cannot blame policymakers for wishing that these problems “from hell,” as
Warren Christopher once described Bosnia, would somehow just vanish. Unfortunately, in the years ahead,
the challenges posed by self-determination quests and ethnic rivalries may well grow more frequent and
severe.
The defining mode of conflict in the era ahead is ethnic conflict—only a successful model of
internal self-determination can avert brutal war
Callahan, 2002.(David, Director of Research at Demos. He has written extensively on both foreign and
domestic policy, and is the author of four books, including Unwinnable Wars: American Power and Ethnic Conflict,
2002 Carnegie Challenge, “The Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century,”
In January 1993, Warren Christopher appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at this
confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State. A brutal war was raging in Bosnia, and many other ethnic
conflicts were simmering across the globe. Commenting on this turmoil, Christopher noted an ominous
chasm in world politics: While there existed thousands of distinctive ethnic or linguistic groups, there were
fewer than 200 countries, and the vast majority of ethnic groups lived as minorities in a state dominated by a
majority group. This math held the potential for many tragedies ahead. Christopher raised the specter of
unending conflicts like Bosnia if “we don’t find some way tha tthe different ethnic groups can live together in
acountry.”1 That same year, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put the issue more sensationally: “The
defining mode of conflict in the era ahead is ethnic conflict,” he argued. “It promises to be savage. Get ready
for 50 new countries in the world in the next50 years. Most them will be born in bloodshed.”2The 1990s bore
out some of the most dire predictions of those imagining a future of ethnic strife. In many ways the history of
violent conflict in the post-Cold War era has been a history of ethnic conflict.• 200,000 dead in Bosnia until a
peace forged by American power ended the three-year war there in 1995;• 800,000 dead in Rwanda in 1994,
Tutsi slaughtered by their Hutu countrymen while the international community did nothing;• up to 200,000 dead in Burundi during
the1990s in fighting between and among Hutu and Tutsi factions;• thousands dead and several million displaced by Turkey’s brutal war
on its Kurdish minority through the 1990s;• tens of thousands dead in Chechnya after Russian troops began a scorched earth crackdown
in late 1994 on an armed secessionist movement;• an explosion of long brewing ethnic tensions in Kosovo in 1998, with massive Serb
repression of Albanians triggering NATO’s first ever military campaign; • major ethnic violence in East Timor, as Indonesian troops end
a 25-year occupation of the island, triggering an Australian-led U.N. military intervention;• unending bloodshed on the island nation of
Sri Lanka, as the minority Tamil population stepped up its a long struggle for self-determination;• escalating violence in the Israel as a
peace process to create a separate Palestinians state remains unresolved. This list could go on, and include a range of other conflicts that
have erupted since the end of the Cold War.
US MODEL KEY
The US and Native Americans relations represent a productive model of internal self-
determination
Those who would defend the human rights of indigenous peoples can draw many lessons from the long
history of the relations between the United States and the indigenous tribes and nations of North America.
Although the autonomy possessed by Indian tribes in the United States is less than ideal, tribes do exercise a
broad range of governmental powers, and the simple fact that more than 500 federally recognized tribes
continue to exist in the United States 105 suggests that positive as well as negative lessons may be drawn.
Two of the most important lessons are: (1) forced assimilation does not work and (2) local autonomy and
self-government can work. In my view, these two lessons are fundamental for the survival of indigenous
peoples throughout [*698] the world.
Environmental protection is an issue uniquely suited to serve as a successful model for

internal self-determination
Federal policies toward Indian tribes during the "self-determination" era have not been limited to acts of
Congress that are specifically directed towards Indians. Rather, a new federalism has emerged in which many
federal agencies administer programs in ways that recognize the separate sovereign status of tribal
governments. 140 In one area in particular -- environmental protection -- recent changes in federal law provide
a model for indigenous autonomy that is promising for indigenous peoples throughout the world.
1. Environmental Protection in Indian Country -- Federal environmental law in the United States has evolved
as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Federal statutes provide an overall framework, but state governments
assume much of the responsibility for establishing regulatory programs, setting standards, issuing permits, and taking enforcement
action. In the last decade, several major federal environmental laws have been amended to authorize the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to treat Indian tribes as states for certain purposes. These laws include the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 141 the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund), 142 the Clean Water
Act (CWA), 143 and the Clean Air Act (CAA). 144 The implementation of these amendments will require long-term commitments on the
part of both the EPA and those tribes that choose to be treated as states. The policy to treat Indian tribes as states under these laws is
premised on the principle of inherent tribal sovereignty. As the EPA has explained in regulations implementing the
amendments to the Clean Water Act, the federal statute does not constitute a delegation of authority from
Congress to the tribes. 146 Rather, tribes must have their own authority to carry out environmental regulatory
programs. In light of the fact that many Indian reservations include substantial areas of non-trust lands, the EPA specifically
addressed the issue of whether tribes have the authority to regulate water quality on non-trust lands within reservation boundaries as an
aspect of inherent sovereignty. The EPA concluded that tribes generally do have such authority. Tribal governments' efforts to regulate
non-Indians within reservation boundaries often encounter resistance. 148 Nevertheless, federal courts have upheld such efforts in cases
in which important tribal interests are at stake. 149 In the environmental protection context, the federal statutes and implementing
regulations have set the stage for tribal authority to continue to withstand challenge. It is too soon to tell how well this approach will
work. There may need to be a different model for tribes that either do not [*706] choose to be treated as states or choose to assume less
than the full range of responsibilities that states typically perform. Assuming that treatment as states will work for a substantial number
of tribes, successful environmental regulatory programs being carried out by tribal governments could prove to
be invaluable examples for indigenous peoples in other countries, especially those who also must contend
with the presence of nonindigenous people within their territories.
US MODEL KEY
American Indians transfer to soft-path technologies will be modeled by other indigenous
communties
SPRING AND SUMMER, 1992 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671 SELF-DETERMINATION FOR
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT THE DAWN OF THE SOLAR AGE, 1992.
Tribal colleges also might devote some attention to issues involved in the transfer of soft-path technologies to
the less-developed countries. Although there are important distinctions between communities in Indian
country in the United States and communities in rural parts of the LDCs, there are some important parallels,
too. By looking at technology transfer in the LDCs, tribal colleges might find ways to expedite technology
transfer in Indian country and to transfer technology in ways that are culturally compatible. Tribal colleges
could also help to formulate models of technology transfer that could be applied in LDC communities.
Interactive software for microcomputers would be an important part of such models. 351 As the multilateral
[*747] development banks encounter increasing opposition to megaprojects, they can be expected to direct
larger amounts of capital toward soft-path options, and there will be a growing need for successful models of
technology transfer. Tribal leaders and educators should try to keep in mind that the homelands of many of
the world's indigenous peoples are located in rural areas of LDCs. The people of these communities very well
might be receptive to technology transfer models that have been developed and tested in Indian communities
in the United States. Indigenous communities in the LDCs might be receptive to technical expertise provided
by American Indian consultants simply because of their common experience of trying to remain culturally
distinct communities. 352There is, of course, a political dimension to the transfer of soft-path technologies
to indigenous communities. Providing communities in indigenous areas with electricity by connecting them
to power grids reinforces state authority over indigenous peoples, as does the practice of building
transmission lines and oil pipelines through indigenous territories. Providing electricity to indigenous
communities through stand-alone systems has the potential to empower indigenous peoples in a political
sense and, because such stand-alone systems can readily incorporate telecommunications, this approach also
has the potential to link indigenous communities into the growing global network of indigenous peoples.
Thus, realizing the soft energy vision could support self-determination for indigenous peoples not only by
relieving the pressure on their homelands from exploitative "development," but also by empowering
indigenous communities both to make their own decisions about the kinds of development that they want for
themselves and to draw on the experiences of other indigenous peoples in making those decisions.
US federal programs for the preservation of indigenous culture can serve as a model for
other nations
2. Historic Places and Cultural Preservation -- Protecting the environment is important to Indian tribes for a
number of reasons, not the least of which are tribal aspirations to be autonomous and to have tribal authority
respected by federal and state government agencies. A more fundamental reason is that tribal cultures and
religions are closely tied to the natural world. 151 Thus, preserving the environment is a prerequisite if tribal
cultures and tribal ways of using the environment are to survive. In the United States, the federal
government has established a program of financial assistance to Indian tribes expressly for "the preservation
of their cultural heritage." 152 Because the draft declaration provides that states are to provide assistance to
indigenous peoples to pursue their own cultural development, 153 this program could serve as a model for
other nations. The grant program is authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
and is administered by the National Park Service (NPS).
US MODEL KEY
U.S. environmental policy sets a global model
Janet Welsh Brown, senior fellow of the World Resources Institute, 1998, World Security Challenges for a New
Century, p. 338
Whether the international remedies thus hammered out will keep the planet ahead of the curve of
environmental deterioration is not yet clear. Despite the energetic environmental diplomatic activity of the
last fifteen years, and especially since preparation for UNCED began, most global environmental problems
are not yet under control. At the same time, the demand for goods—for basic food, shelter, and jobs, as well
as the amenities that rising expectations demand—continues to grow with the population, the globalization of
taste, and the spread of the consumption ethic. Since the growth of population and consumption is inevitable
even under the most optimistic of population scenarios, the challenge of keeping ahead of the environmental-
destruction curve will be with us for some time. I do not believe the world can get ahead and stay ahead of
that curve without the leadership of the United States and other major powers, and without the key players
from the developing world—especially China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Mexico, and Brazil. The direction of
China’s and India’s growth is especially important. By 2025 they will have, between them, 2.9 billion people,
or 35 percent of the world’s population. If they aim to produce and consume on a U.S. model, there is no
way that the global environmental system will not be severely impaired. But of all the nations, U.S.
leadership is most important. If the well-endowed United States cannot shift its production and consumption
to a more sustainable path, what nation can? As we have seen, the United States cannot prevent environmen-
tal progress in the face of other determined nations, but because of its size and power, the sheer size of its
market, and its prestige, it has become the world’s setter of fashion.
U.S. treatment of indigenous peoples sets key model

Glenn Morris, Professor of the Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Policy at the University
of Colorado, 1999, Native American Sovereignty, p. 325
Although this chapter has implications for the status of all indigenous peoples, its concentration is primarily
within the United States. This is because, in several ways, the status of indigenous nations within the U.S. is
unique, and the policy of the United States toward indigenous nations has frequently been emulated by other
states. The fact that a treaty relationship exists between the United States and indigenous nations, and the fact
that indigenous nations within the U.S. retain defined and separate land bases and continue to exercise some
degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the successful application of international standards in
their cases. Also, given the size and relative power of the United States in international relations, and absent
the unlikely independence of a majority-indigenous nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland, the
successful application of decolonization principles to indigenous nations within the U.S. could allow the
extension of such applications to indigenous peoples in other parts of the planet.
US MODEL KEY
American Indians are the litmus test for worldwide decolonization
Apart from their potential role as American citizens and voters in restraining the immature political excesses
of non-Indian Americans abroad, do American Indians have a substantive contribution to make to the
liberation and development of other indigenous peoples? Answering this question leads unavoidably to
another. Have American Indians any special wisdom or successful experience to share in rebuilding other
indigenous societies racked by racism and colonialism? The answer to that question depends on whether
American Indians genuinely have succeeded in liberating or decolonizing themselves. Anticolonial
struggles are preoccupied with wresting power from the colonizer. Little serious thought is given to the
problem of what to do with power once it is obtained. A vacuum lies at the end of nearly every revolution
which quickly fills with borrowed slogans and ideas. There is some truth in Ambrose Bierce's observation,
nearly a century ago, that revolution is "an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Indigenous
peoples everywhere like to believe that the critical difference, in their case, is culture. Traditional cultures,
which are diametrically opposed to the competitive individualism and insatiable appetite of industrialized
societies, supposedly will insulate leaders from the corrupting influences of power and the "demonstration
effect" of Western prosperity. But Africa's leaders made the same arguments a generation ago when they
launched the idea of "African socialism," the beautiful dream behind which a number of oppressive
dictatorships have safely lurked. Will the world's indigenous peoples escape Bierce's futile loop? The
United States is a critical test case. American Indian tribes are wealthier and have enjoyed greater powers of
internal self-government far longer than indigenous peoples anywhere else. The rhetoric of sovereignty,
antimaterialism, and traditionalism is stronger here than anywhere else. But is this rhetoric meaningful, or is
it merely rhetoric? To what extent have American Indian tribal governments achieved the ideals of
community responsibility and ecological stewardship so often expressed in public debates? Are they truly
decolonized at all? The answers to these questions explain American Indian tribes' marked isolationism in
world affairs, and pose a serious challenge for future generations of indigenous leaders in all countries.
Native America is a model for the rest of the world. Avoiding catastrophe at home spreads
worldwide
The crux of the matter rests, not merely in resistance to the predatory nature of the present Eurocentric status
quo, but in conceiving viable sociocultural alternatives. Here, the bodies of indigenous knowledge evidenced
in the context of Native North America at the point of the European invasion—large-scale societies which
had perfected ways of organizing themselves into psychologically fulfilling wholes, experiencing very high
standards of material life, and still maintaining environmental harmony—shine like a beacon in the night.
The information required to recreate this reality is still in place in many indigenous cultures. The liberation of
significant sectors of Native America stands to allow this knowledge to once again be actualized in the “real
world,” not to recreate indigenous societies as they once were, but to recreate themselves as they can be in
the future. Therein lies the model—the laboratory, if you will—from which a genuinely liberatory and
sustainable alternative can be cast for all humanity. In a very real sense, then, the fate of Native North
America signifies the fate of the planet. It follows that it is incumbent upon every conscious human—red,
white, black, brown, or yellow, old or young, male or female—to do whatever is within their power to ensure
that the next half-millennium heralds an antithesis to the last.
US MODEL KEY
The US must demonstrate a model of true self determination, not false sovereignty
There no longer seems to be much difference in the Westernization of the Third World and of the indigenous
world. Indigenous societies are usually more isolated geographically, so the process of convergence is
understandably slower. But they are catching up. While world leaders lament the loss of biological diversity,
which holds the key to the renewal and survival of ecosystems, our planet rapidly is losing its cultural
diversity, which holds the key to the renewal and survival of human societies. Scientists and scholars search
for an alternative in their theories while real alternative cultures disappear. It will be a real struggle to
reassert an indigenous perspective on social justice, democracy, and environmental security. The hardest part
of the struggle will be converting words to action, going beyond the familiar, empty rhetoric of sovereignty
and cultural superiority. The struggle will be hardest here in the United States, where the gaps between
rhetoric and reality have grown greater than anywhere on earth. This is the best place to begin, however,
because this is the illusory "demonstration" that is studied by the rest of the world, including the indigenous
peoples of other regions. Are American Indians ready to accept this global responsibility? The current
generation of tribal leadership appears unwilling to try. It is firmly committed by its actions to the materialist
path, and it is neutralized by its dependence on a continuing financial relationship with the national
government and developers. The next generation of American Indians may be another matter. Disillusioned
and critical, they may yet find a voice of their own that is both modern and truly indigenous, and they may
have the courage to practice the ideals that their parents merely sloganize. Let us hope so. There is no
alternative for Indian survival
SELF-D SOLVES OPPRESSION

A restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian County would create a model to
dismantle all forms of suppression and foster the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism
and democracy
CHURCHILL, 96 [Ward. “From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism, 1985-1995” Professor of American
Indian Studies at the University of Colorado. Govering Council of the Colorado pg. 360, Google Books]
There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster
class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their
own devices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manner.
Look to the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) for an example. Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to
the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent
the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by
even the most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just
mentioned.39 Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their
societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, recent head of the Cherokee Nation, a people who were traditionally led by
what were called "Beloved Women." Ask a Lakota woman—or man, for that matter—about who owned all real property in traditional
society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political
role among her people. Women in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and
economic parity with men, but they also often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these
spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were, and in many settings still are, deeply revered as
special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous North American
cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to
which Indians have been subordinated to the morés of the invading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration
of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of traditional indigenous social, political, and
economic modes, one can see where this leads; the Indian arrangements of sex and sexuality accord rather
well with the aspirations of feminism and gay rights activism.40 How about a restoration of native land rights
precipitating some sort of "environmental holocaust?" Let us get at least a little bit realistic here. If one is not
addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived,41 or George
Weurthner's eurosupremicist Earth First! fantasies about how we beat all the woolly mammoths and
mastodons and sabertoothed cats to death with sticks,42 then this question is not even on the board. I know it has become
fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people "strewing refuse in their wake" as they
"wandered nomadically" about the "prehistoric" North American landscape.43 What is this supposed to imply? That we, who were
mostly "sedentary agriculturalists" in any event, were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? As I said, let us get real. Read
the accounts of early European invaders about what they encountered: North America was invariably
described as being a "pristine wilderness" at the point of European arrival, despite the fact that it had been
occupied by fifteen or twenty million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody
knows how long. 40,000 years? 50,000 years?44 Longer? Now contrast that reality to what has been done to
this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian and the Post
represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation.45 That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the
last first, there really is no indication of racism in traditional indigenous societies. To the contrary, the record
reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups and frequently adopted both children and adults
from other groups. This occurred in precontact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both
African and European origin, and ultimately Asian origin as well, once contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or
adoption were considered members of the group, pure and simple. This was always the native view.46 The Europeans and
subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that
Indian identity should be determined primarily by "blood quantum," an outright eugenics code similar to
those developed in places like nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now, that is a racist construction if
there ever was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti-Indian
absurdity, and that is something to be overcome. But there is also solid indication that quite a number of
native people continue to strongly resist such things as the quantum system.47 As to militarism, no one will
deny that Indians fought wars among themselves both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous
peoples in North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably construed as "militarism." But not,
I think, with the sense the term conveys within the European/Euroamerican tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can
demonstrate, wars of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival. None. In fact, it
seems that it was a more-or-less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to
demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent. There is no honor
[CON’T]
to be had in killing another person, because a dead person cannot hurt you. There is no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever
died or was seriously injured in the fighting. They were, just as they are in full-contact contemporary sports like football and boxing.
Actually, these kinds of Euroamerican games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional Indian warfare. For
us, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today
is as alien to native tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs.48
Self-determination is necessary to prevent the violent expansion of colonialism across the

world
The struggle currently shouldered by AIM and related native organizations is not merely “for Indians.” It is
for everyone. To resolve the issue of the colonization of the American Indian would be, at least in part, to
resolve matters threatening to the whole of humanity. In altering the relations of internal colonialism in North
America, “the AIM idea” would vastly reduce the capability of the major nations there to extend their
imperial web into Central and South America, as well as Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Basin. In denying
access to the sources of uranium to the industrial powers, American Indians could take a quantum leap
toward solving the problem of nuclear proliferation. In denying access to certain other resources, they could
do much to force conversion to renewable, nonpolluting alternative energy sources such as solar and wind
power. The list could be extended at length. Ultimately, the Lagunas, the Shiprocks, Churchrocks, Tuba
Cities, Edgemonts, and Pine Ridges which litter the American landscape are not primarily a moral concern
for non-Indian movements (although they should be that, as well). Rather, they are pragmatic examples,
precursors of situations and conditions which, within the not-so-distant future, will engulf other population
sectors; which, from place to place, have already begun to actively encroach in a more limited fashion.
Circumstance has made the American Indian the first to bear the full brunt of the new colonialism in North
America. The only appropriate response is to see to it that they are also the last. The new colonialism knows
no limits. Expendable populations will be expended. National sacrifice areas will be sacrificed. New
populations and new areas will then be targeted, expended, and sacrificed. There is no sanctuary. The new
colonialism is radioactive; what it does can never be undone. Left to its own dynamics, to run its course, it
will spread across the planet like the literal cancer it is. It can never be someone else’s problem; regardless of
its immediate location at the moment, it has become the problem and peril of everyone alive, and who will be
alive. The place to end it is where it has now taken root and disclosed its inner nature. The time to end it is
now.

Internal Self-Determination is the remedy for internal colonialism
Aukerman 2000 [Miriam J. US representative of the Gulag Museum “Definitions and Justifications: Minority
and Indigenous Rights in a Central/East European Context” Human Rights Quarterly 22.4 (2000) 1011-1050]
Both indigenous peoples and Central/East European minorities justify demands for group-differentiated
rights based on a right to self-determination, although of course the claim to self-determination is itself the
product of other justifications. However, the concept of self-determination has not been applied in the same
way to minorities and indigenous peoples, nor has it received the same reception by states. For indigenous
peoples, self-determination--which is enshrined in Article 3 of the Draft Declaration--has been justified in
terms of cultural identity, vulnerability, and history, justifications which are discussed in more detail below.
The claim to self-determination is grounded in the status of indigenous peoples as peoples 78 and the fact
that they live under "internal colonialism," a process "structurally indistinguishable from classic colonialism"
for which the remedy "has always been self-determination." 79 What further rights are justified by the right
to self-determination is [End Page 1033] disputed. Howard Berman argues that the Draft Declaration neither grants nor forecloses the
possibility of political independence. He notes, however, that while some indigenous peoples have defined their rights in terms of
external self-determination, [f]or the most part . . . indigenous participants have taken a functional approach to self-
determination without proposing a particular formula for its ultimate implementation. They have posed self-
determination as the right to control their institutions, territories, resources, social orders and cultures without
external domination or interference, and the right to establish their relationships with the dominant society . .
. on the basis of consent. Control and consent are the principal concepts underlying this approach. 80 The
terms of the Draft Declaration emphasize such consent and control, providing, for example, that indigenous peoples have the right to
participate in the state's political processes as well as to develop their own decision making institutions, that states shall obtain the free
and informed consent of indigenous peoples before implementing measures that affect them, and that indigenous peoples have the right
to control their lands, their intellectual and cultural property, and the membership of their communities. 81 Moreover, indigenous people,
"as a specific form of exercising their right to self-determination," have the right to autonomy or self-government in a variety of areas,
such as internal and local affairs, land and resources management, and entry by non-members. 82 Given the hostility of states to
secessionist claims by indigenous peoples, 83 the focus on internal self-determination can to some extent be
seen as a political compromise representing an understanding on the part of indigenous peoples that effective
control and consent provisions will be more easily obtained in the absence of secessionist demands. Internal
self-determination, then, in part compensates for the lack of political independence.
Native sovereignty paves the way for rights for all oppressed groups. It is the first priority
When you think about these issues in this way, the great mass of non-Indians in North America really have
much to gain, and almost nothing to lose, from the success of native people in struggles to reclaim the land
which is rightfully ours. The tangible diminishment of U.S. material power which is integral to our victories
in this sphere stands to pave the way for realization of most other agendas—from anti-imperialism to
environmentalism, from African-American liberation to feminism, from gay rights to the ending of class
privilege— pursued by progressives on this continent. Conversely, succeeding with any or even all these
other agendas would still represent an inherently oppressive situation if their realization is contingent upon an
ongoing occupation of Native North America without the consent of Indian people. Any North American
revolution which failed to free indigenous territory from non-Indian domination would be simply a
continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle from which you view the matter, the
liberation of Native North America, liberation of the land first and foremost, is the key to fundamental and
positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing, as they say, leads to another. The question has always
been, of course, which “thing” is to be first in the sequence. A preliminary formulation for those serious
about achieving (rather than merely theorizing and endlessly debating) radical change in the United States
might be “First Priority to First Americans.” Put another way, this would mean, “U.S. Out of Indian
Country.” Inevitably, the logic leads to what we’ve all been so desperately seeking: the United States—at
least as we’ve come to know it—out of North America altogether. From there, it can be permanently
banished from the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create something new and infinitely better.
That’s our vision of “impossible realism.” Isn’t it time we all went to work on attaining it?
SELF-D K/T US HRTS LEADERSHIP

An increased prioritization of self determination is key to U.S. human rights leadership
Christopher Wall, LL.M., 1998, University of Durham (England); J.D., 1997, Brigham Young University,
December 1998, Fordham International Law Journal
The right to self-determination, however, is an important fundamental right to be considered in and of itself,
even though the right to self-determination is not necessarily a human right recognized with any regularity by
the West. In fact, for some Third World countries, the right to self-determination involves a right to rise from
poverty and third-rate status to which they see themselves consigned by wealthy imperialists. In a very real
sense, the right to self-determination is in itself a human right, and in many of those states that recognize it as
such, the quest to improve their global status becomes an overriding goal that may temporarily subsume other
rights. Other states see the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions as an attempt by the United States to
impose its will upon them in violation of their human right to self-determination. They argue that to
concentrate too much upon civil liberties is to ignore rights of national sovereignty and self-determination.
One commentator has noted that "the international community constantly frustrates the creative management
of self-determination through its unwillingness or inability effectively to sanction states that manifestly
violate the right." Thus, while the United States has become a most vocal advocate of human rights in the
realm of civil liberties around the globe, it has also become an example of human rights violations in the
realm of self-determination simply because self-determination falls below other human rights in the United
States' hierarchy of human rights enforcement.
Self determination is a prerequisite to other human rights and freedoms

Eric Kolodner, currently completing a joint degree at New York University School of Law and Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School, Fall 1994, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 10 Conn. J. Int'l L. 153
While the era of decolonization might have formally ended, many peoples still suffer under neo-colonial
oppression. Only if the international community supports movements for self-determination can it guarantee
the protection of the rights of peoples throughout the world. As Hector Gros Espiell, a U.N. Special
Rapporteur on the right to self-determination, concluded: The effective exercise of a people's right to self-
determination is an essential condition or prerequisite . . . for the genuine existence of the other human rights
and freedoms. Only when self-determination has been achieved can a people take the measures necessary to
ensure human dignity, the full enjoyment of all rights and the political, economic, social and cultural progress
of all human beings. . . .
SELF-D SOLVES CULTURE LOSS

Sovereignty is necessary to preserve Indian culture
Mark Chavaree, member of the Penobscot Nation and Tribal Staff Attorney for the Penobscot Nation, Wabanaki
Legal News, Volume 2, Issue 1, Winter, 1998, http://www.ptla.org/wabanaki/sovereign.htm#I, accessed 8/20/01
The very essence of tribal sovereignty is the ability to self-govern and to protect the health, safety and
welfare of our people within our own territory. We are a separate and distinct people with a unique history
predating this country. We struggle daily to retain our independence and to retain those powers of self-
government that make us an Indian tribe. Despite how people outside the tribe may see us, we are first and
foremost an Indian tribe. The state and its leaders may try to define us as a municipality of Maine and to
force us to conform to its ideas about who we are and what powers we have. Regardless, we will continue to
fight to keep our sovereignty and our culture because that is what defines us as a distinct people. This desire
of the tribes to remain separate has always clouded the relationship between Indian and non-Indian people.
This idea runs counter to the idea of the great melting pot, but it is a fundamental characteristic of Indian
people. It finds its basis in the differing worldview of Indian people. I have heard more than one state leader
express bewilderment over why the tribes want to be treated separately and differently from other people and
why we feel that we should have special rights. The fact is that we are separate people with special rights.
The history of Indian/non-Indian relations repeatedly has shown this separateness. The actions of the federal
government towards its Indian citizens has ultimately confirmed it. Numerous efforts to remove this
separation, whether through forced acculturation or termination of tribes, have failed. Indian people remain
separate geographically, socio-economically, culturally, and, as the previous discussion illustrates, legally.
The same system that justified the federal government taking tribal lands, exercising control over tribal
resources and essentially controlling every aspect of tribal life is the same system that recognizes that Indian
people are different and possess special rights and powers of self-government. The laws, effected through
court cases, congressional action and federal policy, that allowed these other things to occur also recognize
the uniqueness and separateness of Indian people and the sovereign powers of their governments. It is
interesting that when such rights become an inconvenience for the states and their non-Indian citizens they
question the justification for Indian people possessing these special powers. We as Indian people recognize
that separateness. We struggle to preserve our sovereign powers. They are part of what defines us as an
independent group of people. They help protect our culture. To do otherwise would be to turn our backs on
the history that shaped us and allowed us to remain independent. Our ancestors experienced that same
struggle. Out of respect for them, we continue the fight. We do so in the hope of keeping our culture to
preserve something for our children and to pave the way for them to continue on as the Penobscot Indian
Nation.
Survival of native people and culture necessitates sovereignty

Ward Churchill, Co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, associate professor of American
Indian Studies at the University of Colorado/Boulder, Struggle for the Land, 1993, p. 391
It is time, if American Indian self-governance as nations rather than as integral components of the
Euroamerican empire is to once again become a functioning reality, to begin to consciously destroy the IRA
system, to discard "leaders" who profess loyalty to it, to reject the "federal trust relationship" and all
interaction with the BIA, and to begin to (re)assert actual Indian alternatives. It will not be a quick or pleasant
process. There will no doubt be severe costs and consequences associated with such a line of action and
development. The adversaries of Native America have shown themselves consistently over more than two
centuries to be utterly ruthless. But the costs and consequences attending subordination to the federal will
are, and have always been, far higher. The choice before us is between extinction and resurgence.
SELF-D SOLVES CULTURE LOSS

A revival of Native America is possible with sovereignty
Lenore A. Stiffarm, Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Four Worlds Development Project at the
University of Lethbridge, Alberta, and Phil Lane Jr., Indian leader in community development/substance abuse,
Co-coordinator of Four Winds, The State Of Native North America, 1992, p. 45
Instead of a final demise, it is entirely possible that the next 100 years could see a veritable rebirth of a
Native North America, one that is autonomous, self-determining, and self-defining, one in which indigenous
laws and the indigenous world view once again hold sway over the ways in which people inhabit the
environment of this continent. It is a very long way from here to there, and the precise routes taken to the
goal will unquestionably be many, perhaps as many as there are native peoples remaining in existence at the
present time. The point is, however, that there is the possibility. Where there is possibility, there is hope that
provides the core of motivation to struggle. In a way, this has been the history of the native peoples of this
land for the past three centuries and more: always envisioning the possibilities that rest beyond the realm of
the lies that have been imposed upon us, always struggling to attain a future for our children that is better and
more true than the one we ha have been forced to inherit. Contrary to the non-Indian academics who have
been predicting that we were on the verge of vanishing for the past 150 years, we are still here. We take pride
in our survival against all odds. And we take heart in the vision which is our future.
SELF-D SOLVES BIODIVERSITY

Recognition of an indigenous right to environmental self-determination is vital to avoid
catastrophic harm to indigenous peoples
Tsosie, 07.(Rebecca, “THE CLIMATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: TAKING STOCK: INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE,” Fall, University of
Colorado Law Review, Lexis)
The international dialogue on climate change is currently focused on a strategy of adaptation that includes the
projected removal of entire communities, if necessary. Not surprisingly, many of the geographical regions
that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are also the traditional lands of indigenous
communities. This article takes the position that the adaptation strategy will prove genocidal for many
groups of indigenous people, and instead argues for recognition of an indigenous right to environmental self-
determination, which would allow indigenous peoples to maintain their cultural and political status upon their
traditional lands. In the context of climate change policy, such a right would impose affirmative requirements
on nation-states to engage in a mitigation strategy in order to avoid catastrophic harm to indigenous peoples.
This article argues for a new conception of rights to address the unique harms of climate change. An
indigenous right to environmental self-determination would be based on human rights norms in recognition
that "sovereignty claims" by indigenous groups are not a sufficient basis to protect traditional ways of life
and the rich and unique cultural norms of such groups. Similarly, tort-based theories of compensation for the
harms of climate change have only limited capacity to address the concerns of indigenous peoples.
Self-determination for Native Americans paves the way for multi-cultural efforts towards
environmental protection
REX WIRTH (political science professor at Central Washington University) AND STEFANIE WICKSTROM
(political science professor at Central Washington University), Fall 2002 [Competing Views: Indian Nations and
Sovereignty in the Intergovernmental System of the United States , American Indian Quarterly, JSTOR]
The restoration and preservation of natural resources cannot be adverse to the long-term economic well-being
of all of America's peoples. As the cultures of the United States and their governmental systems become
inextricably merged, all the peoples of the country must draw from all sources -across the spectrum from
"rational bureaucratic" approaches to traditional communal practices-as they work together to manage lands
and resource bases upon which they are all dependent. The challenge today is to convince the people(s) that
their interests can only be protected by effective intergovernmental regimes that reduce conflict and bring
the advantages of cultural diversity to bear on resource management. Treaty promises clearly pave the way
for the establishment of special restoration and preservation districts. And if the revolutionary potential of
the Boldt decision is ever to be realized, the people of the United States will have to live up to the democratic
values they espouse. In a polity like the United States it is the non-Indian owners and users of lands and
resources that must feel the obligation to fulfill binding agreements.
Native self-determination gives real native control in both ecologic and cultural spheres
REX WIRTH (political science professor at Central Washington University) AND STEFANIE WICKSTROM
(political science professor at Central Washington University), Fall 2002 [Competing Views: Indian Nations and
Sovereignty in the Intergovernmental System of the United States , American Indian Quarterly, JSTOR]
Returning real control of resource bases that are central to the cultural pat- rimony of the Indian nations to
them is not only a contractual obligation that provides the basis for Indian self-determination; it is consistent
with the idea that the public domain should be managed by the people and for the people. If we acknowledge
that Indians, as citizens, are part of "We the People," it is also consistent with the liberal maxim of popular
sovereignty. Finally, if non-Indians can recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and
acknowledge the effectiveness of preconquest Indian resource management regimes, they will recognize
Indians as valuable partners in sustainable resource management. We believe it is well past time that Indians
act as trustees of their treaty resources that remain in the public domain. Through the establishment of special
restoration and preservation districts, Indian tribes could enjoy de facto sovereignty in U.S. politics for the
first time and exercise real administrative control in their ecological and cultural spheres.

Sovereignty is a prerequisite to an environmental ethic
Jace Weaver, PhD at Union Theological Seminary in New York, Defending Mother Earth, 1996, pg. 18-19
In any effort to defend Indian lands, according to David Grant, director of the Pacific Institute of Native
American Programs, “We have already learned that waiting for someone else to take positive action is a
lesson in frustration. If things are to change in line with our expectations, then the answers must ultimately
come from ourselves.” Grinde and Johansen contend, “This recognition of the need for changes in our
environmental perceptions must also encompass the realization that native peoples need once again to
enforce their own environmental values, unfettered by regulations and environmental practices of the
industrial state. Regaining a more harmonious environmental state means that known harmonious
environmental ethics must be allowed to reemerge and become prominent as quickly as possible to facilitate
the flow of ideas that will lead to a more natural relationship in all of creation.” Any Native defense of the
environment therefore necessarily presupposes a recognition of Native sovereignty. Put simply, sovereignty
is the right to govern persons and territory. Native sovereignty, the inherent right to manage their own affairs,
has been recognized and guaranteed both by treaty and, in the United States, by the U.S. Constitution. Oren
Lyons puts the issue succinctly: “The action of a people in a territory, the ability and willingness of a people
to defend that territory, and the recognition of that ability by other nations: that’s a definition of the practical
application of sovereignty. It’s very simple.” Without question, Native control over their lands and resources
is a matter of sovereignty. No less so, however, is power over the environment in which Native people live—
issues affecting their peoples’ health, the air they breathe, the water they drink and from which they get their
sustenance, the safety of the soil on which they walk and from which they derive their food. Both Lyons and
Roland Crowe have linked sovereignty to environmental issues. Rigoberto Queme Chay, a Mayan from
Guatemala, has stated that environmental protection and sustainable development will not occur until full
Native sovereignty is recognized and implemented.
Native sovereignty prevents environmental devastation

How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of "environmental holocaust?" Let's get
at least a little bit real here. If you're not addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists, or
George Weurthner's Eurosupremicist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the woolly mammoths and
mastodons and sabertoothed cats to death with sticks, then this isn't even a question. I know it's become
fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people "strewing refuse
in their wake" as they "wandered nomadically" about the "prehistoric" North American landscape. What is
that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly "sedentary agriculturists" in any event, were dropping
plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, let's get real. Read the accounts of early European
invaders about what they encountered: North America was invariably described as being a "pristine
wilderness" at the point of European arrival, despite the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million
people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000
years? longer? Now contrast that reality to what's been done to this continent over the past couple of hundred
years by the culture that Weurthner, the Smithsonian and the Post represent, and you tell me about
environmental devastation.

A right to Self Determination will maintain indigenous peoples’ connection to the land and
their cultural identity
Quane 2005 [Helen, Lecturer in Law, University of Wales, Swansea, United Kingdom]“The Rights of Indigenous
Peoples and the Development Process” The Johns Hopkins University Press Human Rights Quarterly 27.2 (2005)
652-682.
The article begins with a brief examination of the definition of an "indigenous people." It then examines the
scope of several rights claimed by indigenous peoples. The emphasis is on rights of particular significance to
indigenous peoples in a development context, namely, the right to self-determination, the right to participate
in public affairs, and the right to enjoy one's culture. As previously noted, the right to self-determination
underpins all other claims advanced by indigenous peoples. If they are successful in claiming this right, it
could be used to exert greater control over development projects on ancestral lands such as the construction
of dams, the extraction of mineral resources, and the use of traditional plants and indigenous knowledge for
pharmaceutical products. In the present context, [End Page 656] the right to participate in public affairs could
be significant in enabling indigenous peoples to participate effectively in the formulation of development
projects that affect them. Finally, the right to enjoy one's own culture could have important implications in a
development context given the close connection between lands traditionally owned or occupied by
indigenous peoples and the preservation of their cultural identity. For this reason, the right to enjoy one's
culture could have an impact on development projects affecting indigenous land and resources.
Indigenous self determination is key to biodiversity

Dean B. Suagee, Director, First Nations Environmental Law Program, Summer, 1999, Arizona State Law Journal,
31 Ariz. St. L.J. 483
In tribal cultures, places that are regarded as sacred tend to be located in places where the web of life has not
yet been disrupted by human activity. The web of life in such places may reflect hundreds or thousands of
years of the presence of human cultures, but the web has not been ripped apart by the kinds of activities that
industrialized cultures allow to take place under the banner of "development." Many of the non-human kinds
of living things that make up the web of life in such places- what human policy-makers now call "biological
diversity" or "biodiversity"-hold significance in tribal [*488] religions and cultures: eagles, wolves, salmon,
ravens, coyotes, buffalo, cedar, sage, sweetgrass, to mention just a few. Because tribal cultures are rooted in
the natural world, protecting the land and its biological communities tends to be a prerequisite for cultural
survival. Much has been written about whether or not tribal cultures embody values that can be described as
environmental ethics, or, to frame the inquiry in the past tense, whether or not the cultural values and
practices of tribal peoples enabled them to provide for human needs and wants without causing irreparable
damage to their environments. Professor Rebecca Tsosie recently reviewed a substantial amount of the
literature on this topic and concluded, after raising the usual cautions about generalizations, that, for most
indigenous cultures of North America, traditional Indian world views can be described as having several
common aspects: a perception of the earth as an animate being; a belief that humans are in a kinship system
with other living things; a perception of the land as essential to the identity of the people; a concept of
reciprocity and balance that extends to relationships among humans, including future generations, and
between humans and the natural world. A basic premise of this article is that the objectives of the movement
to preserve biodiversity will be served by recognizing the human rights of indigenous peoples. The most
effective way to make use of their traditional ecological knowledge is to recognize the rights of indigenous
peoples to govern their own territories. The national and sub-national governments of the world should
support these rights by showing the same kind of respect toward indigenous peoples that they show in their
interactions with other governmental entities. This premise is based, in part, on the historical experience in
the United States, which has shown that tribal self-government is a prerequisite for cultural survival.

When it comes to dealing with environmental issues, states have empirically worsened the
Native American position
Lilas Jones Jarding, professor at Colorado State University, June 2002 [Resources in the Self-Determination Era,
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2, JSTOR]
This research focused on the nature of modern relationships between tribal and state governments in the land
and natural resources arena. Surveys were completed by 49 states, the District of Columbia, and 77 tribal
governments. The results indicated that neither tribes nor states had a high level of administrative capacity to
deal with environmental issues on reservations, and that when states did develop such capacity it was often
used against Native American interests. Perceptions of pollution on reservations varied between state and
tribal governments. States with neighboring reservations-and especially elected officials-were more hostile to
native interests than states without native neighbors. Bureaucratic relations appeared more cooperative.
Tribal-state interactions, while not conforming to national-subnational or territorial models of federalism,
conformed to the concept of relational federalism.
SELF-D SOLVES POVERTY

Self-determination leads to superior Tribal Governance and solves economy.
There have been many examples of positive and progressive federal Indian policies. Perhaps the most notable
is the policy of Tribal self-determination and the Indian self-determination and Education Assistance Act
(ISDEA) of 1975 (Public Law 93-638) which authorizes Indian Tribes to manage and administer programs
that had previously been the province of the federal government. With the passage of the ISDEA, Tribes
began to contract programs from the government, run them on the Tribal level, and more effectively apply
available monies. The newfound aspects of self-determination that have accompanied the enactment of policy
to increase Tribes' ability to govern their own people have been very successful throughout Indian Country.
Not only does the shift of responsibilities from the agencies to the Tribes lessen the burden on the federal
government, but it invests the Tribes and engages the Tribal government in good governance practices that
result in better services for Tribal members. Through self-determination and self- governance, Tribes have
been much better able to respond to the needs of their people and prioritize their funding in a way that makes
sense for their own needs, rather than being subject to a "one size fits all" formula. But perhaps even more
importantly, the self-determination and self-governance policies have put elected Tribal leaders and Tribal
staff in a position to gain experience in management, make their own decisions, and be accountable to their
own people through their own governmental procedures. The benefits that have accrued to Tribes in building
their capacity for governance have been of enormous importance and have contributed heavily to the general
rise in Tribal government capacity and viability over the last three decades.
Federal use of “plenary power” has denied natives control over economic and natural
resources resulting in widespread endemic poverty among natives
Peter d'Errico, Spring 1999 [Native Americans In America: A Historical Overview, Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 14,
No. 1, Indigenous Resistance and Persistence, (Spring, 1999),pp. 7-28, JSTOR]
"American Indian sovereignty" under federal "plenary power" is a u legal scheme especially useful to the
United States because it denies indigenous self-determination in the name of indigenous sovereignty. At the
same time, it justifies federal control over lands and economic resources that might otherwise be viewed as
subject to state and local jurisdictions. On the basis of this judicially created nonsovereign "tribal
sovereignty," the United States has built an entire apparatus for dispossessing indigenous peoples of their
lands, social organizations, and of self-determination. George Orwell's Big Brother would have been proud of
such doublethink. One of the most visible of Native American issues at the close of the twentieth century is
gaming-high-stakes casinos on "Indian reservations," out of reach of state tax and regulatory powers. Similar
tax and regulatory issues are presented in controversies over "smoke-shop" and other "reservation" business
operations. Some states-New York in the case of Mohawk businesses-have fought for control over revenue
from Native economic ventures; others-Connecticut in the case of the monumentally profitable Pequot
casino-have accommodated themselves to a negotiated share of the proceeds. Still others-Maine in the case
of Penobscot and Passamaquoddy investments-have simply accepted benefits that overflow from businesses
based outside their powers but inside their borders. Economic success has not immunized Native Americans
from discrimination. Before the era of reservation casinos, Native Americans were accused of welfare
dependency, as if federal services provided to them were largesse and not the result of treaty agreements in
which land sufficient for self-subsistence was exchanged for promises of government economic support.
After the success of high-stakes gaming, Native Americans were criticized as recipients of undeserved
wealth, benefiting from an "inequality" of rights in their favor. Not all casinos are productive, let alone of
great wealth. Not all reservation businesses succeed, let alone produce overflowing revenue streams. For the
majority of Native communities, poverty and welfare dependence are the norm, as they have been for
decades. Many enduring issues of Native Americans in America are occasioned by widespread, endemic
economic depression.
SELF-D SOLVES POVERTY

Sovereignty is necessary for development and escape from poverty
Andrew Lee, Executive Director of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, FDCH, July
18, 2001
The foregoing research findings, examples and lessons from our Honoring Nations winners serve to
highlight several broad principles and guidelines that should undergird the Federal government's policies
with respect to facilitating economic development in Indian Country. First, self-determination should
continue to serve as the cornerstone of federal Indian policy. Self-determination is both the ends and the
means of a coherent policy toward American Indian nations. As our research findings demonstrate, self-
determination is not only compelling on legal and moral grounds, but it is the only policy in over a century of
federal Indian policy that has brought systematic positive changes to the health and well being of this
country's indigenous peoples. I think my colleague Prof. Joseph Kalt perhaps said it best when he testified
before this Committee in September 1996 and stated, "One of the quickest ways to bring development to a
halt and prolong the impoverished conditions of reservations would be to further undermine the sovereignty
of Indian tribes." Indeed, to stray from the twin policy pillars of self-determination and self- governance
would not only be a disservice to Indian nations, but would ultimately burden the Federal government and
America at- large, who would likely witness the reversal of the positive socioeconomic advances made in the
past thirty years. In short, to withdraw from self-determination is to condemn reservations to existing as
communities of dependency with a citizenry that is disenchanted and downtrodden, and to relegate tribal
governments to little more than ineffectual appendages of the Federal government.
SELF-D SOLVES CONFLICT

Denial of self determination leads to conflict
Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Chairman of International Alert, 1996, Self-Determination: International Perspectives, p.
8
The link between self-determination and democracy must be strengthened, in theory as well as in practice, in
policy as well as in process. The violence we see around us is not generated by the drive for self-
determination, but by its negation. The denial of self-determination, not its pursuit, is what leads to upheavals
and conflicts. And the denial of self-determination is essentially incompatible with true democracy. Only if
the peoples’ right to self-determination is respected can a democratic society flourish, and only within a truly
democratic framework, in which all other human rights are given due recognition, will the right to self-
determination be freed from the “demons” real or putative which now envelop it.
— —
Denying self determination is responsible for the majority of global wars

Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics (Marc Sills and Glenn Morris)
July 1993, Fourth World Bulletin, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/fwc/Issue5/commentary-2.html
The spread of representative democracy can be considered a noble goal, in contrast to systems that might be
characterized as autocratic or totalitarian dictatorships, but narrowing the definition of the right to self-
determination, prior to its realization by hundreds of presently non-state indigenous nations, is not likely to
produce the global peace and stability so cherished by Etzioni and company. Instead, it is likely to produce
more acrimony and animosity, in reaction to the perception that prior application of the right has produced an
exclusive club that is now closing its doors, based on arbitrary and suspect criteria. To believe that those who
are now to be excluded will simply accept their fate and meekly participate in processes in which they are
continually relegated to disaffected electoral and social minority status is unrealistic. The evidence for this
last assertion is multifold. We are presently living in the context of a "new world order" in which almost all
of the current warfare (in at least 40 examples) is accounted for as conflict between states and non-state
nations. Almost all of the non-state nations now at war with states are indigenous to the territories for which
they fight. Presuming that those conflicts will all culminate in the eradication of the indigenous nations by
the states whose rule they contest seems premature, at the least.
SELF-D SOLVES CONFLICT

Case turns the disad – solving ethnic conflict is a prerequisite to terrorism, great power
wars, failed states, loss of resources, and every other international pursuit.
In the years ahead, as in years past, ethnic conflicts will greatly differ in their implications for outsiders. At
their most dangerous, future ethnic conflicts are likely to pose profound security threats to the United States
and important allies. These conflicts may also produce a range of negative spillover affects. The bad things
that can arise from ethnic conflicts and threaten outside parties include:
Terrorism. Lacking the military capacity for conventional war, minority groups pursuing self-determination often resort to terrorist
tactics of warfare—the “weapons of the weak.” Indeed, much of the history of terrorism over the past quarter century reflects ethnic
struggle: recent bombings in Israel by Palestinians and, earlier, airplane hijackings by Palestinians during the 1980s; bombings in
England by the Irish Republican Army; bombings in Spain by Basque separatists; bombings in India by the Tamil Tigers; and bombings
in Russia by Chechen separatists.6 Also, the attacks of September11th— as well as the earlier attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, the U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia and the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen—can be seen as partly related to an ethnic conflict. Sympathy
for the Palestinian cause has been a central hallmark of various Islamic terrorists, including Al-Qaeda. While most terrorist attacks are
narrowly targeted, such attacks have along history of claiming innocent bystanders as their victims, including Americans. With terrorists
potentially turning to weapons of mass destruction in future years, the likelihood of wider and more indiscriminate carnage from
terrorism related to self determination struggles will grow. Conflict Between Major Powers. Ethnic conflicts that begin at a
small level can and do draw in major outside powers. The result can be that internal conflicts produce major tensions and
the threat of violence among outside powers. During the1990s, U.S. and NATO intervention in the Balkans created significant tensions
between the U.S. and Russia, which was allied with Serbia. NATO’s intervention in Kosovo also created a major rift in U.S.- Chinese
relations when an American bomber accidentally destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. During the 1980s, the civil war in
Lebanon drew in Israel, the United States, Syria, France and Great Britain. In the future, a range of simmering hotspots could well
explode in ways that produce conflict between major powers. For example, although the probability is low, conflict between ethnic
Russians living in the Baltic states (primarily Estonia, and Latvia) and the majority populations in those states, could bring the United
States and Russia into direct conflict as Russia moves to defend its people in sovereign countries that have close ties with the United
States. Likewise, in Asia, repression of future Tibetan or Uighuran self-determination efforts could trigger clashes between
China and outside powers. Creation of Failed States. An important lesson of recent decades is that failed states without
strong central government pose significant dangers because they can become safe havens for terrorists and other rogue elements. Ethnic
conflicts and self determination movements, with their potential to rip governance structures apart, can create failed states. In the 1970s,
after Lebanon descended into civil war, the country became a haven for a wide range of terrorist groups, as well as for drug producers
and arms smugglers. As mentioned earlier, Afghanistan came to have many characteristics of a failed state following years of battle
between different ethnic groups—and this facilitated the rise of the Taliban, which played host to al-Qaeda. A number of countries with
simmering ethnic tensions today have the potential to be the failed states of tomorrow, including Pakistan and Indonesia. Moreover, an
important consideration in U.S. policy toward Iraq is wariness that the fall of Saddam Hussein could produce a new and unstable failed
state, with ongoing conflicts between the country’s three major groups: Kurds, Sunni Muslims, and Shiite Muslims. Access
to Resources. Ethnic conflicts that take place in resource rich areas can disrupt or limit the flow of resources
to outside users. For example, a major reason that the oil reserves of the Caspian Sea remain underexploited is because they are
adjacent to the zone of ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus. This has greatly complicated the challenge of building or maintaining oil
pipelines to carry oil from the Caspian overland east to the Black Sea, where it can be loaded onto tankers. The supply of diamonds and
other minerals has also been disrupted due to internal conflicts in Africa. Diverted Internationalist Attention. Beyond the specific
negative impacts that ethnic conflicts can have, as just discussed, these conflicts can take atoll on the world
in a more general way by sparking crises that demand attention and management. In a world with less armed
conflict, international leaders and institutions can focus proactively on building a better world order through
more trade and economic development, as well through environmental protection and other positive
initiatives. But in a world with a steady stream of crises and conflicts, the energies of world leaders and
resources of international institutions get caught up in damage control and less attention is paid to long-terms
efforts to create a stronger international order.
SELF-D≠CONFLICT
Rights of self-determination are exercised as defense not offense
Matthew Coon-Cone, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations from 2000 to 2003, April 1992 [“Re-
thinking Cultures”: the Right to Self-Determination of Native and Indigenous Peoples,
http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol2/coon-com.html]
This growing emergence of principals of self-determination and sovereignty (and particularly their
relationship with Indigenous Peoples) has not only sparked a great deal of examination and debate within
legal circles, but also at this present time has a very practical and real application in the situation in present
day Quebec. Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and particularly the Right to self-determination, blossom as both
a shield and a weapon only when attacked. In the past, the situation through most of North and South
America and through much of the Third World has seen an overwhelming aggression, legal, physical and
psychological, against these Rights of Indigenous Peoples by colonial powers and by other nations. This fact
of life was a subject of debate within legal circles for quite some time and it has only been recently, in the last
fifteen years, that the specific Rights of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples have become much more
defined and, in specific cases, outwardly exercised. The evolution of the situation involving the Sami Nation
in Scandinavian countries is but one case on point.
*SELF-D SCENARIO EXTENSIONS*

EXT: SP- NO US SELF-D↓SP

United States Indian law has prompted criticism from the international world
John A. Wickham, 2002 [September 11 and America's War on Terrorism: A New Manifest Destiny? American
Indian Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 117, JSTOR]
First, United Nations' forums and pan-Indian organizations might force upon the current public debate a more
critical look at the United States government's oppression of Third-World countries, with emphasis on gross
injustices still inflicted upon Fourth-World Indigenous peoples. An analogy from the economic context is the
anti-globalization movement, with its World Social Forum, that has injected into the international debate a
compelling case that can no longer be ignored by the elitist World Economic Forum. The anti-globalists
persuasively argue that powerful Western democracies still rely on archaic colonialist practices to protect
corrupt monopolies and corporations at the expense of the global poor."07 Critical attention might also be
focused on international comparisons among Indigenous laws to highlight the colonialist foundations of
American legal doctrines still contaminating modern federal Indian law, for example, the 1982 Canadian
Constitutional amendments that affirmed both aboriginal and treaty rights. In 1997 these amendments were
given judicial teeth in Delga- muukw v. British Columbia, where the Canadian Supreme Court held that ab-
original title is inherent and its existence constitutionally entrenched as the "supreme law of the land." '08
Violating self-determination status would be condemned internationally

Corntassel and Primeau, 95 (Jeff J. Corntassel and Tomas Hopkins Primeau, Ph.D. student in International
Relations at the University of Arizona and scholar at the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de
Monterrey in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, “Indigenous "Sovereignty" and International Law: Revised
Strategies for Pursuing "Self-Determination"” Human Rights Quarterly 17.2 (1995) 343-365, Muse
Never mentioned by those making the argument that these treaties are instruments of international law and the
vessels for the explicit recognition by the imperial powers of Indian sovereignty is the concept of pacta sunt
servanda. Pacta sunt servanda is the primary concept underlying all treaty law. Under pacta sunt servanda all
states, when entering international agreements, are obligated to adhere to the terms of the treaty and
acknowledge that "a treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith." A
sincere adherence to pacta sunt servanda is necessary for states to act effectively at the international level via
the treaty-making process. Those states which wantonly and continually violate the terms of treaty agreements
run the risk of international condemnation and pariah status. At the time of the violations of most of the rights
acceded to the "uncivilized" indigenous populations around the globe, there was no international hue and cry
regarding their violation. Other members of the international community were not reluctant to enter into
international treaty agreements with violating states because of their non-performance of treaty obligations
regarding indigenous groups. Indeed, only recently has the international community questioned states' treatment
of their indigenous populations. Irregardless of treaty provisions, such treatment was previously considered to
be exclusively a matter of domestic concern falling under the principle of non-intervention. The lack of
response on the part of the international community to the abrogation of these treaties should speak volumes as
to the status of indigenous populations within the community of "civilized" nations at that time.

The U.S. standard of hypocrisy towards human rights has significantly decreased its
standing in the world order
Yannis A. Stivachtis, Director, International Studies Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,
2008 [Anti-Americanism in World Affairs: Can the United States Do Anything About It? Journal of International
and Cross-Cultural Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, 2008,
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1328.pdf]
Liberals worldwide share many of the ideas that are characteristic of the American liberalism. However, the
U.S. is often criticized for not living up to its own ideals. In the political field, critics argue that a country
dedicated to democracy and self-determination has continuously supported dictatorships around the world
during and after the end Cold War (like in the Middle East). Moreover, the war against terrorism has led the
U.S. to begin supporting a variety of oppressive regimes, such as that of Pakistan. In the economic field, critics
suggest that although the U.S. claims to favor freedom of trade, it protects its own economy from competition
stemming both from developing and developed countries. The result is that the U.S. has been charged of being
hypocritical (Gaddis 2004: 27). Liberal anti-Americanism is prevalent in the liberal societies of advanced
industrialized countries. For a long time it was prominent in the Middle East, among secular, western- educated
elites. As the influence of these groups has fallen, it has been replaced by more radical forms of anti-
Americanism. The potential impact of liberal anti-Americanism would be the decline of support for U.S. policy.
The more the U.S. is seen as a self-interested power hiding behind the banners of democracy and human rights,
rather than a true proponent of those values, the less willing other liberals may be to defend it with words or
actions. Since liberal anti-Americanism feeds on perceptions of hypocrisy, a less hypocritical set of U.S.
policies could presumably reduce it. But as Katzenstein and Keohane correctly point out, hypocrisy is inherent
in the situation of a superpower that professes universalistic ideals. History has shown that when democracies
engage in international political competition, they generally find it necessary and convenient to mobilize public
support by referring to ideals, such as democracy and freedom. Since states involved in power competition in an
anarchic international system often find it useful to resort to measures that undercut democracy and freedom
elsewhere, the potential for hypocrisy is inherent in global activism by democracies. Furthermore, a central
feature of pluralist democracy is that its leaders find it necessary both to claim that they are acting consistently
with democratic ideals, while they have to respond to groups seeking to pursue their own self-interests, usually
narrowly defined. When the interests of politically strong groups imply policies that do not reflect democratic
ideals, the ideals are typically compromised.
The U.S.’s disregard of human rights decreases its soft power

Thomas Buergenthal, International Court of Justice, 2006 [The Evolving International Human Rights System,
The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 4, (Oct., 2006), pp. 783-807, JSTOR]
All these recent developments have obviously not put an end to the many violations of human rights that are
still victimizing millions of human beings in different parts of the world. It would be a mistake not to
recognize, however, that with each passing day states find it politically more costly to engage in or tolerate
massive violations of human rights. That phenomenon, in turn, has doubtless influenced many a government
and its leaders to desist from pursuing policies likely to have serious economic and political consequences for
them. Some of these consequences may consist of the loss of financial assistance from multinational or
national funding agencies that today make their grants dependent on a country's human rights policies and
practices."'16 Other economic consequences may involve a reluctance of foreign corporations to invest in
countries with poor human rights records. Similar considerations may also keep a country out of
intergovernmental organizations or groupings, such as the Council of Europe and the European Union, that
demand strict adherence to human rights standards by applicant countries. Increasingly, too, countries that
blatantly disregard their human rights obligations are coming to be seen as international pariahs, a status that
invariably hurts their economic development, leads to political isolation, and may result in the imposition of
economic sanctions.

The UN has denounced the US’ denial of a right to self-determination
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, June 24, 2008 [UN Leaders: Wrong on Rights,
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/EdFeulner/2008/06/24/un_leaders_wrong_on_rights?page=full&comments=tr
ue]
The problems don’t stop with incompetence. Take the case of Nicaraguan Reverend Miguel D’Escoto
Brockmann, who was elected the next president of the U.N. General Assembly. He may have risen to power
in 2008, but his ideas seem stuck in the 1960s. D’Escoto has called the United States “the greatest enemy of
the right of self-determination of peoples” and has declared Americans to be “the most ignorant people around the world.”
Strong words from a man who served as foreign minister during the Sandinista dictatorship of Daniel Ortega in the 1980s. But what is
significant is not just that these countries are having many consultations and are finding agreement on a range of issues but that policies
based on the principles of the United Nations are being implemented. It has to be remembered that the UN Charter was adopted
in 1945 following the defeat of fascism in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and militarist Japan. It was adopted before the start of the "Cold
War" launched by Churchill and Truman against the Soviet Union. The Charter establishes the "sovereign equality" of all UN members.
Disputes between members are to be settled by "peaceful means" and all should "refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state", and that there can be no authorised "intervention in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". The Charter calls for "friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" and for "fundamental freedoms for
all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." There have been many breeches of the Charter
principles in the sixty years since its adoption but they remain essential for peace, justice and the international rule of
law throughout the world. The emerging Asian countries and the various political groups that have arisen are basing their
relations with one another and other countries on these principles. They were incorporated in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that
has been signed by Asian countries and was signed by Australia when it wanted to be included in the summit meetings of Asian
countries. However a number of practices of the Australian government are a violation of the Charter principles. The invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan based on trumped up justifications and the setting up of military bases in over one hundred countries by the US are
violations of the Charter. The many attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro are attempts at changing the government of Cuba. The
Australian forces and administrators now virtually running the Solomon Islands is interference in that country’s internal affairs. On the
economic front there are many measures that aim to subjugate the economies, particularly of smaller countries, to the
might of the big powers. A number of countries are suffering the pressure imposed by trade boycotts of one kind or another. They
include Cuba, China, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran and Palestine, to mention some. But these measures and
policies are being opposed by an increasing number of countries. It is more and more difficult for the former colonial
powers to get away with their attempts to dominate and interfere in the affairs of other countries. It is more difficult for them to start
wars. The principles laid down in the UN Charter are the basis for a new type civilisation and it is in that direction that the world is
heading. Australia has to make its choice.
The US must recognize the right to self-determination to restore its international credibility
Bobby Tuazon, December 2003 [Current US Hegemony In Asia Pacific, Peace Researcher,
http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr28-84.html]
In order to preserve the American Empire that will rule the world for as long as can be sustained, the
strategists and politico-military leaders of this grand project are more and more relying on the use of military
power precisely because America's economic power is on the decline. America's Rightwing leaders and
militarists believe that economic impositions through the instruments of the Bretton Woods institutions (the
International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-World Trade
Organisation) no longer suffice to preserve American hegemony and domination of the world. With
arrogance and self-righteousness, they believe that the American Empire cannot exist under current
international law, ethical concepts, multilateralism and global institutions like the United Nations because of
the constraints and impediments that these pose on America's will and action. To them, concepts of national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination and dignity are just concepts best learned only in school.
To them, the concept of Pax Americana should be asserted through unipolar military superiority, warlordism,
aggression, moral absolutism and a global ideological offensive using US media oligopolies. Their
ideological offensive centres on drumming up an apocalyptic conflict between "Good and Evil".
EXT: SP- NO US SELF-D ↓ SP
The US has become an active leader in the drive to deny the right to self-determination to
the Fourth World
Satyendra 07. [Nadesan Satyendra. “FOURTH WORLD - NATIONS WITHOUT A STATE”. May 2000, March
2007. http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/fourthworld/index.htm]
It is sometimes said that to accord international recognition to the nations of the fourth world will lead to
instability in the world order. The reasoning is not dissimilar to that which was urged a hundred years ago
against granting universal franchise. It was said that to empower every citizen with a vote was to threaten the
stability of existing state structures and the ruling establishment. But the truth was that it was the refusal to
grant universal franchise which threatened stability - and in the end the ruling establishment was 'persuaded'
to mend its ways. As always, conscious evolution was the alternative to revolution. Rudolph C. Rÿser's
comments in the Fourth World Eye are timely: "Self-determination is a right guaranteed under international
law to all peoples seeking to freely choose their social, economic, political and cultural future without
external interference. ..The principle is unambiguous in its application to peoples having the collective right
to freely choose their own future. The right to choose is what the United States and other states like France,
Britain and Canada seek to deny Fourth World peoples... It is a stunning fact to consider that just as the
United States, France, England, Germany, Russia and Italy roll their troops into Kosovo to preserve the peace
and secure human rights and self-determination, these same states have become active leaders in the drive to
rewrite international law denying self-determination to Fourth World nations all around the world. .."
EXT: SP- PLAN ↑ SP

Abiding by international human rights standards is key to U.S. soft power and legitimacy.
Aka, 06 (Philip C., Professor of Political Science, Chicago State University; Vice Chair, American Bar Association
Committee on International Human Rights, Akron Law Review, 2006, 39 Akron L. Rev. 417, ”Analyzing U.S.
Commitment to Socioeconomic Human Rights,” Lexis)
From a foreign policy standpoint, President Bush's war on terrorism evokes, as Professor Ignatieff thoughtfully
points out, the atmosphere of the Cold War. "Then the imperative of countering Soviet and Chinese imperial
advances trumped concern for the abuses of authoritarian governments in the Western camp. The new elements
in determining American foreign policy is what assets, in terms of bases, intelligence[,] and diplomatic
leverage" an ally brings to the table in the war against terrorism. 75 Whereas, under President Ronald Reagan,
the international human rights movement "merely risked being unpopular," "in the Bush era, it risks
irrelevance." 76 If the Cold War taught any lesson, Ignatieff said, it is that "cozying up to friendly authoritarians
is a poor bet in the long term." 77 Therefore, to promote the building of secure states that do not sponsor
terrorism, the U.S. "will have to do more than secure base agreements. It will have to pressure these countries to
provide basic political rights and due process." 78 Ignatieff advised the international human rights movement
"to challenge directly the [U.S. government's] claim that national security trumps human rights. The argument
to make is that human rights is the best guarantee of national security." 79 One more danger of the continuing
self-insulation of the U.S. from international human rights standards, complicated now by the war on terror, is a
possible risk of a reduction in the attractiveness of the U.S. model of development to foreign countries. 80
[*430] Human rights are a critical source of legitimacy and soft power (power not based on display of sheer
military strength). 81 Informed assessments affirm that "the only legitimate state in the modern world is the
liberal democratic state that" along with being "properly elected," also "protects a wide range of internationally-
recognized human rights." 82 In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001, the U.S. needs the "moral
authority" that comes with obedience to internationally-recognized human rights to preserve its hegemony. 83
As Professor Henkin reminds us, international human rights laws and institutions became necessary because
national laws and institutions are never fully effective. 84 As he explains, The purpose of international concern
with human rights is to make national rights effective under national laws and through national institutions. The
purpose of international law relating to human rights and of international human rights institutions is to make
national human rights law and institutions effective instruments for securing and ensuring human rights. In an
ideal world - if national laws and institutions were fully effective - there would be no need for international
human rights laws and institutions. 85 Since we do not live in an ideal world where national laws and
institutions are fully effective, the U.S., like any other country, must abide by international human rights
standards.
EXT: SP- PLAN ↑ SP

Concerted U.S. effort for self-determination is key to reversing the double standard held by
the international community – this is key to solve global conflict and terrorism.
Esposito, 07.(John L., University Professor, Professor of Religion & International Affairs and Founding Director
of the center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. “The Challenge of Democracy,”
Shariah (News and articles on shariah, constitutionalism and the rule of law in Indonesia and Malaysia), September
10, http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/esposito-the-challenge-of-democracy/)
Western governments that advocate the promotion of self determination and democracy must demonstrate by
their policies and public statements that they respect the right of any and all movements, religious as well as
secular, to participate within the political process. The policy failures and hypocrisy evident in European and
American responses towards the subversion of the electoral process in Algeria, the indiscriminate repression
of the Renaissance Party in Tunisia, and the attempt “to manage” and determine the process of
democratization in Iraq must be avoided in the future if the West is to avoid the charge that it operates on
double standard, one for the West itself and selected allies and another for Islamic movements and
candidates. Respect and support of the democratic process and human rights must be seen as truly universal.
If the Bush administration and its European allies equivocate in the promotion of democratization in the
Muslim world, conditions that breed terrorism and anti westernism will continue as will the threat of global
terrorism to national and global security. Conclusion The issues of democratization and of Islam remain
central to the development of the Middle East and the Muslim world in the 21st century. Observers of the
Middle East and broader Muslim world will need to remember that we are watching a process unfold, a
process of experimentation and change. The Western experience of democratization was a process of trial and
error, accompanied by civil wars and intellectual and religious conflicts. So too in the Middle East today,
societies that attempt to reevaluate and redefine the nature of government and of political participation as
well as the role of religious identity and values in society will in many cases undergo a fragile process of trial
and error in which short term risks will be the price for potential long term gains. Autocratic governments
may be able to derail or stifle the process of change; however they will merely delay the inevitable. The
realities of most Muslim societies and the aspirations of many citizens as well as the example of the struggle
for democratization in other parts of the world will require greater political liberalization or continue to
contribute to the conditions that contribute to the growth of radicalization, political instability and global
terrorism.
EXT: UN CRED- SELF-D SOLVES CRED

Autonomy within nations is key to check terrorism, poverty, and political oppression.
Failure to accomplish this damages UN effectiveness.
Democracy, human rights, and counterterrorism are integrally related to the founding principles of the United
Nations. The ideals of human rights and democratic values are reflected in the preamble to the UN Charter,
which speaks of “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” Mass terrorism with a global reach is clearly
one of today’s main threats to the maintenance of international peace and security, the UN’s foremost
mission. Human rights, democracy, and counterterrorism are, therefore, not only at the core of the UN’s
founding mission, they are central to the two objectives that have central importance in the UN system: peace
and security, and economic and social development. Many egregious human rights violations and
humanitarian catastrophes around the world are the consequence of war and the collapse of security. Failed
states are a natural home for terrorist organizations. And there is convincing empirical evidence of the
proposition that established democracies do not wage war against one another. Moreover, sustainable and
equitable economic development for the poorest nations is dependent on the emergence of the rule of law and
on open and transparent governance that derives from democratic accountability. There is growing
understanding in the policy community that economic development is best achieved when citizens freely
criticize government policy, the press investigates and reports on economic transactions, civic groups work
openly to address issues of corruption and inequity, and the rotation of power acts as an antidote to the
cronyism and corruption that are so corrosive of economic growth and competition. Regrettably, UN action
on democracy, human rights protection, and counterterrorism has often stalled in the face of politicization of
the debate and obstructionist tactics by an effective minority of antidemocratic states. This, in turn, has
eroded confidence in the United Nations and contributed to skepticism about the institution and its
effectiveness, overshadowing the institution’s many unique strengths and essential activities.
EXT: UN CRED- NO UN CRED

Despite increase in democracies, the lack of international commitment to human rights
policy causes ill-will that erodes UN effectiveness.
While the world has become more democratic and open in recent decades and a wide array of authoritarian
regimes has fallen, coordination and intensive cooperation among repressive regimes at the UN remains
effective, often blocking effective action on behalf of human rights and democracy. There has also been no
similar attempt at sustained coordinated efforts among the existing and new democracies. Although
conceived during the Cold War, the nonaligned movement (NAM) remains an influential source of solidarity
and cooperation for sixty-four UN member states. However, these states have fundamental differences with
respect to democratic practice and respect for human rights. In essence, the NAM binds many democracies
with highly repressive tyrannies and, as a result, is an outdated obstacle to effective cooperation within the
UN. To a significant degree, the NAM contributes to the inertia of the UN on many issues related to
violations of human rights. In elections to various UN bodies, the UN’s regional group structure tends
disproportionately to benefit regimes that are less than open and democratic and are therefore less likely to
support core values of democracy and human rights. Democratic governments at the UN tend to be
concentrated in several groups,6 rather than spread out among them, which means that opportunities to work
with other regional groups on issues of democracy and human rights are limited. Nor is there any effective
effort by the democracies in the regional groups to work cohesively on these issues. In addition, many groups
do not adequately factor democracy and respect for human rights in their selection criteria for electing group
members to UN bodies, including those charged with human rights monitoring. Better cooperation with the
European Union (EU) is another important matter. Since 1999, the European Union has formally adopted a
“Common Foreign and Security Policy” (CFSP) in a handful of key areas.7 The EU also reaches common
positions on other issues on an ad hoc basis. Better coordination within the EU is a welcome development.
When the EU and the U.S. cooperate, they are extremely effective partners. Too often, however, the United
States and the EU find themselves on opposite sides of issues. From the U.S. perspective this is especially the
case in the Human Rights Commission, where EU members have muted their criticism of China and other
nations. The EU has complained about U.S. decisions to withdraw from or opt out of UN-related multilateral
agreements in favor of unilateral U.S. action. Differences between the EU and the United States on a range of
issues, including human rights, the environment, international justice, and land mines, may be unavoidable.
But the failure of both sides to work more closely together from the conceptualization of an agreement to its
conclusion multiplies misunderstandings and compounds ill-will. Another factor emerges from the dynamics
of life at the UN headquarters. Diplomats serving at the missions to the UN and the staff of the Secretariat
interact closely with one another. Such a close relationship at times results in a concentration on the
formalities of UN procedures rather than concrete actions. Additionally, some of the missions operate without
instructions from their government, and others are subjected to only minimal oversight. While the end of the
Cold War offered the Security Council an opportunity to fulfill its mandate, it has only on some occasions
lived up to expectations. The overall performance of UN bodies, such as the UN General Assembly and the
Commission on Human Rights, and of such highly publicized meetings as the UN World Conference Against
Racism, has been even more disappointing. Although these are mainly declarative bodies, in an international
environment in which declarations and ideas matter, the positions set forth by the United Nations help
influence public attitudes and justify the internal policies of many countries. It is therefore troubling that
illiberal and antidemocratic interests often prevail in the UN system. Indeed, despite the global expansion of
democracy over the last twenty years, many UN bodies remain reluctant to engage crucial human rights
issues8 or to challenge the influence of the world’s most repressive regimes. The ongoing politicization of the
General Assembly, for example, is reflected in the disproportionate and unbalanced condemnation of Israel in
the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while many other vital matters involving mass human rights
violations are ignored or given short shrift.9
EXT: UN CRED- US K/T CRED

US action critical for UN cooperation and success – also key to enhancing US leadership.
Enhancing U.S. leadership at the United Nations is important for U.S. interests and for strengthening the
UN and the international system.President Bush has described the United Nations as the “world’s
preeminent multilateral institution,” and indeed, over the years, the UN system has given rise to an array
of essential and effective programs, including the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, the
World Food Organization, the World Health Organization, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
In the years since the Cold War, when the five permanent members have been able to work together, the
Security Council has effectively addressed key threats to peace and security.While some UN bodies have
worked well, the same has not always been true for the General Assembly and other UN structures. Here
politicization has made the institution an inconsistent voice for democratic values and human rights
principles and has produced a mixed record on efforts to promote peace and security and deepen
international cooperation on counterterrorism. The areas in which the UN has not lived up to its promise
are the very areas in which the United States can play a positive role. The priorities of democracy
promotion, human rights protection, and counterterrorism garner broad nonpartisan support among
America’s political leaders and the public. At the same time, the saliency and primacy of democracy,
human rights, and counterterrorism efforts are shared by a growing proportion of UN member states, a
majority of which are now electoral democracies. Moreover, after September 11, 2001, the UN Security
Council and the General Assembly took important action to condemn terrorism and to work toward its
interdiction and prevention. In the past, much of the debate over the U.S. role in the United Nations has
been an argument between those who were fundamentally opposed to U.S. participation in the institution
and those who defended that participation without reservations. It is important to break that mold and
for Americans to ask candidly and realistically how this complex organization can work for the
furtherance of key U.S. goals. In this context, we recommend that the United States adopt a policy toward
the UN that focuses on expanding cooperation with member states that respect the principles of human
rights and democracy. Such an initiative can strengthen the work and credibility of the United Nations,
while enhancing America’s leadership and reputation within the body. Such cooperation among
democracies can, in our view, also bring greater effectiveness to UN counterterrorism efforts.
U.S. human rights leadership key to U.N. credibility – provides concrete backing to
abstract UN proclamations.
Dreier and Hamilton, 02.(David and Lee H. Co-Chairs, Council on Foreign Relations, EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, “Enhancing U.S. Leadership at the United Nations,” Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored
by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House,
The Task Force calls for coordination by the democracies on significant human rights resolutions and on
elections to key rights-monitoring bodies. It recommends that the United States work to move the United
Nations away from broadly declarative statements on human rights to practical implementation of existing
standards. The Task Force calls for comprehensive reform of the UN Human Rights Commission and the
office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure that they focus on the world’s most
egregious and massive rights violations, many of which now regularly escape investigation and censure. The
Task Force also calls on the United States to work with the UN’s democracies to ease pressure on UN-
accredited nongovernmental organizations, which are routinely under review and attack by an array of
repressive regimes.
EXT: UN CRED- US ↑ UN CRED

Human rights and democracy promotion actively strengthens UN credibility, international
counterterrorism, U.S. national interests.
Enhanced American leadership at the United Nations is beneficial for U.S. interests and can help strengthen
the UN and the international system. For many years, however, the United States has not been nearly as
effective at the UN as it can or should be. With this in mind, the members of the Council on Foreign
Relations and Freedom House Independent Task Force recommend strengthening U.S. effectiveness at the
United Nations around an agenda focused on better cooperation among the UN’s democratic member states,
on the promotion of more vigorous human rights initiatives, and on more rigorous counterterrorism efforts.
The group believes a precondition for making the UN truly effective is to reduce the leverage of a minority of
repressive regimes, which skillfully blocks many American objectives, particularly in the areas of democracy
promotion and advancing fundamental human rights principles. The UN system has given rise to an array of
essential and effective programs in the areas of health, education, refugees, food, and development.
Moreover, the Security Council has effectively addressed key threats to peace when its five permanent
members have been able to work together. The same, however, has not always been true of the General
Assembly and other UN structures where politics has made the institution an inconsistent voice for
democracy and human rights. Over the years, this has produced a mixed record on efforts to promote peace
and security and to deepen international cooperation on counterterrorism. The UN Commission on Human
Rights—where many of the world’s most repressive regimes escape criticism and investigation—and such
highly publicized conferences as the World Conference Against Racism have been particularly
disappointing. In this context, the members of the Task Force recommend a U.S. policy toward the UN
focused on building deeper and more effective cooperation among the democracies. Such an initiative, the
Task Force concludes, can strengthen the UN’s credibility, enhance American leadership within the body, and
bring greater effectiveness to UN counterterrorism efforts.
Actual policies, not just words, are key to credibility.

Dreier and Hamilton, 02. (David and Lee H. Co-Chairs, Council on Foreign Relations, TASK FORCE
the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/11.pdf)
Move away from declarative efforts and toward specific actions. The UN approach to human rights is
dominated by statements and declarations. While these have their place, they should be complemented by
programs for the practical implementation of existing standards or the setting of new standards that can
promptly be given practical application.
EXT: UN CRED- US ↑ UN CRED

The upholding of the UN self-determination charter is key to support from the
international community
The Guardian, June 4, 2008 (The choice: Barbarism or a new civilization,
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve08/1368edit.html)
But what is significant is not just that these countries are having many consultations and are finding
agreement on a range of issues but that policies based on the principles of the United Nations are being
implemented. It has to be remembered that the UN Charter was adopted in 1945 following the defeat of
fascism in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and militarist Japan. It was adopted before the start of the "Cold War"
launched by Churchill and Truman against the Soviet Union. The Charter establishes the "sovereign
equality" of all UN members. Disputes between members are to be settled by "peaceful means" and all
should "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state", and that there can be no authorised "intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state". The Charter calls for "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" and for "fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." There have been many breeches of the Charter principles in
the sixty years since its adoption but they remain essential for peace, justice and the international rule of law
throughout the world. The emerging Asian countries and the various political groups that have arisen are
basing their relations with one another and other countries on these principles. They were incorporated in the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that has been signed by Asian countries and was signed by Australia when
it wanted to be included in the summit meetings of Asian countries. However a number of practices of the
Australian government are a violation of the Charter principles. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan based
on trumped up justifications and the setting up of military bases in over one hundred countries by the US are
violations of the Charter. The many attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro are attempts at changing the
government of Cuba. The Australian forces and administrators now virtually running the Solomon Islands is
interference in that country’s internal affairs. On the economic front there are many measures that aim to
subjugate the economies, particularly of smaller countries, to the might of the big powers. A number of
countries are suffering the pressure imposed by trade boycotts of one kind or another. They include Cuba,
China, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran and Palestine, to mention some. But these measures
and policies are being opposed by an increasing number of countries. It is more and more difficult for the
former colonial powers to get away with their attempts to dominate and interfere in the affairs of other
countries. It is more difficult for them to start wars. The principles laid down in the UN Charter are the basis
for a new type civilisation and it is in that direction that the world is heading. Australia has to make its
choice.
EXT: UN CRED- US-UN K/T PEACE
The UN is the “Prime Forum” to address global challenges. US-UN cooperation is critical
to success in these endeavors.
Articulate the view that the promotion of human rights, democracy, development and poverty eradication,
among other goals, are crucial elements of a long-term strategy in the international war against terrorism. The
UN, with its broad array of economic, social, and cultural programs, remains a prime forum in which to
address poverty, security, democracy, and human rights. The United States should work to improve UN
cooperation and support in such areas as poverty alleviation and support for democracy and stability as part
of a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy.
EXT: UN CRED- PLAN ↑ CRED

Lack of U.S. leadership on democratic issues allows repressive regimes to take advantage of
U.S. weakness. Only the plan can solve for multilateral cooperation.
Contrary to expectations, the end of the Cold War’s East-West divide has not ushered in a new period of more
effective international cooperation. Indeed, several serious obstacles remain, and the United States is
frequently outmaneuvered and overmatched at the UN. First, the UN’s regional group structure often benefits
repressive regimes because democratic governments tend to be concentrated in only a handful of groups.
Second, the nonaligned movement (NAM)— created during the Cold War as a counterweight to the East and
West blocs—remains an obstacle to effective action within the UN. Its sixty-four members cooperate on
substantive and procedural votes, binding the organization’s many democratic nations to the objectives and
blocking tactics of its remaining tyrannies. A third factor is the need for more effective coordination and
cooperation between the United States and the European Union. The Task Force also identifies several
obstacles to U.S. effectiveness at the UN. These include frequent U.S. reluctance to support international
agreements without adequate explanation of U.S. objections; the U.S. practice of withholding or threatening
to withhold treaty obligated dues; and long-term gaps in the confirmation of a permanent U.S. representative
to the UN. Understaffing in the political section of the U.S. UN Mission and the related fact that the United
States rarely has engaged in the extensive outreach and lobbying practiced by other delegations are additional
problems. To address these factors, the Task Force makes a series of specific recommendations for enhancing
American leadership. The Task Force recommends that the president and the secretary of state enunciate a
comprehensive U.S. view of the UN and the parameters for effective multilateral cooperation. In addition, the
Task Force urges the United States to practice the vigorous outreach and lobbying for which American
democracy is famous. To counter impressions that the United States is interested only in its own agenda, the
Task Force calls on the Unites States to support worthy initiatives of its allies and other friendly nations.
The relationship is vital to US influence.

Feinstein, 02.(Lee and Adrian, Project Co-Directors, Council on Foreign Relations, “Enhancing U.S. Leadership
at the United Nations,” Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and
Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/11.pdf)
The U.S.-UN relationship remains one of the nation’s most sensitive foreign policy issues. We are grateful to
the Task Force’s co-chairmen, Representatives David Dreier and Lee Hamilton, for taking on this project and
reaching across partisan lines to produce consensus on this issue of vital importance to our nation. The Task
Force was comprised of members with a very wide range of views. The diverse membership provided for
discussions that were intense, collegial, and constructive. We thank the Task Force membership for working
productively to develop consensus, for diligently providing thoughtful written responses, and for the time and
care they devoted to our collective work. A number of outside sources gave their time and insight to the Task
Force and we are grateful for their important contributions and support. Ambassador James B. Cunningham,
Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, Morton H. Halperin, Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Ambassador Mokhtar
Lamani, Edward Luck, Michael Marek, Brian McKeon, Ambassador Thomas E. McNamara, Edward
Mortimer, Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Ambassador John Richardson, and UN Undersecretary General
Shashi Tharoor generously gave their time and shared their experience and insights with us in interviews.
EXT: UN CRED- PLAN ↑ CRED

Embracing international standards is key to U.S. influence.
Aka, 06. (Philip C., Professor of Political Science, Chicago State University; Vice Chair, American Bar
Association Committee on International Human Rights, Akron Law Review, 2006, 39 Akron L. Rev. 417,
”Analyzing U.S. Commitment to Socioeconomic Human Rights,” Lexis)
The U.S. follows an incomprehensive approach to human rights that focuses exclusively on political-civil rights
to the neglect and relegation of socioeconomic and collective human rights. However, the recent natural disaster
in the U.S.'s gulf region and the lack of a progress in the U.S. national government policies toward Native
Americans reveal the inadequacy of a human rights approach anchored solely on political-civil rights. The
hurricane disaster that ravaged New Orleans exemplified the consequences that can attend a low-grade
commitment to socioeconomic human rights. The unfavorable socioeconomic conditions of nationality groups,
such as blacks, and the lack of positive result in the U.S. government's responses to American Indians' campaign
for internal self-determination, both testify to the problem that can come from lack of attention to group rights.
To increase its commitment to socioeconomic human rights as well as to the rights of peoples while correcting
constitutional weaknesses in political-civil rights, made worse now by the war on terrorism, the U.S. needs to
embrace international human rights standards. The debate recently among Supreme Court justices regarding the
place of international law in Supreme Court jurisprudence "reflects a broader development that is gaining
momentum around the country: Human rights are coming home." 256 Embracement of international human
rights standards also has positive long-term consequences for both U.S. power [*463] and sovereignty that
continuing self-insulation from those standards stands every chance of damaging. U.S. pursuit of freedom will
remain "unfinished" so long as America protects and promotes only political-civil rights to the exclusion of the
remaining two other categories of human rights.
EXT: KASHMIR-TENSIONS HIGH
Support for hard-line separatist is increasing with continued alienation of even moderate
appeals
Newsweek June 16 2008 accesed via lexis-nexus
Some of Lome's frustration is shared by mainstream politicians who favor greater autonomy, rather than
independence, from New Delhi. Omar Abdullah represents Srinagar in the Indian Parliament and is a former
federal cabinet member. But he, too, is bitterly disappointed with New Delhi's handling of Kashmir,
particularly following the 2003 ceasefire with Pakistan. "People expected a greater peace dividend: less-
oppressive security measures, more forward movement, more actual realization of [measures like cross-
border trade]," he says. "Unfortunately, we haven't got that."To make matters worse, moderate separatists
who began talks with New Delhi in 2004, braving retaliation from hard-liners in their own camp, have
received no concessions in return for their courage. "You can't clap with one hand," says Omar Farooq, the
34-year-old Mirwaiz, or spiritual leader of Kashmir's Muslims, and head of a moderate separatist faction.
"There is no reciprocity from Delhi." Farooq says that's cost him and other moderates popular support,
particularly among Kashmir's increasingly alienated and radicalized youth. Farooq's loss has been to the gain
of men like Syed Ali Geelani, head of a hard-line faction. Interviewed in his home in Srinagar, where he is
currently under house arrest, he said that armed struggle against India was "a compulsion" since India had
rejected "all the peaceful means to get our rights." And he called for a boycott of the upcoming state
elections. "There is no hope that they will be free and fair," he says. When Geelani called for a business
boycott last month to protest a visit by Indian President Pratibha Patil, most shops in Srinagar shut down and
angry mobs took to the streets. In the early 17th century, the Mughal Emperor Jahangir visited Kashmir and
declared that "if there is paradise anywhere on earth, it is here." This wildly beautiful territory certainly still
has that potential. But hard-liners like Geelani, revived militancy in Pakistan and foot-dragging by New
Delhi mean Jahangir's paradise still feels more like purgatory--with the prospect of hell looming over the
landscape.
Protests continue in Kashmir and tensions are at an all time high.

BBC NEWS June 27 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7478008.stm]
The BBC's Altaf Hussain says that it appeared as if the entire population of the Muslim-majority Kashmir
Valley had taken to the streets. It is the fifth consecutive day of protests over the land transfer. In the
summer capital, Srinagar, at least 30,000 people converged on the historic Lal Chowk monument. Similar
protests have taken place across the Kashmir valley, with many shouting "We want freedom!" and "Stop the
sale of Kashmir!" Eye witnesses say that police fired teargas shells to break up a huge demonstration in the
town of Pulwama, south of Srinagar. The authorities have now imposed restrictions on assemblies of more
than four people. Schools, banks, shops and offices have all been closed and paramilitary soldiers and police
have been patrolling the streets. "We are not against the pilgrimage," one demonstrator told the BBC. "It has
been going on for centuries and it should continue... But we do not want our land to be occupied by anyone."
Our correspondent says that surprisingly, the protests have passed off peacefully in most of places and the
police have not made any attempt to stop them. Every year, thousands of Hindus flock to Amarnath cave,
considered one of the holiest shrines of the Hindu faith. The protests began after the state government
transferred 40 hectares of forest land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board - the organisation which organises
the pilgrimage. The government said the land was needed for construction of pre-fabricated huts and toilets
for the pilgrims. Local environmentalists protested against the decision and local politicians joined them.
Three Kashmiris have died in protests this week and nearly 200 have been injured, bringing back memories
of widespread protests that swept the region after a separatist insurgency began in 1989. Separatist groups
say the transfer of land to the Shrine Board is part of a "conspiracy to settle non-local Hindus in the valley
with a view to reducing the Muslims to a minority". The main separatist leaders have been placed under
house arrest and many tourists have hurriedly left the region. The BBC's Chris Morris in Delhi says that
ownership of land in Kashmir is an issue of great sensitivity, but the way these protests have spread has
surprised many people after a prolonged period of calm when the focus shifted to investment and
regeneration. Our correspondent says that the trouble is that none of the underlying political issues which
prompted years of insurgency have gone away.
EXT: KASHMIR-TENSIONS HIGH
Separatists growing violent due to oppression

The Hindu Indian Newspaper, June 24 2008
[http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/24/stories/2008062460691300.htm]
At least one person was injured here on Monday when Central Reserve Police Force personnel opened fire on a
group opposing transfer of 40 hectares of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. However, eyewitnesses
said three people sustained bullet injuries and were in a critical condition. The demonstrations were held jointly
by both factions of the Hurriyat Conference. The incident triggered tension in the Nowhatta area and the police
and paramilitary forces were deployed there. Senior Superintendent of Police (Srinagar) S.A. Mujtaba told The
Hindu that only one person, Fayaz Ahmad Rah, was injured in the firing. “Some youths threw stones at the
CRPF personnel and in panic they opened fire.” He said the situation was under control.
Regional control of sophisticated arsenals makes nuclear exchange likely

Sumit Ganguly professor at Hunter College New York September 23, 1998
[http://www.cdi.org/adm/1214/Ganguly.html]
We may now have a war as a consequence of misperception at a much lower level, but then ratcheting up
because someone decides that we need to bring in heavy artillery, and having brought in heavy artillery,
engages the other side to bring in heavy artillery. And with command and control being devolved to local
commanders, something spinning out of control, particularly as you get more and more sophisticated forms
of weaponry--and various political scientists have written about this, about organizational errors which can
then lead to a larger conflict, an escalation which neither side, frankly, intended. And this becomes all the
more important when you have things like offensive doctrines, where decisions have to be made fairly
quickly, and there's a premium on pre-emption, and even using conventional forces, mind you. And then of
course there's the looming nuclear shadow in the background.
Nuclear Exchange in S. Asia would make Hiroshima look like a minor skirmish
Sumit Ganguly professor at Hunter College New York September 23, 1998
[http://www.cdi.org/adm/1214/Ganguly.html]
The second (human toll) is an even more horrifying thought, particularly as someone with his roots in the
region, and with substantial knowledge of the region. If a nuclear war were to take place, the consequences--
people who reason from ordinary disasters to nuclear disasters are clueless. It's a fundamentally flawed
analogy. There were people in this country who foolishly talked about during a certain period of the Cold
War history, that if we had enough shovels, we could put, say, several feet of earth, and we could survive a
nuclear war. That was the most irresponsible form of talk. There is no point of surviving a nuclear war. In
fact the survivors might actually envy the people who died. And particularly in South Asia, where hospital
facilities under good conditions are rudimentary, where inadequate amounts of money directed toward
anything like civil defense--even conventional civil defense--to think that you could have nuclear civil
defense is frankly chimerical. The costs would make Hiroshima look like a minor skirmish.
EXT: KASHMIR-PLAN ↑ US/PAK RELATIONS
Pakistan wants Kashmiri self determination

The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 1/7/2002
The Washington Post (1/7, A14, Cody) observes, "Beneath the public relations coup, tucked discreetly into his
summit declarations, were repeated warnings from Musharraf that terrorism launched from Afghanistan is one thing,
rebellion in Kashmir another. Pakistan's overriding national cause -- self-determination for fellow Muslims in
Kashmir -- must not be blurred into the struggle to extinguish terrorism that has become paramount for the United
States since Sept. 11, he said." Continues the Post, "'We cannot address only the symptoms and leave the malaise
aside,' he declared. 'It is equally important that a distinction be maintained between acts of legitimate resistance and
freedom struggles on the one hand and acts of terrorism on the other.'" Adds the Post, "Musharraf, a tolerant Muslim,
had ordered his security services to smother anti-American demonstrations during the early days of the U.S.
bombing campaign in Afghanistan in October. The protests were encouraged by Pakistan's radical Islamic groups,
whose leaders supported the Taliban and its uncompromising version of Islam. They were the same kind of groups --
in some cases the same groups -- that have been leading the charge in Kashmir with Islamabad's encouragement for
the last decade."
EXT: KASHMIR-NO SELF-D
A recent transfer of land shows India's disregard for Kashmir Identity

The Hindu June 26 2008 [http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/27/stories/2008062755211200.htm]
The Union government is watching closely the law and order situation in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of
the agitation by a section of people against the transfer of forest land to Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board
(SASB) by the State government. At meeting that was presided over by Union Home Secretary Madhukar
Gupta, the situation was reviewed, official sources said. Security agencies said at the meeting that anti-
national and secessionist elements in the Kashmir Valley were instigating people to take to the streets. The
Home Ministry asked the State government to take all necessary steps to bring peace. The Valley has seen
pitched battles between the police and protesters and so far three people were killed in police firing. The
protesters are demanding the scrapping of the Government Order on transfer of 39.88 hectares of land to the
Board. They say the move will not only affect the environment but also change the demographic nature of the
Valley. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Thursday accused former Jammu and Kashmir Governor
S.K. Sinha of helping fundamentalist and extremist forces to make the Amarnath pilgrimage hostage to
communal politics. In an editorial in the latest edition of the party organ, People’s Democracy, the CPI(M)
asked the government to review the land transfer decision. “... the decision to transfer forest land should be
reviewed. All the secular parties and forces in Jammu and Kashmir should ensure that the yatra is not made
hostage to communal politics,” it said. Pointing fingers at General (retd.) Sinha, who has stepped down as
SASB chairman, the party said: “Gen. Sinha is known for his pro-BJP proclivities. He was appointed Jammu
and Kashmir Governor after his stint as the Governor of Assam. It is a mystery why the UPA government
persisted with him in this sensitive position for the full term. The role of General Sinha has only helped the
fundamentalist and extremist forces like Syed Ali Geelani’s Hurriyat, to exploit this issue. The Hindutva
forces are stoking feelings in Jammu and coming out in the streets,” the party said. Noting that the land
transfer had aroused fears that this would alter the Kashmiri identity, the CPI(M) claimed that the manner in
which General Sinha behaved as the Governor and SASB chairman had exacerbated these fears. General
Sinha also came in conflict with Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad by insisting that the duration of the
Amarnath Yatra be increased to two months, against the one-month schedule being continued by the State
government, the editorial claimed.
Attempts by Pakistan and India to reassert control are ineffective – they must make
concessions of self-determination.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace “The Political Economy of
the Kashmir Conflict: Opportunities for Economic Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy,” Special Report No.
121, June, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr121.html)
To date, all attempts by either India or Pakistan to use economic means to assert its authority throughout the former
princely state have only reinforced Kashmiris' sense of separateness, by nurturing the idea among Kashmiris that
they are not in control of their own livelihoods and that their government seeks only to exploit them. As noted
above, the state receives generous development financing from India's Planning Commission. Other states in India
resent what they perceive to be mollycoddling, especially of a state they deem not deserving of special attention.
Indeed, the per capita investment made by India's Planning Commission in Jammu and Kashmir is among the
highest in the nation. Yet young persons living in that state, Indian or Pakistani, increasingly feel that their only
means of making a respectable living is by working abroad. While some of the foremost businessmen from Asia
living in the Middle East, the United Kingdom, and the United States have their origins in and an abiding love for
Kashmir, those remaining in the state are condemned to languish, yearning to fulfill their potential. Governments in
the Indian and Pakistani parts of the state of Jammu and Kashmir must grant their people freedom, not merely by
holding elections but also by rolling back restrictions on business and terminating governmental monopolies in trade
and commerce, which are, in any case, a drain on government resources. The governments should also be
encouraging investment that will generate economic activity.
EXT: KASHMIR-NO US SELF-D IN KASHMIR
The U.S. and the international community are reluctant to recognize a Kashmiri right to
self-determination
This may read like a potted history of Kosovo between 1989 and 1999. It is, however, a potted history of
Indian policy towards Kashmir, and its consequences, between 1953 and 1990. So do the United States and
its allies in Europe support self-determination for Kashmir, and threaten multilateral intervention to that end?
Of course not. The oft-stated American position on Kashmir is that India and Pakistan should negotiate a
bilateral solution to the Kashmir dispute while taking into account the wishes of "the Kashmiri people" (a
description that itself grossly over-simplifies the society and politics of Kashmir, which contains a diversity
of regions, religions, ethnicities and languages, and whose citizens are split into pro-independence, pro-
Pakistan and pro-India segments). Nonetheless, the caution and circumspection that define the stance of
the United States and major European Union countries towards the Kashmir dispute are typical of the
attitude of the "international community" and its dominant players towards claims to self-
determination. The record of the international order since 1945 is that self-determination movements
tend to receive a sceptical hearing at best, and no hearing at all in many cases. The vague and somewhat
outdated principles of international law relevant to the issue of secession are broadly supportive of the
territorial integrity of states, and recognise the legitimacy of self-determination only in situations of
colonialism. Between 1945 and 1990 the only fully realised case of national self-determination outside the
decolonisation framework was Bangladesh in the early 1970s, facilitated by an Indian military intervention
that resulted in the total defeat of Pakistani forces in the former East Pakistan. During those decades, dozens
of other self-determination movements struggled in vain.
EXT: KASHMIR- A2 US INFLUENCE EMPERICALLY FAILS
Past actions have been high-level interventions.

Schaffer, 08. (Howard, Director of Studies at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of
Diplomacy. Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control,
Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 /
Winter 2007-8, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/S&P-wi2007-8.pdf)
The Tashkent conference was the last serious involvement by outside powers in the Kashmir issue until it
exploded again onto the world stage at the end of 1989. In the following eighteen years, the United States again
took the lead in international efforts to deal with the dispute and, more specifically, with a series of India-
Pakistan crises the issue generated. President Bill Clinton’s personal role in 1999 in persuading Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif to withdraw Pakistani forces from the Kargil area of Indian administered Kashmir was only the
most dramatic of several high-level U.S. interventions.
Note: Imposing regulation empirically fails, setting the facilitating model is key.
EXT: KASHMIR-PLAN SOLVES
The Kashmir conflict represents the most dangerous self-determination struggle in the
world—the US must act
Callahan, 2002.(David, Director of Research at Demos. Carnegie Challenge, “The Enduring Challenge: Self
Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century,” http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/ethnicconflict.pdf)
The South Asian subcontinent is among the most ethnically fragile regions in the world and has recently
shown signs of growing instability. In late 2001 and early 2002, the long simmering war in Kashmir
escalated to new levels of intensity and galvanized the attention of world leaders. While this conflict is often
characterized as a territorial dispute, it is also a classic struggle for self-determination, with Kashmir’s
majority Muslim population struggling against Indian Hindu rule and getting support for this effort from
Pakistan. The possession of nuclear weapons by both Pakistan and India makes the Kashmir conflict among
the most dangerous self-determination struggles in the world. Beyond the Kashmir conflict, South Asia is
home to serious ethnic tensions within Pakistan, which is divided by significant ethnic and clan cleavages;
and in India, where self determination struggles in the Punjab and other regions periodically flare up, and
where recent Muslim-Hindu violence has the potential to undermine stability within the country. The ethnic
conflict in Sri Lanka is also a long-standing problem.
Self-determination is THE PRIMARY tension between Pakistan and India.

Chandran, 08.(D. Suba, Assistant Director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi.
“Jammu & Kashmir: India’s Objectives and Strategies,” Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir,
The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 / Winter 2007-8, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/S&P-
wi2007-8.pdf)
Historically, Pakistan has viewed its dispute with India over Kashmir as the key determinant of its strategic
behavior in the international arena. Advocacy of the rights of the Kashmiri people to freely determine their
future has been the main plank of Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy in the United Nations and other international
fora. By championing the cause of the rights of the Kashmiri people, Islamabad has tried to remind the world
that India’s control over two-thirds of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not only legally untenable but morally
unjust, as it was achieved through an instrument of accession with a ruler who had lost the support of the vast
majority of his predominantly Muslim subjects. Pakistan’s official stance on Kashmir can be summarized into
the following six interrelated propositions:1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputedterritory. 2. This
disputed status is acknowledged in the UN Security Council resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5,
1949, to which both Pakistan and India are a party. 3. These resolutions remain operative and cannot be
unilaterally disregarded by either party. 4. Talks between India and Pakistan over the future status of Jammu and
Kashmir should aim to secure the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people. This right entails a free,
fair and internationally supervised plebiscite as agreed in the UN Security Council resolutions.5. The plebiscite
should offer the people of Jammuand Kashmir the choice of permanent accession to either Pakistan or India.6.
Talks between India and Pakistan, in regard to the future status of Jammu and Kashmir, should beheld in
conformity both with the Simla Agreement of July 1972 and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
EXT: KASHMIR- PLAN SOLVES

The United States is the sole facilitator to resolve Indo-Pak conflict.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace “The Political
Economy of the Kashmir Conflict: Opportunities for Economic Peacebuilding and for U.S.
Policy,” Special Report No. 121, June, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr121.html)
The United States could play a crucial role as a facilitator—not as a mediator—paving the way toward toward
resolution while leaving the principal stakeholders to determine the form of that resolution. Most Kashmiris
regard the United States as an honest broker, an opinion rarely held in Muslim countries in the aftermath of 9/11.
For its part, the United States is concerned that Kashmir might spark a nuclear confrontation and would like to
see an end to the terrorist activity that Kashmir's disputed status inspires.
U.S. national interests are best served by motivating a dialogue between India and
Pakistan.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and secretary to the
government of India. “The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict: Opportunities for Economic
Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy,” Special Report No. 121, June,
Kashmiris essentially feel that the world cares little for them, if at all. But now that both India and Pakistan
have become nuclear powers, the world is concerned that peace be restored in the region. Any such peace
can only be tenuous unless the people of Kashmir are given the means to establish lives as free citizens in a
free society—something to which they are certainly entitled. Here is where the United States can help. Most
Kashmiris regard the United States as an honest broker, an opinion rarely held in Muslim countries in the
aftermath of 9/11. This view has also been expressed repeatedly in private by several members of the
separatist leadership. In fact, Kashmiris credit all positive developments in the region over the past five
years to efforts made by the United States. Given the deep mistrust that Kashmiris have of India and their
growing mistrust of Pakistan, the United States might find it advantageous to cultivate its positive image
(especially now that that image is beginning to fray because of events in Iraq). But is that adequate grounds
for U.S. involvement? Given that the United States' primary concern in the region is for the nuclear
dimensions of any Indian-Pakistani conflict, and given, too, the number and scale of the United States'
commitments across the world, the United States may feel that it can best serve its own and the
region's interests by continuing to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan. In 1962–63, the
United States made its last concerted effort to resolve the Kashmir issue. Secretary of State Dean Rusk made
it clear that the outcome of talks between India and Pakistan would have a "genuine" impact on each
country's relations with the United States.
EXT: KASHMIR- PLAN SOLVES

U.S. support for Kashmiri self determination is key to prevent Pakistani military coup
Anatol Lieven, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January/February 2002,
Foreign Affairs
PAKISTAN'S central preoccupation, as far as the army is concerned, remains not Afghanistan but Kashmir.
Pakistan's struggle with India over control of Kashmir began within weeks of the two nations' independence in August 1947. Over the
decades since, the battle over this province has become a key part of Pakistan's army, and even its state, ideology. The conflict reached a
new peak in the winter of 1998 -- 99, when Sharif was prime minister and Musharraf his army chief of staff. Pakistan launched a
militarily brilliant but politically reckless operation in Kashmir, helping militants (possibly including Pakistani troops, and certainly
backed by Pakistani artillery and logistics support) occupy heights on the Indian side of the de facto border near Kargil, overlooking the
main Indian line of communication. The Pakistani-backed fighters held their own against Indian counterattacks, but Pakistan was
eventually forced to withdraw under heavy pressure from the international community, led by the United States. The result of this
diplomatic debacle was that, even before September 11, the Pakistani military and civilian elite had begun to moderate their attitudes on
Kashmir. This new attitude was soon displayed in a new openness to bilateral talks with India. The Pakistani elite also seems finally to
have woken up to the domestic threat created by all the radical mujahideen the country has supported. Sartaj Aziz, a former foreign and
finance minister, explained recently, "For every ten [militants] who are trained here to fight in Kashmir, one goes and the rest stay in
Pakistan to cause trouble." And retired Lieutenant General Talat Masood observed, "Thanks to the U.S. antiterrorism campaign, the
mujahideen fighting in Kashmir will have to be reined in. The state has to have a monopoly of armed force. Above all, our possession of
nuclear weapons makes this essential, because if there is internal instability here, there will be attempts at intense international scrutiny
of us." Not that resolving the Kashmir issue will be easy. India will not give up its possession of most of the province under any terms.
Pakistan's long-running insistence, therefore, that India comply with U.N. resolutions calling for a
referendum on independence in Kashmir is a non-starter. Only when Pakistan accepts some degree of Indian sovereignty
will it become possible to work toward a settlement involving partial demilitarization, open borders, and the restoration of partial
autonomy to Indian Kashmir. A settlement might also encompass some territorial adjustments between the two Kashmirs and, as in
Northern Ireland, new cross-border institutions embracing both territories. But as part of this process, Pakistan would have to stop giving
military help to the Kashmiri insurgents. None of this will happen, however, if Pakistan is expected to make the first move alone. India
too has to make important concessions for a peace process to begin. These sacrifices should include recognition of the international
community's role in seeking a settlement and of the centrality of Kashmir to the Indo-Pakistani relationship. India will also have to
address the legitimate grievances of Kashmir's Muslims, their fear of the Indian security services, and their frustration at New Delhi's
unconstitutional meddling in local affairs. Although U.S. leverage over India is slight, the United States should try to encourage this
process. After all, as long as the contest over Kashmir continues, it will remain a draw for radical mujahideen from throughout the
Muslim world and will encourage groups within Pakistan to give them support and shelter. Islamist terrorists also know that the best way
to encourage revolution in Pakistan is to provoke New Delhi or Indian Hindus into savage repression of India's Muslim minority. The
war between India and Pakistan that might ensue would radicalize Pakistani Muslim feeling -- especially if India were seen as being
backed by the United States. Such a war also would entail the horrendous risk of a nuclear exchange between the two countries. The
United States cannot now hope to limit this risk by ridding the subcontinent of nuclear weapons. One reason neither India nor Pakistan
will give up such assets is the fundamental lack of symmetry between the two countries. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is that country's key
deterrent against India. It plays the same role as did Western nuclear forces during the Cold War: it deters a potential adversary with a
heavy superiority in conventional forces. India's development of nuclear weapons, by contrast, was not focused solely on Pakistan.
Rather, India was as or more concerned about its rivalry with China, its own desire to be seen as China's equal in Asia, and its aspirations
to become a great power on the world stage. The nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan, then, will not be easy to eliminate. It could,
however, be contained and made less dangerous -- especially if the United States would make the right moves on Kashmir. Doing so
would also help reduce the devastating economic impact the continued conflict has had on both countries, especially the much weaker
Pakistan. Maintaining a military rivalry with a country that has a population seven times larger than its own is steadily bankrupting
Pakistan. In the 1990s, India spent around two percent of its GDP annually on its military. Pakistan spent five percent of its GDP, which
is one-eighth the size of India's, on a military less than half the size of its rival's. With no money left over for investment in
infrastructure, Pakistan is unable to do much to promote its economic growth. Nor can it afford to improve the deep inadequacies in its
state education system. Such inadequacies encourage the country's poor to turn toward radical madrassas, since these do not demand fees
and provide free food and clothing. The military rivalry with India, in short, has become a key factor pushing Pakistan toward long-term
disintegration. And radical Islamists are waiting to pick up the pieces. In the long term, only serious economic growth and the
development of accountable political parties will stabilize Pakistan and end this threat. In the short-to-medium term,
however, the army remains the best bulwark against chaos and revolution. It is on the army, therefore, that
Washington must base its immediate efforts. Inevitably, this will require providing Pakistan with some of the
new weaponry it seeks. But it will also require a resumption of training programs and different forms of
contact with Pakistani officers at all levels. If Pakistan's military is going to remain supportive of the United
States and take the difficult steps necessary to defend the U.S. war against terrorism, these officers must be
convinced that their actions are in Pakistan's national interest. And Washington still has a lot of convincing to
do.
EXT: KASHMIR-US KEY
U.S. neutrality towards Indian policies in Kashmir risk political radicalization and
insurgency
Bose, May 22 2008..(Sumantra, Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, “Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma,”
Consider this sequence of events. The central government of a country removes the political leadership of an
autonomous province of the country in a purge-like act. It then sets about revoking the self-rule powers of the
province, which has a different ethno-religious majority from the population of the country as a whole.
Public protests in the province are met with heavy-handed police tactics. A repressive regime is instituted in
the province, with both democratic institutions and the civil rights of citizens effectively suspended.
Eventually, political radicalisation sets in and some among the misruled province's younger generation pick
up the gun to fight for "liberation". The nascent insurgency draws a fierce response from the state's military
and police organs. The security forces crack down hard, and in so doing victimise the civilian population.
Massacres of civilians and other serious abuses occur. The militants are not stamped out; instead, their
struggle evokes large-scale popular support. A major crisis has developed. This may read like a potted history
of Kosovo between 1989 and 1999. It is, however, a potted history of Indian policy towards Kashmir, and its
consequences, between 1953 and 1990. So do the United States and its allies in Europe support self-
determination for Kashmir, and threaten multilateral intervention to that end? Of course not. The oft-stated
American position on Kashmir is that India and Pakistan should negotiate a bilateral solution to the Kashmir
dispute while taking into account the wishes of "the Kashmiri people" (a description that itself grossly over-
simplifies the society and politics of Kashmir, which contains a diversity of regions, religions, ethnicities and
languages, and whose citizens are split into pro-independence, pro-Pakistan and pro-India segments).
Violence in Kashmir can only be halted by a coordinated US response based on the

principles of self determination
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, 2001 Executive Director of the Washington-based
Kashmiri American Council 2001 (Media Monitor Network http://www.mediamonitors.net/fai2.html)
In either case the U.S. would supply the necessary catalyst for a settlement. In any solution, the violence in
Kashmir must be halted. Initially the state of Jammu and Kashmir must be demilitarized through a phased
withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops. In order for this to be accomplished, New Delhi and
Islamabad must understand that the process of demilitarization is a separate issue from the rights, claims and
recognized positions of the parties involved. After the peace process is underway, the rights and claims of the
actors involved in the dispute can be considered in a nonviolent atmosphere. To succeed, the American
response to the Kashmiri situation must be based on the principles of the right of a people with a distinct
historical and cultural identity to decide their own future; the sanctity of international agreements worked out
by the United Nations; a peaceful and stable subcontinent free from the possibility of a regional nuclear
exchange; and the consistent application of human rights standards. Such an approach could lead to a just and
peaceful resolution of the 51-year old dispute that would be a lasting credit to U.S. foreign policy under the
Bush administration. On the other hand, reluctance to undertake such an initiative neither contributes to a
long-term strategy of global peace and security nor answers the demands of human conscience and the
principles of justice.
EXT: KASHMIR-US KEY
US relations with India and Pakistan make it uniquely positioned to motivate peace.
government of India. “The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict: Opportunities for Economic
"National sovereignty and national identity are still very much part of the international landscape," Talbott
commented. "But the environment in which they exist is increasingly subject to forces that for good or ill cross
borders—forces that constitute what sovereign states have classically considered interference in their internal
affairs." Talbott asked that disputing parties recognize this new context in which they are operating when
attempting to resolve the issues between themselves. A popular perception among Kashmiris is that the sporadic
periods of near normalcy achieved in Jammu and Kashmir have been the result of U.S. efforts. Whether or not
this is true, one can hardly deny that the United States could contribute greatly today, given its long-standing
relations with Pakistan and growing friendship with India.
U.S. pressure is key to solve Kashmir

Business Recorder, 1/18/2002
America is the only country, which can help resolve Kashmir dispute that remains the main cause of tension
between India and Pakistan, said Roger Godsif, Chairman Parliamentary Kashmir Group in House of
Commons on Thursday. "No other country in the world has got the power to compel or force them for the
resolution of Kashmir dispute," he told APP in an interview while commenting on President General Pervez
Musharraf's address to the nation on Saturday to curb terrorism and extremism. Godsif said, "I applaud any
step taken by General Musharraf to eliminate indiscriminate terrorism. I hope it will contribute towards
reduction of tension between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has made repeated offers to India for a
"meaningful" and "purposeful" dialogue for finding a peaceful settlement of the issue but New Delhi has so
far not responded positively. - The main cause of tension between two countries is the Kashmir dispute, said
the British parliamentarian. Godsif said, he did not believe bilateral talks "will bring about resolution of the
dispute," threatening peace and stability in a nuclearised South Asia. "America has both the financial ability
and the ability to put pressure both upon India and Pakistan in order to move towards resolution- of the
dispute. No other country has the capacity to do it," said Roger Godsif.
EXT: KASHMIR- I/L TERROR COALITION

Pakistan is the keystone of the anti-terrorism coalition
Anatol Lieven, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January/February 2002,
Foreign Affairs
THE SURVIVAL of Pakistan in its existing form is a vital U.S. security interest, one that trumps all other
American interests in the country. A collapse of Pakistan -- into internal anarchy or an Islamist revolution --
would cripple the global campaign against Islamist terrorism. Strengthening the Pakistani state and
cementing its cooperation with the West have thus become immensely important to Washington.
Pakistani cooperation is key to the coalition

The Independent (London), 9-20, 2001
The most immediate priority for American diplomacy remains the need to tie Pakistan fast into the alliance
and to support the initiatives the Pakistani government has been taking with the Taliban. The tension lies in
the need to provide proof to both the Taliban regime and the Pakistani people that Osama bin Laden is indeed
the prime suspect. Of course "proof" is notoriously difficult to provide where terrorism is concerned, and bin
Laden's "organisation" is diffuse. And what may serve as proof to the satisfaction of Western authorities and
public opinion may be insufficient for the Taliban, even assuming that they were prepared to look at the
evidence objectively. The temptation will then be for America to lose patience and press ahead with action,
regardless of the opinions of its principal ally in the region, Pakistan. That, however, would be an extremely
dangerous move. More than one former Soviet colonel has talked about the difficulty of fighting a
conventional military or "special forces" campaign in this inhospitable region, which is still heavily mined
from the time of the Russian occupation. To attempt to do so without the (relative) safety of bases in Pakistan
is almost inconceivable. Whether President Bush likes it or not, the government and, indirectly, the people, of
Pakistan have an effective veto over the deployment of American forces in the area. So far, as his TV address
yesterday showed, President Musharraf has been as supportive as he can be, given the fractures within his
own country. But Pakistan may yet prove to be both the most important and yet the weakest link in the grand
coalition against terrorism.
The multilateral coalition is key to solve terrorism and maintain U.S. leadership
Newsweek, 10/15/2001
We can define a strategy for the post-cold-war era that addresses America's principal national-security need
and yet is sustained by a broad international consensus. To do this we will have to give up some cold-war
reflexes, such as an allergy to multilateralism, and stop insisting that China is about to rival us militarily or
that Russia is likely to re-emerge as a new military threat. (For 10 years now, our defense forces have been
aligned for everything but the real danger we face. This will inevitably change.) The purpose of an
international coalition is practical and strategic. Given the nature of this war, we will need the constant
cooperation of other governments--to make arrests, shut down safe houses, close bank accounts and share
intelligence. Alliance politics has become a matter of high national security. But there is a broader
imperative. The United States dominates the world in a way that inevitably arouses envy or anger or
opposition. That comes with the power, but we still need to get things done. If we can mask our power in--
sorry, work with--institutions like the United Nations Security Council, U.S. might will be easier for much of
the world to bear. Bush's father understood this, which is why he ensured that the United Nations sanctioned
the gulf war. The point here is to succeed, and international legitimacy can help us do that.
EXT: KASHMIR- I/L INDO-PAK WAR

Now is the key threshold to solve escalating nuclear conflict and terrorism.
government of India., “The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict: Opportunities for Economic
Avoiding nuclear confrontation is certain to remain a serious U.S. concern, but it should not be Washington's
only, or perhaps even its chief, concern. Recent near-war crises—from the Kargil War to Operation Parakrama
(in which India mobilized its troops to respond to a terrorist assault on Parliament in December 2001, prompting
Pakistan to do the same)—suggest that both sides are conscious of the need to avoid escalating their conflict to
the nuclear threshold. Washington's priority could instead become helping to restore a highly functioning, robust
democracy in a part of India—Kashmir—where it has been under threat, which would in turn be an effective
means of countering terrorism in India. Action to bolster democracy in Kashmir would also help to undercut the
rationale for unrest in Kashmir and thereby help to rid Pakistan—now a major non-NATO U.S. ally—of the
incubus of religion-based terrorism that has retarded its evolution into a modern nation-state. U.S. support for
dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure within Pakistan would remove a major threat to the country's political
stability and thus help it grow into the full democracy to which it aspires and for which it already possesses
many of the key ingredients.
Kashmiri conflict key to solving the greater Indo-Pak conflict.

Chandran, 08. (D. Suba, Assistant Director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi.
Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control,
Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 /
Winter 2007-8, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/S&P-wi2007-8.pdf)
There are two sets of conflicts relating to Jammu and Kashmir—the conflict in Kashmir and the conflict of
Kashmir. The conflict of Kashmir is primarily linked to the larger Indo-Pak conflict and its actors include India,
Pakistan, and Kashmiris. In the initial decades following the 1947 partition, India’s primary objective in the
conflict of Kashmir was to internationalize the issue to its advantage, based on its legal claim over the entire
Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) region including the Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, and Baltistan regions. These four
regions, under direct and indirect control of Pakistan, are administered through two different political entities.
The regions of Mirpur and Muzaffarabad—called “Azad Kashmir”—have limited autonomy, while the Gilgit
and Baltistan regions are referred as the Northern Areas and fall under the total control of Islamabad.
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would kill 8.1 million people immediately
Matthew McKinzie NRDC physicist and Zia Mian, A. H. Nayyar and M. V. Ramana Princeton scientists
June 4, 2002 [http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp]
Unfortunately, it is easier to fuse a nuclear weapon to detonate on impact than it is to detonate it in the air -- and
that means fallout. If the nuclear explosion takes place at or near the surface of the earth, the nuclear fireball
would gouge out material and mix it with the radioactive bomb debris, producing heavier radioactive particles.
These heavier particles would begin to drift back to earth within minutes or hours after the explosion, producing
potentially lethal levels of nuclear fallout out to tens or hundreds of kilometers from the ground zero. The
precise levels depend on the explosive yield of the weapon and the prevailing winds. For the second scenario,
we calculated the fallout patterns and casualties for a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan
in which each country targeted major cities. We chose target cities throughout Pakistan and in northwestern
India to take into account the limited range of Pakistani missiles or aircraft. The target cities, listed in the table
below, include the capitals of Islamabad and New Dehli, and large cities, such as Karachi and Bombay. In this
scenario, we assumed that a dozen, 25-kiloton warheads would be detonated as ground bursts in Pakistan and
another dozen in India, producing substantial fallout. The devastation that would result from fallout would
exceed that of blast and fire. NRDC's second scenario would produce far more horrific results than the first
scenario because there would be more weapons, higher yields, and extensive fallout. In some large cities, we
assumed more than one bomb would be used. NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan
would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8
million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and
potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million
people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries. Besides
fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters.
NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
U.S. pressure for internal self determination is key to prevent India-Pakistan nuclear
conflict
Michael Kelly, Director of Legal Research, Writing & Advocacy at Michigan State University's Detroit College of
Law, 1999, Drake Law Review
Kashmir is now occupied by three sovereign nation-states: India, which controls the lion's share; Pakistan,
which occupies a small western portion; and China, which controls Ladakh. Various mediations of the
situation have been attempted (the United Nations from 1948-58, the U.S.S.R. from 1965-66, and the United
States in 1990), but to no avail. Predictably, the situation in Kashmir has degenerated. There are both
secessionist groups and unionist groups taking militant action against each other and the Indian army that has
occupied the state to enforce military rule for most of the 1990s. Violence has become the daily norm for this
region. In 1990 alone, there were 3000 deaths related to the unrest in Kashmir. Complicating matters, and of
concern to the world community and the United Nations, is the recent development of nuclear capabilities on
the part of both India and Pakistan. Indeed, as the realistic and potential flashpoint amongst the three
occupying nuclear powers, Kashmir has been referred to as a "nuclear tinderbox" waiting to be ignited. One
formula recently put forward, and significantly based on principles of self- determination, calls for the
creation of a "Kashmiri Autonomous Region" under nominal Indian control that would exist until a
referendum can be held, at which point the various parts of Kashmir can freely choose with which sovereign
they wish to associate without the entire region going as a single entity. This appears to be a rational
suggestion. But until the United States can weigh in to pressure the concerned parties into a joint settlement,
it is likely to go unrealized. Thus, self-deterministic issues continue to fester and foment further violence
while simultaneously offering an elusive solution to the problem.
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS

Pakistan is likely to start a nuclear war over Kashmir because it views India as a major
threat
Timothy D. Hoyt professor Associate Professor of Strategy and Policy United States Naval War College December
2001
Pakistan’s military is a strategically myopic organization, focused on a vision of the Indian threat and a
definition of Pakistani national interest that may not be shared by other elites or the populace. Because the
nuclear doctrine, according to government spokesmen is focused on threats to the existence of the state, this
distinction is critical. Proliferation optimism is based on rational non-revisionist policies, but significant
elements of the Pakistani Army leadership remain determined to overthrow the South Asian status quo by
force. As the nuclear threats during Kargil demonstrate the concept of an existential threat is flexible in
Pakistan, so the nuclear threshold is not clearly delineated and can shift to accommodate and facilitate
aggressive policies. Pakistan's emerging nuclear forces are firmly in the hands of the military. Planning, force
development, deployment, and employment are all in the hands of committees dominated by military
leadership. Given the empirical evidence of Pakistan's past behavior, the absence of any system of checks and
balances on the military represents a serious concern. Nuclear doctrine, nuclear employment, and both
military and policy decisions are all I the hands of an organization that has performed poorly and, at times,
irrationally. This problem is exacerbated by Pakistan's revisionist policies, particularly regarding Kashmir.
EXT: KASHMIR- TERMINAL IMPACTS

US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange.
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would
be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
Another attack could kill millions

The Washington Times, October 16, 1998, Pg. A21
But that's the way it goes. A historical event surrounded by great theatrical effects makes a really big
impression. But what if the next weapon of mass destruction is silent, gives no warning, is not preceded by a
pyrotechnic blast, but takes effect more slowly, leaving hospitals swamped, and millions in great American
cities with hideously blistered faces dying in the streets? The doctors sent to succor them also die the same
painful and unsightly deaths. For biological weapons now have the potential to wipe out cities, states and
even entire national populations if positioned in the air, water supply or food supply. The food supply would
progressively be shipped to various parts of the country, ultimately killing millions of people. And all, except
for the groans of the dying, could be done in relative silence, with only the piles of dead in the streets to bear
witness as in the Plague Years of the Middle Ages.
EXT: KASHMIR- IMPACTS – INDIAN ECONOMY

Indo-Pak escalation destroys investment, undermines Indian economy.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and
secretary to the government of India., “The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict:
Opportunities for Economic Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy,” Special Report No. 121,
June, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr121.html)
In a time of globalization, India's rapid rise as an economic power makes it attractive to the United States as
a trading partner. India's economic resurgence, however, has been constricted by turbulence in the northwest
of the country. Punjab, India's most prosperous agricultural state, has failed to attract foreign direct
investment commensurate with the potential of its resources, despite its enterprising diaspora. This is partly
because some of the Sikh community, which constitutes two-thirds of the population of Punjab, took
recourse to violence between 1978 and 1993 in an attempt to establish an independent homeland of
"Khalistan." Although the climate in Punjab is now peaceful, investors are still wary, given its location along
a troubled frontier. And while India's software revolution has lured a number of U.S. investors, most of the
computer industry is concentrated in the southern part of the country, in the great state capitals of Bangalore
and Hyderabad, fostering an asymmetrical development of India's economy. And, tragically, the
confrontation over the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir has vitiated the relationship between
India's two largest communities: Hindu and Muslim.The United States can, as a friend, be instrumental in
alleviating the concerns of both countries in areas perceived by them to be vital to their growth.
The American Indian economy is key to the global economy.

Tripathi, 07. (H.E. Ambassador Amitava Tripathi, Ambassador of India, at the India Symposium 2007
organized by the Asia Research Centre of the University of St. Gallen in Zurich, June 22, “India’s integration
into Global Economy,” http://www.indembassybern.ch/pdf-download/Speech%20by%20Amb-
%20India%20Symposium%2007.pdf)
In October 2003 the Goldman Sachs had identified India in its famous BRIC report as a country with the
potential to emerge as the third biggest economy in the world after China and USA by the middle of this
century. They have now recently revised this report to forecast that India’s GDP will grow at a faster rate
than earlier anticipated and will surpass those of Italy, France and UK by the middle of 2015, those of
Germany and Japan by 2030 and finally that of the USA by 2050 to emerge as the second largest economy
after China. What may equally be of interest to the audience here today is that by the middle of the 21st
century, the size of the Indian economy will be nearly four times that of Japan, which by then would have
been relegated to the fourth position in the global pecking order. Factors driving India’s ascendancy in the
global economy are several. Perhaps the most dramatic one is the momentous demographic changes that are
currently underway. India is already home to the youngest population in the world, where 50% of the
population is under the age of 25 and the median age is mere 24 years. This massive young population
provides India with a large pool of relatively inexpensive labour and, with the country’s aggregate
purchasing power rising as educational and skill levels improve over time, is a huge potential market for
goods and services. Also, Indians are consuming more than ever before and the burgeoning Indian middle
class, variously estimated at between 150- 300 million, depending on the criteria of assessment, are adding
anywhere between 10-15 millions to their numbers annually. As is well known, the services sector continues
to drive the Indian economy accounting for over 50% of the GDP. India’s major economic advantage over
China remains the skills of its English conversant white-collared workers in an increasingly technology
driven global market. At the same time the Government of India is becoming increasingly mindful of the
fact that services alone will not provide all the jobs that are needed for the fast growing population in the
country and that the manufacturing sector will have to play an increasingly important role. To keep the
momentum going, the Government has proposed a number of initiatives, including the promotion and
enhancement of FDI in various sectors and the rising levels of FDI and interest shown by global companies
clearly indicate that the strategy has paid off and that no global player can afford to ignore India any more.
EXT: KASHMIR- TERMINAL IMPACTS – INDO-PAK

Indo-Pak conflict resolution key war on terror, solves proxy wars and political tensions.
Habibullah, 04 (Wajahat, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and
secretary to the government of India. “The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict:
Opportunities for Economic Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy,” Special Report No. 121,
June, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr121.html)
If—thanks in part to strong U.S. encouragement—the flow of terrorists from Pakistan into Kashmir were to
be halted, the U.S. "war on terrorism" would be advanced and the Kashmiri people would no longer suffer in
India's and Pakistan's proxy war. If Pakistan makes such positive moves, so too must India by reducing its
military and paramilitary presence in Jammu and Kashmir. This in turn would ease threat perceptions in
Pakistan, encouraging it to reduce its economically debilitating levels of defense expenditure.The
deployment of large security forces in civilian neighborhoods only feeds public resentment, fueling
violence. While it will be necessary for India to maintain a military presence in the state until normalcy
returns, that presence should be scaled down steadily, and the responsibility for the administration of law
and order should be restored to the local police. Such a measure would help rebuild the Kashmiri public's
confidence in the Indian central and state governments.By gradually reducing their military presence in
Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan can set a course for the peaceful resolution of their differences. I
have suggested the role the United States could play in promoting investment in the state through its own aid
agencies, helping those dispossessed and traumatized by the violence to return to a normal, economically
productive life. By actively encouraging economic revitalization, the United States could help the young
people of Jammu and Kashmir, the fulcrum of the conflict, to create constructive lives for themselves and to
eschew violence. Recently, the APHC, composed of the leadership of the separatist elements, initiated a
dialogue with the Indian government at the level of deputy prime minister. Although this process has moved
fitfully amid doubts about the parties' good faith, this is to be expected in initial interactions of this nature.
Furthermore, the process enjoys broad-ranging political support in India and will not therefore founder
merely because of a change in government. The leadership of the government of India elected in 2004 had in
fact opened communication with separatist elements before the recent dialogue was launched. Positive steps
are being taken. The United States can help to boost the chances that these efforts will yield a lasting
resolution of the conflict through a variety of actions, few if any of which require offending political
sensibilities in India and Pakistan. For instance, the United States could help to create employment
opportunities for the youth of Kashmir, to promote international investment in Jammu and Kashmir, and to
set up centers to provide psychiatric care to a deeply traumatized people.Although the United States and the
rest of the international community can make significant contributions to the process of restoring peace in
Jammu and Kashmir, ultimately it will be up to India and Pakistan to find a solution to their conflict over
Kashmir. The good news is that all three major stakeholders—Pakistan, through the repeated statements
made by its leadership; India, through its constitution guaranteeing liberty to its citizenry; and the Kashmiri
leadership, through its concern for the people that it claims to represent—already share a concern for the
peace and dignity of the Kashmiris. Now they must work to construct an environment in which peace and
dignity can be achieved.
EXT: KASHMIR- A2 HEG SOLVES KASHMIR

Not true – U.S. intervention to solve conflict doesn’t assume the underlying causes of
militancy, only recognition of the people’s rights and self-governance can solve.
Chandran, 08.(D. Suba, Assistant Director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi.
“Jammu & Kashmir: India’s Objectives and Strategies,” Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The
bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 / Winter 2007-8,
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/S&P-wi2007-8.pdf)
Until recently, India perceived both the conflict in and conflict of J&K mainly through the prism of
terrorism. Internally, the absence of militant attacks is seen as the presence of peace and political stability in
Kashmir. Problems of governance are seen as an offshoot of militancy; hence, the government has believed
that once the latter is brought under control, there would be better governance. Issues such as corruption and
bad governance are carpeted under militancy. Counterinsurgency operations have assumed more
significance, without understanding that militancy has been the product of certain political questions and
that once these political questions are addressed, the militancy would automatically die down. These
political questions raised by the Kashmiris may be real or imaginary or both; but it is the duty of the
government to address them politically.
**2AC ADD-ONS**
2AC FREE TRADE

Our re-conceptualization of self determination is key to free trade
Gidon Gottlieb, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Leo Spitz Professor of International
Law and Diplomacy, University of Chicago, May/June 1994, Foreign Affairs
A SOFT APPROACH to managing the problems of nationalism corresponds to the profound changes that
erode state sovereignty and reduce the all-importance of territoriality. These changes are characteristic of a
global economy in which capital, technology and information flow unimpeded. Two contradictory trends --
the integration and the fragmentation of states -- are unfolding concurrently. The rise of free-trade areas that
pushed states toward closer integration has paradoxically strengthened isolationist forces that nourish a
revival of nationalism and ethnic strife. Nationalism is driven by the affinity-identity passions of ethnic
communities and religious groups thirsting for self-esteem and dignity. These sentiments are strongest among
laggards with hurt pride in the dark corners of fallen empires. The interests that propel states toward ever-
closer economic integration are embodied in the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation forum, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the European Union. The
opposition to NAFTA among labor and environmental groups fed the isolationist forces that rejected a greater
integration of the world economy. The GATT arrangements were, on the whole, concluded in a manner that
minimized the participation of communities such as farmers in decisions that affected their future. Both
processes created coalitions with a marked inward and nationalist bent. Deep tides of nationalist feelings and
powerful financial and market interests are running in opposite directions. These tides are running up against
the politically driven forces of governments, which are jealous of the authority and jurisdiction that was
traditionally theirs. They are slow to relinquish control over people and activities that were long in their
grasp. The spontaneous emergence of market-driven "region states" across national frontiers has further
inhibited government action and regulation. n2 The region states are engines of growth that prosper only
where state intrusion is minimal. The reconciliation of these profoundly conflicting trends -- the political and
nationalist trends affirming state sovereignty, the economic trends forcing their wider association and the
ethnically driven fragmentation trends threatening their unity -- is a central task for modern statecraft. Soft
forms of nationhood can help reconcile the forces of fragmentation. What is required is nothing less than a
rethinking of self-determination; a revision of the Westphalian system, limited to states, from which other
national communities are excluded; a readiness to update the peace settlements of 1919-23 with a scheme
that reconciles the claims of national communities dispersed in the former empires of the east with the
territorial integrity of existing states; a willingness to entertain national demands in terms broader than the
protection of persons belonging to minorities and individual human rights; the adoption of diverse types of
intermediate status between autonomy and territorial sovereignty; the elaboration of new kinds of regional
standing for national communities that have no state of their own. All of this is within the reach of
contemporary statecraft.
That would cause nuclear conflict

Spicer, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, 1996, p. 121
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II:
between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring,
or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for
innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite
technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to
provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which
natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that
the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a
proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in
the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the
years ahead.
2AC YUCCA
The economic pressures tribes are confronted with result in the forced choice to accept
pollution and other waste from distant states
Louis G. Leonard, Executive Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, 1997, p. 690
When combined with the historic degradation of their land-based economy, and their lack of additional
avenues to economic prosperity, these economic pressures have created a situation where tribes have no real
choice for economic survival other than degrading their land base by accepting pollution and other waste
from distant states. n334 Knowing that tribes are in this desperate economic situation, the federal government
is now using the concept of tribal sovereignty as an excuse for allowing nuclear waste to gravitate toward
tribal reservations. n335 First, through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 (NWPA), n336
Congress facilitated the siting of waste on reservation lands. n337 Today Congress is content to let the
market direct waste siting; this naturally has led it to the inexpensive and politically weak lands owned by
tribes. The federal government has a strong interest in allowing tribes like the Mescalero to house nuclear
waste, because the NWPA obligates the federal government to take possession of the waste by 1998 if a
suitable temporary storage facility [*690] is not built. n338 It faces lawsuits from the storage-deprived
nuclear power industry to enforce this obligation. n339
Yucca Mountain’s location leaves it subject to volcanic activity and flooding, which could
release radioactivity into the atmosphere and water risking extinction.
Taliman, 92 (Valerie, editor of Indian Country Today & Indian Law Resource Center, News from Indian Country,
Vol. VI, Iss. 20, pg. 6, May 31)
The safety of the proposed site has been challenged, Yucca Mountain lies in an active tectonic zone called the
Walker Lane Structural Zone, a source of numerous large earthquakes in the past. Geological instability is
exacerbated not only by the kiloton bombs which are exploded nearby at the Nevada Test Site and aerial
bombing which continues overhead, but also by nearby volcanic activity. Adding additional danger, the
repository will be built over a major aquifer subject to flash flooding. DOE geologist Jerry Szymansky, who
has worked on the Yucca Mountain project since 1983, has persistently warned that the repository could
cause a disaster of vast proportions. Szymanski contends that groundwater under the mountain could well up,
flood the facility and come into contact with hot canisters of nuclear waste, The water would then vaporize
and could cause ruptures and explosions that would release radioactivity into the atmosphere.17 "You flood
that thing and you could blow the top off the mountain." said University of Colorado geophysicist Charles
Archambeau, who finds Szyrnanski's research convincing.18 At the very least, the radioactive material would
go into the groundwater and spread to Death Valley, where there are hot springs all over the place, constantly
bringing up water from great depths. It would be picked up by birds, animals and plant life. You couldn't stop
it. That's the nightmare it could slowly spread to the whole biosphere. If you want to envision the end of the
world, that's it".
EXT: YUCCA- SELF-D SOLVES
Boosting American Indian Economies and Sovereignty will halt toxic waste dumping in
Indian Country
Norrell 2005 (Brenda, “Treaty Could Prevent Yucca Mountain”, http://a4nr.org/articles/yuccatreaty)
LAS VEGAS - Attorney Treva Hearne, partner at Hager and Hearne in Reno and counsel to the Western
Shoshone National Council, said it is time for the United States to honor its treaties with American Indians
and halt its longstanding history of human rights abuses. The U.S. plans to entomb 77,000 tons of highly
radioactive commercial, industrial and military waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Although
Congress and the Bush administration selected the site in 2002, a planned 2010 opening has been delayed by budget, legal and technical
difficulties. A lawsuit filed March 4 by the Western Shoshone National Council in federal district court in Las Vegas seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief to stop the plan, as the area has long been held as significant to the Western Shoshone Nation
and included within the tribe's boundaries as described in Article 5 of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. The
United States, U.S. Interior and U.S. Department of Energy are named as defendants, and two people are specifically named: Secretary
of Interior Gayle Norton and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Hearne, co-counsel filing the suit, said the treaty only allows for
communities, mining, agriculture and the development of roads and a railroad. A nuclear waste dump would prevent all of
this. ''That land would be lost,'' Hearne told Indian Country Today. ''It would be lost for 10,000 years. In other words - it would be
lost forever. ''The Western Shoshone are speaking for all of the people of Nevada who do not want this land lost to humans forever.''
Responding to the pattern of nuclear waste dumps on Indian lands, Hearne said, ''Unfortunately we have more human rights violations
against Indian people in the United States than there are human rights violations against any people in any of the other countries we
accuse of this.'' Hearne said toxic waste dumps on Indian lands reflect the U.S. government's lack of respect for
the culture and rights of Indian people. Western Shoshone National Council Chairman Raymond Yowell said
the fact that Indian nations are sovereign and not subject to the same U.S. environmental protection laws as
the states has made Indian nations targets for deadly nuclear dumping. Indian nations have also been targeted
because of their need to boost their economies, he said. Yowell warned against the proposal for the temporary nuclear waste
dump on Goshute land in Utah. ''Our view is, once they get it there, they will never move it.'' While Goshutes are split on the proposal,
he pointed out that some Goshute accepted the U.S. government promise of dollars. ''They offered them money and bought their way in,''
Yowell said. ''High-level nuclear waste must not be stored in the breast of Mother Earth at Yucca Mountain,'' the Council said. A hearing
will be scheduled by the court and could be held as early as the end of March, Western Shoshone said in a written statement. A federal
Energy Department spokesman declined comment.
EXT: YUCCA- IMPACTS

Yucca Mountain is not suitable for storage due to fractures, allowing radioactivity to leak
to the aquifer and into the atmosphere.
Miller, 02 (Joseph, Professor at Lewis & Clark School, South Bend Tribune, March 24, page Lexis)
High level nuclear waste needs to be isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years.
Yucca Mountain is unacceptable as a repository because: The rock in the mountain is highly fractured due to
frequent earthquakes. According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Services (NIRS), for instance,
more than 600 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater have occurred within 50 miles of the site during the
last 25 years. In 1992, a 5.6 level quake occurred just 12 miles from the site. Rather than taking thousands of
years for rainwater to reach the proposed repository as previously predicted, rainwater was recently found
that was only 40 years old. A magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake at the site could dramatically raise the water table
below the site, flooding the repository and creating a rapid corrosive breakdown of the metal disposal
canisters and possible steam explosion. Either event would allow radioactivity to leak through the fractures to
the aquifer beneath the site (which serves Las Vegas) and to the atmosphere.
There is no way to safely store or transport waste, leaving Yucca Mountain subject to leaks
and the waste in transport subject to terror attacks.
Rifkin, 06 (Jeremy, author of The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the
Redistribution of Power on Earth, Los Angeles Times, October 4, Page Lexis)
Second, 60 years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or
store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the Federal
Government spent more than $US8 billion ($A10.6 billion) and 20 years building what was supposed to be
an airtight tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was
designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that
the underground storage facility will leak.Third, according to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency
in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered,
and it is possible technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains speculative.Fourth, building
hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamist terrorism seems insane. On the one hand, the
United States, the European Union and much of the world is frightened by the mere possibility that just one country, Iran, might use
enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, many of the same governments are eager to
spread nuclear power plants around the world, placing them in every nook and cranny. This means uranium and spent nuclear
waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas.
EXT: YUCCA-IMPACTS
Dumping on Yucca Mountain represents a national security failure
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 07. [“Groups Testify
on Impact of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Transportation and Storage.” December 5, 2007. U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1205-
24.htm]
At a Department of Energy (DOE) hearing today, a coalition of environmental and security groups detailed
their concerns over the proposed plan to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, Nevada for storage.
Citing serious security, environmental, and public health threats associated with shipping nuclear waste
through residential areas across the United States, the groups stated that the Yucca Mountain plan has
fundamental flaws and should not go forward. In 1987, Yucca Mountain, Nevada was selected by Congress
as the only site to be studied as a permanent geologic repository for the United States’ now approximately
60,000 metric tons of commercial nuclear waste. Due to a protracted battle over security, environmental,
scientific and health concerns, the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository has never opened. After a twenty
year battle, the DOE is still struggling against strong public and congressional opposition to the plan.
"Shipping tens of thousands of high-level radioactive waste trucks, trains, and barges through 45 states and
the District of Columbia risks severe accidents and terrorist attacks releasing catastrophic amounts of deadly
radioactivity in major population centers," said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear. "These waste transports
would represent potential Mobile Chernobyls and dirty bombs on wheels rolling past the homes of millions
of Americans." “Instead of the flawed Yucca Mountain plan, our member organizations support hardened on
site storage of spent nuclear fuel as described in the Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors,”
said Alfred Meyer, Program Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability representing 35
organizations around the U.S. "From a scientific, national security and energy policy perspective, Yucca
Mountain is a failure. Rather than continue to sink precious public resources into the failed nuclear waste
dump, the Department of Energy should be focused on promoting the technologies proven to work:
renewable energy like wind and solar and energy efficiency," said Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen's
Energy Program. “Yucca Mountain is a volcano on an aquifer in an earthquake zone,” said Ben Schreiber,
Energy Advocate for Environment America. “It is unsound for the permanent storage of nuclear waste.”
“Yucca Mountain is the worst single site that has been evaluated in the U.S. and should be abandoned,” said
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. “In addition to the
environmental, security, and health threats, simple math says that Yucca is not a viable solution to the United
States’ nuclear waste problem. The total amount of commercial nuclear waste in the US will exceed Yucca’s
capacity for storage by 2010. Any way you look at it, a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain doesn’t
add up,” said Nickolas Roth, Washington, DC Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
EXT: YUCCA-IMPACTS
Disposal of waste at Yucca will contaminate groundwater risking massive human casualties
Moret 01. [Leuren Moret. Past President, Association for Women Geoscientists. January 8, 2001. “Environmental
Justice at Yucca Mountain: An Analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy "Draft Environmental Impact Statement"
For the Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository At Yucca Mountain.”
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/moret.html]
Below are some comments on Yucca Mountain from a geologic perspective. All of these factors must be considered with the community
perspective in order to make democratic decisions based on good science. The issues being considered at Yucca Mountain
not only concern the disposal of high level radioactive waste in the US, but our decisions and solutions will be
considered in other countries struggling with this problematic issue. The US should take the moral leadership to resolve this global issue
instead of shoving it in a can, screwing the lid on and saying it's safe. It is critical, because of the certainty of future radioactive
contamination of groundwater in the global environment, to first find a scientifically sound solution in the US. Geologic burial of
radioactive waste, in my opinion, is not suitable for a number of reasons which should be considered by any decision makers.
Geologic burial will result in radioactive contamination of the groundwater from leaking waste, it is just a
matter of time. We as a global community cannot afford this. The world is out of water. Geoscientists cannot
safely predict, with simplistic computer modeling methods now used, the complexity of natural systems interacting with hlrw [high level
radioactive waste] over deep time (geologic time which can be thousands, millions or billions of years). The viability of containers
fabricated to hold hlrw is also an unknown. Because we have been studying radiation for a short time, it is ludicrous
for scientists to make statements that it will be "safe" in containers in underground storage for 10,000 years.
The DOE plan to fill the tunnels with cement destroys the very purpose of selecting geologic burial - the ability to retrieve and monitor
hlrw, and disturbs the natural system selected for its ability to isolate the waste.
Site suitability using scientific guidelines for consideration of a geologic repository should evaluate: groundwater movement, climatic
stability, geologic stability. Yucca Mtn. has failed to meet these criteria in investigations outlined in the DEIS, and is unsuitable for many
reasons beyond these key factors. It has been in the interests of the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries to
downplay the health effects of radiation. These industries are initiating the death crisis of our species, and the
disposal of hlrw will add to the rising death toll. It is a violation of human rights to cause an unwanted attack
on a person or their reproductive capacity. There are no safe levels of radiation exposure for living
organisms. Dr. Rosalie Bertell has calculated the real number of victims of the nuclear age (The Ecologist v.29 no.7 November 1999).
During the past fifty years from weapons testing, she reports 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects, and 587 million
teratogenic effects which total 1,200 million people affected. Electricity production from nuclear plants during 1943-2000, may have led
to another million victims, with as much as 20% resulting in premature cancer deaths. Not officially counted, are as many as 500 million
still births from radiation exposure while in the womb during that time period. In her estimates of fatal and non-fatal cancers, they are
more than doubled if skin cancers are included. This indicates that elevated skin cancer rates at LLNL are just part of total cancers for
lab workers and that the lab is under-reporting cancer rates. Politicians, government experts, establishment scientists and the radiation
protection industry are telling us we have nothing to fear. Dr. Bertell's book No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth
(revised 2001) reveals how the nuclear industry massively underestimates the real cost to human health and
hides the victims with restrictive definitions of radiation-caused illnesses. Poor bureaucratic solutions to hlrw
disposal will increase the numbers of victims of the nuclear age. The transport of hlrw is also a critical issue, particularly
after comments from the audience at a NRC public meeting on "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials" held in
Oakland, California, on Sept. 26, 2000. During the discussion, a man in the audience wondered if anyone had information about a lost
railroad shipment of fuel rods. Another woman spoke up about a lost railroad shipment of fuel rods in casks which had been missing for
1 week last summer. She said it was finally located in Sacramento. The man said he was talking about a lost shipment in Nevada. Neither
Bill Brach (NRC) nor Fred Ferarte (DOT) had knowledge of any lost fuel rod shipments. With 100,000 shipments over the
next 30 years, further unnecessary exposure of citizens will occur when the responsible agencies are not even
informed and cover-ups preclude developing better tracking methods. Citizens will be exposed and never
know it.
EXT: YUCCA-IMPACTS
Dumping at Yucca violates natives right to self-determination and risks fatal accidents.
Nuclear Waste Project Office 98. [“Why Does the State Oppose Yucca Mountain?” Nuclear Waste Project
Office. February 4, 1998. http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/state01.htm]
The U.S. Department of Energy plans to turn Yucca Mountain into the nation's first high-level nuclear waste
repository, if a study finds the site safe. If the plan proceeds, 77,000 tons of hazardous radioactive materials
from the 110 U.S. commercial nuclear power plants — 90 percent of which are east of the Mississippi River
— and the government's nuclear weapons complex will be entombed at Yucca Mountain. The wastes need to
be contained for at least 10,000 years because of the extreme hazards to public health and the environment
associated with these radioactive materials. The Yucca Mountain controversy involves fundamental issues of
a state's right to determine its economic and environmental future and to consent or object to federal projects
within its borders. Why You Should Be Involved: Scientific uncertainties. Many studies by federal
government scientists and independent contractors suggest that Yucca Mountain is unsafe for holding nuclear
waste and keeping it out of the environment. In fact, State of Nevada scientists believe that the site, under the
DOE's own guidelines, should already have been disqualified. Nuclear waste. Radiation from nuclear waste
proposed for Yucca Mountain burial is so intense that anyone with direct contact would receive a fatal dose
instantly. Spent nuclear fuel contains tons of plutonium, an extremely toxic byproduct with a half-life of
24,000 years. One-billionth of an ounce, if ingested, can cause cancer or genetic defects. Politics and
economics. Many feel these influences are too great to allow for an objective evaluation of the site. Dump
proponents and the nuclear power industry are eager to get the site approved despite significant
environmental and health and safety problems. Should the site not work out, the nuclear industry believes it
would be set back decades in its goal to build new nuclear power plants. 10,000 years. Since a dump like this
that must last for 10,000 years — almost twice as long as mankind's recorded history — has never been built
anywhere in the world, proponents believe that Nevadans should rely on DOE safety evaluations and
predictions that it will leak no more than permitted by regulations. The DOE's track record in handling
nuclear materials, however, is extremely poor. The State's Position: State leaders believe the current high-
level nuclear waste dump program is fatally flawed, and because of this have found it necessary to oppose the
use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository for a variety of reasons: Much evidence shows that
Yucca Mountain is not safe for nuclear waste disposal in that it is geologically and hydrologically active and
complex. Radioactive substances could leak from the dump and create serious long-term health risks to the
citizens of Nevada. Large-scale radioactive releases could occur through a variety of possible scenarios
caused by volcanos, earthquakes or hydrothermal activity at Yucca Mountain.
EXT: YUCCA-IMPACTS
Yucca is a sacred mountain to the Shoshones—dumping risks a loss of cultural diversity
Review Journal 03. [KEITH ROGERS. “NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY: Yucca Mountain already having
effect on tribes: American Indians waiting for U.S. government to give them voice.” Tuesday, September 02, 2003.
Las Vegas Review-Journal. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Sep-02-Tue-2003/news/22036708.html]
Like a giant snake slithering westward, Yucca Mountain zigzags for nearly 20 miles across the remote terrain
of southern Nye County. On one side, a band of white rock separates its belly from its back, midway to the
top of its 5,000-foot crest. It is alive and moving in American Indian lore. Deep inside it, a 5-mile tunnel
loops through layers of volcanic rock that someday, possibly as soon as seven years, will lead to a maze of
smaller tunnels destined to become the final resting place for the nation's most deadly nuclear waste. The
ridge, said Joe Kennedy, 36, of the Timbisha tribe, "is a very sacred mountain to Shoshones" and should not
be used for burial of highly radioactive spent fuel from U.S. nuclear power reactors. Until last week,
Kennedy had never been to this place where his father, John, 84, hunted rabbits and roamed the high desert.
The area is about 40 miles northeast of where his grandfather, Joe, helped build Scotty's Castle, in Death
Valley, Calif. And it's in the same area where his great grandfather, Palmetto Fred, lived off the land on what
is now the Nevada Test Site. Because of their proximity to Yucca Mountain, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe
and the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe near Ely filed requests last year with the Interior Department seeking
affected Indian tribe status. The designation, similar to that afforded Nevada and counties around the
mountain, would give the several hundred members of these tribes a voice in matters concerning the project
and funding for independent oversight of it. In November, the National Congress of American Indians passed
a resolution urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to grant affected status to the tribes who submitted
petitions. But after more than 14 months, the Interior Department has not acted on their requests, casting
doubt in the mind of Kennedy and other American Indians that they will be treated fairly as the
congressionally approved project enters the licensing phase late next year. That's when the Department of
Energy is expected to complete a license application for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review. "I
think it's outrageous," Kennedy said last week about the Interior Department's lack of response. "We are very
close to Yucca Mountain, and our waters come from there." An Interior Department spokesman for Indian
Affairs, Dan DuBray, said his agency hasn't decided whether to favor or oppose the petitions by the two
Shoshone tribes. It's unclear whether, or when, a decision will be made. "It has not been resolved," he said by
telephone Thursday. "The timetable has not been set. There is no legal requirement for any certain amount of
time to elapse." His response came as tribal representatives were wrapping up the Native American Forum on
Nuclear Waste, which included a tour of Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The gathering
drew members of tribes from Nevada, California and as far away as Minnesota. It was co-sponsored by the
Western Shoshone National Council, the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe and the Seventh Generation Fund, an
organization based in Arcata, Calif., that is supported in part by the Ford Foundation. The fund gives grants
to tribes for environmental justice campaigns and protection of sacred, American Indian lands. At times, the
tour turned in to a debate over the merits of the science about entombing the waste for at least 10,000 years
2AC DEMOCRACY
International support for internal self determination is key to democratization
The international community, therefore, should attempt to resolve conflicts under principles of internal self-
determination before supporting a people's right to external self-determination with its potentially disruptive
consequences. Although this strategy has not been explicitly enunciated in the international arena, it is
derived from principles found within the Declaration on Friendly Relations. This document implies that a
people's claim to external self-determination is less legitimate when it is living under a system of democratic
governance, i.e., when it can effectively exercise its right to internal self-determination. Movements for
internal self-determination are, in fact, coterminous with movements for increased democracy, which have
recently swept the globe from the former Soviet Union to Guatemala. Some observers have even begun to
advance the idea that there exists an emerging right to democratic governance which may create an obligation
for the international community to promote and protect democracy. The international community must direct
its efforts towards defining the parameters of this emerging right to democratic governance and thereby
delineate the boundaries of the right to internal self-determination.
Global democratic consolidation is essential to prevent many scenarios for war and
extinction.
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, October 1995, “Promoting Democracy in
the 1990’s,” http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed on 12/11/99
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming
years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could
easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime
syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the
institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate.
The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new
and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of
democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that
govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress
against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not
ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to
use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading
partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more
environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the
destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely
because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of
law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and
prosperity can be built.
EXT: DEMOCRACY- SELF-D KEY

Self-determination facilitates peaceful democratic transition
Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 2007 “The Missing Link
between Self-Determination and Democracy: The Case of East Timor”6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 176
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v6/n1/7.
In the Wilsonian formulation, self-determination includes an internal aspect of democracy, because, as self-
rule, self-determination "implies meaningful participation in the process of government." This aspect of self-
determination is commonly referred to as "internal self-determination."However, internal self-determination
was disregarded from the beginning of the modern concept of self-determination. Only in the post-
decolonization era did the international community begin to recognize the importance of internal self-
determination. In 1990, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe explicitly associated internal
self-determination with Western-style democracy. In the final days before the dissolution of the Soviet Union
and Yugoslavia, the European Community and the United States openly conditioned their recognition of the
republics of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia on the realization of the internal self-determination of their
peoples. All the republics of the Soviet Union and four of the six Yugoslav republics accepted such a
condition and gained recognition of the international community soon after.
Self-Determination is a prerequisite to democratic transition

Peters, Retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, ’07 (Ralph, “An errant push for
democracy first; In Iraq, the U.S. has failed to heed Woodrow Wilson's lesson of self-determination. Instead,
dysfunctional borders merely cement foreign policy failures of the past”, USA Today, April 18, Lexis)
Perhaps the worst of the countless mistakes the Bush administration has made in its attempt to open the
Middle East to democracy was the rush to hold elections in Iraq before questions of ethnic and religious
identity had been resolved. We confuse the will of the people with democracy, but the latter is a tool, the
first a passion. Democracy, as we know it, presumes a national community of interests. The lust for self-
determination -- as manifested by the various factions in artificial states such as Iraq -- seeks the supremacy
of an exclusive group. Humans can't be chided into "just getting along." Because the administration and
its partners lacked the vision and fortitude to dismantle Iraq and draw more promising borders for Shiites,
Sunnis and Kurds, the series of elections in which Iraqis braved terror to go to the polls had nothing to do
with strengthening a nation and everything to do with empowering ethnic supremacists and religious
demagogues. Dismissed as a naive dreamer by the Washington establishment, President Woodrow Wilson
got it right nine decades ago: Significant population groups who possess (or assert) a unique identity must be
given a chance at statehood. Not all new states will succeed and frontier revisions will never be perfectly
just, but the violence-spawning conditions we face today -- thanks to dysfunctional borders drawn for
European advantage -- will only worsen until men and women from Darfur through Kurdistan and
Baluchistan to the Karenese in Burma enjoy the right to state, "I am X, this is my land, and this is my flag."
We seek to reason with those possessed by a dream. It never works. 'Failed borders' For 500 years,
Europe deformed the world. The irony of our times is that the United States, history's greatest force for
freedom, spent the years since 1991 maintaining failed borders drawn by the ministers of kaisers, czars and
kings. We have dug our trenches on the wrong side of history.
EXT: DEMOCRACY- SELF-D KEY

To establish a democracy, borders must be withdrawn while using self-determination.
Peters, Retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, ’07 (Ralph, “An errant push for
democracy first; In Iraq, the U.S. has failed to heed Woodrow Wilson's lesson of self-determination. Instead,
dysfunctional borders merely cement foreign policy failures of the past”, USA Today, April 18, Lexis)
Two bipartisan failings in Washington hinder our efforts to help others achieve democracy: first, our blind
acceptance of the world order left behind by collapsed European empires, and second, our prompt default to
oppressive regimes in the name of maintaining stability. Even now, many on both sides of the aisle in
Washington advise a retreat into the embrace of the Saudi royal family and despots such as Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak -- precisely the approach that put us on the path to 9/11. We consistently choose
the expedient option over the more difficult, but ultimately more promising, course in foreign policy. Without
self-determination for major population groups that feel themselves wronged by history, we shall continue to
fall short of our noblest goals. Of course, amending borders to recognize Wilson's dream can't be done by
the United States alone, nor need we pursue such a policy aggressively. It would be an enormous step
forward if we only grasped opportunities to redraw faulty borders as they come -- we threw away a great
chance in Iraq. But we cannot go on standing on history's beach commanding the massive waves to freeze in
place. Those in Washington who have career-long stakes in the dysfunctional global order will insist that
change is too hard, that small or landlocked states cannot survive, that smaller minorities inevitably would be
slighted. The reasons for clinging to the past are always legion -- and usually wrong. Until the remaining
nations-without-a-state are allowed to assert their identities, elections will continue to be about bloodlines
and faith, not democracy as we cherish it.
EXT: DEMOCRACY-GLOBAL CRISIS

Full democracies are critical resolve every emerging global crisis.
Hewitt, et al., 08.(J. Joseph Hewitt [Director of Government Relations], Jonathan Wilkenfeld [Director], and Ted
Robert Gurr [Research Director], Peace and Conflict 2008. Executive Summary, Center for International
Development and Conflict ManagementUniversity of Maryland,
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/executive_summary/pc_es_20070613.pdf,)
Full democracies have numbered about 80 since the mid-1990s (77 in 2006) compared with fewer than 40
autocratic regimes (34 in 2006). Democratic governance is the norm in the early 21st century but in recent
years more regimes have edged into anocracy—a middling category of regimes with an incoherent mix of
authoritarian and democratic features (chapter 4). The existence of 49 anocratic polities in 2005 is of
particular concern because, as a group, they are much more susceptible than either full democracies or
autocracies to political instability and armed conflict (chapter 2), to terrorist attacks (chapter 6), and to
international crises (chapter 8).
2AC CANADA
A U.S. model of accommodation is key to prevent Quebecois secession
Will Kymlicka, Professor of Philosophy at Queen’s University, 2001, Politics in the Vernacular, p. 272-273
I believe they have. Let me give two examples: Canada and Eastern Europe. English-speaking Canadians have been heavily
influenced by American debates, and one consequence of this has been a reluctance to accord the Quebecois
the sort of public recognition of their national identity that they seek. The American influence has made it
more difficult to come to an acceptable settlement with Quebec, even though, as I noted earlier, the United States itself
was quite willing to extend this sort of national recognition to Puerto Rico. If American writers had emphasized that it was
a part of the American practice to accommodate minority nationalisms, then I believe that Quebecers today
would not be so close to seceding from Canada. The situation in Eastern Europe is even more serious. If Quebec were secede, the result
would probably be two relatively stable liberal democracies in the northern half of the continent, instead of one. In Eastern Europe, however, the inability to
accommodate minority nationalism is a threat, not just to existing boundaries, but to democracy itself, and to the existence of peaceful civil society. There is
strong correlation between democratization: and minority nationalism: those countries without significant minority nationalisms have democratized
successfully (Czech Republic; Poland, Hungary; Slovenia); those countries with powerful minority nationalisms are having a much more difficult time
(Slovakia; Ukraine; Romania; Serbia Macedonia). Given this context, the influence of American debates has been unhelpful in two ways. First, it has helped
to marginalize the liberal intellectuals within these countries, who often look to American liberals for guidance. Influenced by American models, these
liberals have little to say about the accommodation of minority nationalism, except to chant the mantra that the solution to ethnic conflict is ‘individual
rights not group rights’. This is an unhelpful slogan since it tells us nothing about how to resolve the issues raised by minority nationalism. The current
conflict in Kosovo, for example, revolves around whether political power should be centralized in Belgrade or whether the regional government in Kosovo
should have extensive autonomy. The slogan ‘individual rights not group rights’ provides no guidance about this conflict. Without any clear conception of
what justice requires in a multination state, liberals have become passive spectators in the struggles between majority and minority nationalists. Second,
American debates have, paradoxically been invoked by majority nationalists to justify suppressing minority nationalisms. Nationalist governments in these
countries have not only studied, but also largely adopted the American rhetoric that a good liberal democracy should be a ‘civic nation They adopt the
language of liberal democracy and civic nationalism partly to impress foreign observers, but also because it provides an excuse to crush minority
nationalism, and to strip national minorities of their separate public institutions and rights of self government. We see this trend in Slovakia. Romania,
Serbia, and Russia. It may be surprising to hear majority nationalists adopt the language of civic nationalism, but they do. And they do so precisely because
it legitimizes policies that inhibit national minorities from expressing a distinct national identity and demanding national rights.
Recognition of an indigenous right to self determination creates a good, anti-secession

international norm
Patrick Thornberry, Professor of International Law, Keele University, 2000, Operationalizing the Right of Indigenous People to Self
Determination, p. 64
Secession is not an issue for most groups, though it is still embedded in the standard imagery of self-
determination. There is opportunity as well as difficulty for the further development of international law. If
we are witnessing the emergence of a specific form of self-determination, its legal recognition as a benign,
protective and balanced mode of self -determination, would be a considerable prize for international law and
a possible model of good practice for application in related contexts. There are features in indigenous
descriptions which are capable of moving self-determination away from a fascination with secession towards
broader notions of human dignity and solidarity.
That encourages nuclear attack on the United States

Lansing Lamont, Time Correspondent, 1994, Breakup, p. 236-237
Its development in the late 1980s proved a signal advance in continental security, although some Canadians believed that new radar technology would
render the network obsolete by the end of the century. Others feared it would draw Canada further into the Star Wars strategizing of Pentagon planners.
Paved Paws did not assuage the larger fear of military analysts that by the early 1990s, after the START Treaty had been signed by the United States and
Russia, Canada, as the front line of any nuclear attack on North America, stood to face an expanded armory of Russian cruise missiles which could be
launched southward from the Arctic through Canadian airspace. A provision in the treaty to reduce both superpowers nuclear stockpiles ironically permitted
the Russians, as part of a trade-off, to increase their cruise arsenal by nearly half. Thus, instead of land-based ICBMs, easier to track and shoot down with
Canada now faces the possibility of some day having to track one or more cigar-shaped
their predictable trajectories,
cruises streaking at tree level over Canadian territory toward a designated target. That prospect, however dim
at the moment, could take on sharper tones in the context of these possible developments: Quebec’s
separation and the emergence to America’s north of a fragmented Canada, neither event enhancing the continent’s security;
Canada’s military inadequacies and an erosion of Canada-U.S. relations, which might send signals inviting aggression by the
Western alliance’s adversaries; or a political upheaval in the former Soviet Union, which would precipitate an international crisis. Any
prolonged crisis, as security analysts know, involves not only heightened tensions and escalating suspicions but a shift in emphasis to
preparing for a very rapid response if hostilities erupt. In such situations the usual safeguards are sometimes apt to be disregarded or
even removed.
EXT: CANADA-BRINK
Quebecois succession is on the brink – PQ ahead in independence polls
The Economist 07 [“The strange disarray of Quebec separatism; Canada”, February 24, 2007, lexis]
That Quebec should remain a part of mainly English-speaking Canada can never be taken for granted.
Ségolène Royal, France's gaffe-prone Socialist candidate for president, stirred up Canadians recently by
calling for self-determination for the French-speaking province. A referendum on independence in 1995 was
lost by a margin as thin as a maple leaf, with 49.4% voting in favour. Some 45% of Quebeckers still tell
pollsters they would vote Yes in another referendum. For much of Mr Charest's term the pro-independence
opposition, the Parti Québécois (PQ), has been way ahead in the opinion polls.
Quebecois secession is on the brink – Canadian politicians stirring up trouble

Sydney Morning Herald 06 [“Quebec is on the brink”, Richard Reynolds in Toronto and agencies, November 24,
2006, lexis]
CANADIAN politicians have reopened a divisive debate over the French-speaking province of Quebec that
has sat quietly on the backburner for 11 years - and that could, once again, bring Canada to the brink of
breaking up. On Wednesday the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper told the House of Commons that "this
House recognises that Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada". Mr Harper moved because the
separatist Bloc Quebecois had put forward a motion, to be debated in the Commons yesterday, saying "that
this House recognises that Quebecois form a nation", but did not include the words "in Canada".
EXT: CANADA-US MODEL KEY

American opposition to secession prevents Quebecois secession - Clinton Doctrine proves
Washington Times 99 [“Secessions vs. praise for unity”, Arnold Beichman, October 18, 1999, lexis]
In much-overlooked speech delivered Oct. 8 in a perfect location for such a speech - Canada burdened by a
secessionist Quebec government - President Clinton laid down a foreign policy doctrine which because of its
inevitable ambiguity could embarrass the United States right into the 21st century. Faced with the global
germination of sub-nationalism, i.e., belligerent independence movements by unhappy ethnic minorities
within existing nation-states, the president said the United States would support such movements if, and only
if, they existed in undemocratic societies. But he was clearly unhappy at the prospect of globalization of
ethnic-linguistic nationalism. Should such globalization occur, it could add scores if not hundreds of unviable
mini-states to some 200 presently existing nation-states, many of them already economic basket-cases.
Permanent U.N. (for which read U.S.) military intervention known as peace-keeping would become a normal
part of the international system. In sub-nationalism we have an intractable problem because it is as much
emotional as it is rational. It poses the worst-case dilemma in the human condition - the struggle between
right and right. Professor Norman Davies in his two-volume history of Poland, defined nationality as
"essentially a belief, a deep sense of conviction concerning one's personal identity." To achieve that identity
is one right. Sanctity of national frontiers is another right. Mr. Clinton made it clear in a speech in praise of
federalism delivered in French-speaking Quebec itself that he would oppose the breakup of Canada, a
country with a relatively excellent record of observance of human rights, especially those of the Quebecois
themselves.
American opposition to external self-determination has empirically prevented Quebecois

secession
Globe and Mail 95 [“Quebec’s New Role Calms US Fears”, Globe and Mail, Grahm Fraiser, January 13, 1995,
lexis]
The U.S. position on an independent Quebec has not changed, the State Department says.At the daily press
briefing yesterday, spokeswoman Christine Shelly was asked about a comment that Peter Tarnoff,
undersecretary of state for political affairs, had made on Wednesday. Mr. Tarnoff said: "As you know, we
are very strong supporters of one Canada." This was a change from previous State Department comments on
Canadian unity. "If you're asking me if the administration position on a separatist Quebec is shifting, the
answer is no," Ms. Shelly said yesterday. "We repeat our long-standing position that we enjoy excellent
relations with a strong and unified and united Canada. Canada's political future, naturally, is for Canadians
to decide. Undersecretary Tarnoff's reference to one Canada did not indicate a shift in U.S. policy, and it
remains exactly as I've said it. We enjoy excellent relations with a strong and united Canada, and their
political future is for Canadians to decide."
America’s stance on self-determination is important to Canadians

Christian Science Monitor 95 [“Canada to Quebec: Please Don't Go”, Christian Science Monitor, Mark
Clayton, October 27, 1995, lexis]
But Chretien's pitch telling Quebeckers that ''anything'' including constitutional renewal ''is possible'' may be
too little too late, writes Lysianne Gagnon, a Montreal columnist who says Chretien's message isn't sinking
in. Others worry that she may be right. Canadians also realize there is trouble afoot when the United States
president breaks the traditional US stance of neutrality on the Quebec issue. ''Canada has been a great model
for the rest of the world and a great partner for the United States, and I hope that can continue,'' President
Clinton said Wednesday, adding that the US wants to see ''a strong and united Canada.'' So serious is the
present situation that Chretien invoked a little- used law that required TV networks to give him air time . ''In
a few days the shouting will be over, and you will be alone to make your decision,'' he said. ''I urge you my
fellow Quebeckers to listen to your heart - and your head.''
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSION KILLS HEG

Quebec secession destroys U.S. leadership
Lansing Lamont, Time Correspondent, 1994, Breakup, p. 229
Most assuredly, the United States would lose a valued ally in an increasingly turbulent world, would see the
North American partnership weakened and future relations with Canada cast in doubt. The United States
would also confront to its north a prickly new nation of Quebec with dubious allegiances and an uncertain
course. Canada’s dissolution, if it comes, would not present the same dangers it might have twenty years ago
when the separatists first came to power in Quebec. Then, the loss of a united Canada would have been a
strategic blow to the Western alliance as it sought to maintain a solid front against Soviet expansion. The end
of the Cold War has reduced the military dangers of a northern breakup, just as free trade has mitigated the
economic perils. But the rupture of Canada would still put at risk many of America’s commercial and
continental defense arrangements, while entailing substantial costs to its export economy and foreign policy.
Canada’s reliability as our closest NATO and North American stalwart would be the first big casualty. No
superpower like America can give full focus to, and effectively exercise, its worldwide leadership
responsibilities with insecurity or turmoil in its backyard. Over the long term, a wounded Canada would act
less boldly and swiftly in North America’s interests, and would take fewer risks in the international arena.
U.S. designs in the hemisphere—for more dependable security structures in Central America arid the
Caribbean, say, or for more durable democracies in the southern cone—would be that much more difficult to
accomplish without Canada’s committed support. A fractured Canada would gradually lose its international
Boy Scout image, which U.S. diplomats have found immeasurably helpful. When America has wished some
other power to take the lead on initiatives where U.S. credibility was weak, it has frequently used Canada as
a stalking horse because, as one U.S. diplomat put it, ‘They can do things that we can’t.”
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSIONPROTECTIONSIM

Quebec secession leads to protectionism
A Canada fractured politically would be a Canada fractured economically, with all the inefficiencies and
threats of protectionism that implies. Provinces that regularly discriminate against each other within
Confederation could readily do the same to outsiders, despite the Free Trade accord, if they felt threatened in
a new milieu of fragmentation. Ontario might elect to opt out of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,
which it never warmed to, and rebuild tariff walls against selective U.S. exports; or it might negotiate a
separate Ontario-Quebec customs union that could hamper U.S. exports and investments. Without federal
sway in Ottawa, U.S. industries could end up battling with powerful provinces like Ontario over beer prices,
British Columbia over lumber subsidies, or Alberta over energy contracts. American businesses would see
themselves whipsawed between differing provincial rules and standards, snared within a galaxy of
conflicting regulations. Breakup would be horrendous for U.S. firms in, for example, public accounting
where practices vary from province to province. For American businesses, the whole commercial intercourse
between Canada and the United States would become a nightmare. Only the lawyers might think it a dream.
EXT: CANADA- QUEBEC SECESSIONINTERNATIONAL

FRAGMENTATION
Quebec secession leads to international fragmentation
A breakup of Canada would in all likelihood send the world a message of despair. For if Canada, long one of
the most successful models of a multi-ethnic society, cannot in the end accommodate the regional and
linguistic demands of its constituent parts, the obvious question is, who can? What country and what peoples
can hope to succeed if the Canadian experiment in tolerance and cooperation is seen to fail? Canada’s disinte-
gration would instruct the world, particularly its less favored peoples, that even the richest, freest, and most
developed democracies can die when the will to unify has atrophied. An eclipse of Canada would darken
hopes that the democratic ideal is necessarily mankind’s salvation.
***SECESSIONISM***
SELF-D≠SECESSION
The international community can guarantee a right to self-determination and avoid
secession.
Crawford 2006 [James, Whewell professer of international law at Cambridge University, 2006, The Creation of
States in International Law, p. 21-212.]
Regions of a state, usually possessing some ethnic or cultural distinctiveness, which have been granted
separate powers of internal administration, to whatever degree, without being detached from the State of
which they are part. For such status to be of present interest, it must be in some way internationally binding
upon the central authorities. Given such guarantees, the local entity may have a certain status, although since
that does not normally involve any foreign relations capacity, it is necessarily limited. Until a very advanced
stage is reached in the progress towards self-government, such areas are not States.
Even difficult self-determination disputes can be resolved without the creation of separate
states with guidance from the international community
At the same time, ethnic violence is not a phenomenon that is preordained by history or geography. In many
states, different ethnic groups have lived together harmoniously for decades and, around the world, difficult
self-determination disputes have been settled in a peaceful fashion. History demonstrates that there are many
solutions to ethnic rivalries beyond dividing countries into separate states along ethnic lines. Examples of
power-sharing through history include the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the confessional
democracy of Lebanon, and the multi-ethnic confederal systems of Switzerland and Canada. While many
power-sharing arrangements have proven unsuccessful in the long run, they nevertheless offer lessons and
ideas to draw from in developing such arrangements in the future. Beyond more distant historical examples,
the international community has a growing body of more recent knowledge and experience when it comes to
dealing with ethnic conflict and self-determination movements. These insights—which come from dozens of
conflicts over the past decade and before—can help guide responses in two general categories: prediction and
prevention; and intervention and reconstruction.
“SECESSION” THREATS BAD

Their absolute characterization of self-determination is counterproductive and
inaccurately posits the desires of indigenous persons—false threats of secession can no
longer prevent the USFG from fulfilling its trust responsibility and keeping is promises of
human rights promotion
Characterizing the right to self-determination in such an absolute way may be counterproductive because
doing so gets in the way of fashioning real-world arrangements to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples.
Most indigenous peoples do not seek recognition as independent states, 83 but rather seek to establish
relationships with states that will provide autonomy within their traditional territories. 84 Professor Hannum
stresses that self-determination has both an external aspect, the right to choose to be recognized as an
independent state, and an internal aspect, the right of autonomous self-government; he suggests that internal
self-determination is much more important for ensuring that indigenous peoples have control over their own
lives and the survival of their cultures. 85 Many indigenous peoples need protection against private persons
(individuals and corporations) who intrude into their territories and against attempts by subnational levels of
government to [*693] assert jurisdiction within their territories. 86 Many, perhaps most, indigenous peoples would
forswear freely any claims to external sovereignty in exchange for enforceable promises that states would provide protection against
such threats (although indigenous peoples will be wary of such promises until there are enforcement mechanisms under international
law). As Professor Anaya says, "The absolutist view of self-determination moreover, misses the principle's essential thrust, which is not
fundamentally about exercising a one-shot choice for some degree of 'sovereignty' but, rather, is about securing for individuals and
groups a political order that promotes a perpetual condition of freedom." 87 In other words, in its quest for external self-determination,
the absolutist view neglects internal self-determination. Moreover, given that the draft declaration has been prepared for adoption by
the United Nations, which is a collective body of states, a right to internal self-determination may be as much as indigenous peoples
realistically should expect. The Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group has indicated as much, stating that the principle of self-
determination has been used in the draft declaration "in its internal character, that is short of any implications which might encourage
the formation of independent states." 88 Nevertheless, if indigenous peoples are to have real freedom in determining their relationships
with states and in exercising autonomous self-government, there must be some possibility of international intervention in instances
where states deprive indigenous peoples of their human rights, including the right to internal self-determination. 89 That is, in some
cases, true autonomy may not be attainable without external self-determination as well. States such as the United States and
Canada, which consider themselves leaders in the international human rights movement, rather than focusing their
diplomatic attention on denying [*694] indigenous peoples the right of external self-determination under any circumstances, 90
instead should begin to focus on ensuring genuine internal self-determination for indigenous peoples within
their jurisdictions, defining the kinds of circumstances in which external self-determination may be warranted, and fashioning the
processes through which the international community may intervene to make self-determination for indigenous peoples a reality.
Threats of secession are constructed for states to maintain the status quo
It seems to me that the debate about self-determination is not really about the threat that indigenous peoples will choose to become
independent states. The argument about independence and the territorial integrity of states looks suspiciously like a straw man. 91
Perhaps the argument is really about who has the right to decide what uses of natural resources will be permitted within the territories of
indigenous peoples. The overwhelming concern of indigenous peoples is to preserve the integrity of the natural environments on which
their ways of life depend. 92 States, transnational corporations, and others see these natural environments as largely unused, and they
seek to exploit natural resources without much regard for the use patterns of indigenous peoples. 93 If a state which claims
sovereignty over the territory of an indigenous people either seeks itself to exploit the resources of that
territory in ways that threaten the survival of the indigenous people, or permits such exploitation, the
indigenous people would be likely to choose independence or association with another state. This suggests
that whatever the right to "self-determination" means, it must, at the very least, include the right to reject
absolutely the exploitation of natural resources in ways that the indigenous peoples determine for themselves
threaten their rights to remain distinct self-governing peoples. 94 Perhaps the real reason that states object to
self-determination is the specter of indigenous peoples having such an absolute right to control their
territories, territories which the states see as their own.
NO IMPACT TO SECESSION
There is no impact to secession
Daniel Philpott, assistant professor of Political Science at UC-Santa Barbara, 1998, National Self-Determination
and Secession, p. 91
Even if secessions did proliferate, though, which I do not advocate, we should be clear why it would be a
problem. It is not necessarily a problem, for instance, for there to be small states. As I claimed in my original
argument, there is no reason why even a city or tiny region cannot be self-determining. Andorra, Monaco,
Liechtenstein, Singapore, and (up until this year) Hong Kong have all fared perfectly well as tiny
sovereignties. There are some limits to how small a sovereign entity can be, but these arise from the necessity
of providing certain public functions: maintaining roads and utilities, educating children, preserving minimal
order, and providing basic public goods.2” It is not necessarily a problem, either, for there to be a large
number of states. International stability and peace has endured among the many and collapsed among the
few. Compare Europe’s fate with one Germany in the first half of the twentieth century with Europe’s fate
with 300 German states during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.2’
No impact to secession
Kai Nielsen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, the University of Calgary, 1998, National Self-
Determination and Secession, p. 114
Of course, the existing states in the UN and in the international law establishment will stick together to seek
to sustain the idea of the territorial integrity of states, i.e. of the existing states. They are pretty much, in this
respect, like an old boys club. And, of course, we do not want a circus of anarchy, but, as a matter of
historical fact, states come and go and it is not such a terrible thing if changes occur, particularly if the
societies in question are liberal democratic ones with very distinct nations hamessed together rather
artificially, and where the flourishing of these nations, or at least the smaller nations, within the umbrella
state, could be enhanced by separation and no great harm would accrue to the remainder state by separation.
A state should not, and indeed in most instances will not, break up without good reason. And when it does
break up there will always be some dislocation and not all the after effects will be good. But some of them
will be very good indeed. A nation or a people—which before had been treated as a national minority or
worse still like an ethnic group—can now be in control of its own destiny as much (and as little) as any
nation-state can be in the modem world.23 States do come and go, and sometimes they break up, perhaps
without the conditions that Remedial Right Only Theories could sanction obtaining, with no great harm
resulting, and arguably sometimes with considerable gain, e.g. Iceland from Denmark and Norway from
Sweden. If Quebec should secede from Canada, Scotland from Britain, and Wales from Britain, their
thoroughly liberal democratic environments staying intact, it is anything but evident that that would not give
more people more control over their lives and a fuller self-realization than the continuing of the status quo.
Moreover, this could obtain without harming others in the remainder state. Quite possibly more good would
obtain all around. At the very minimum, this idea should not be rejected out of hand. Perhaps in some of
these cases—the case of Wales, for example—it would not be practically feasible. Here we should go case by
case. But there are no good grounds for the rejection of the putative right to secession on high moral or legal
principle. And, at the very least, none of the dire results that Buchanan believes must just go with secession
seem at all to be in the cards in such cases. It looks at least like it is better to go in the more permissive
direction of what Buchanan calls Primary Right Theories than in the direction of Remedial Right Only
Theories.
SELF-D SOLVES SECESSION

Denial of self-determination caused the fragmentation of Yugoslavia
Payam Akhavan, visiting research associate at the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, 1996, Self-
Determination: International Perspectives, p. 227-228
In connection with the principle of self-determination, an important lesson to be drawn from the case of
Yugoslavia is the necessity of conditioning respect for the territorial integrity of delinquent States with
respect for the fundamental human rights of all “peoples” belonging to the State. Otherwise, the fetish State
“sovereignty” will continue to be regarded as the right of States to deny pluralism and to commit atrocities
against “dissident” ethnic groups with impunity. While ethno-nationalism and unilateral secession should by
no means be encouraged, there comes a point where failing to provide peaceful means for changing the status
quo exacts too high a cost in terms of human rights. The human rights conception of the State is especially
important in the context of the former Yugoslavia, where denial of the right to self-determination is a theme
which repeatedly emerges in the various stages of the disintegration process. The sequence of events
illustrates that attempts at the “re-definition” of the federal structure of Yugoslavia were defeated primarily
by the intransigence of the Serbian leadership, which was aware that “secessionist” republics were not likely
to be recognized by the international community. Thus, frustration of the exercise of the right to self-
determination by the constituent nations through a negotiated constitutional settlement was followed by
serious breaches of the Federal Constitution and military repression. As pluralism in the government of the
State was denied, as a campaign of savage military repression against “dissident” ethnic groups gained
momentum, the cost of unconditional support for the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia became apparent. The
lesson which eventually emerged was that the territorial integrity of the State cannot be preserved at the
expense of basic human rights.

international norm
Patrick Thornberry, Professor of International Law, Keele University, 2000, Operationalizing the Right of
Indigenous People to Self Determination, p. 64
SELF-D≠SECESSION
International institutions can safeguard a distinction between self determination and
unchecked secession
These ancient political drives raise our general question about incorporating self-determination into
international law, whether through the World Court, the Security Council, or state recognition policies. If we
legalize claims to self-determination along with the qualifications and the last resort criterion, buttressing all
these values with the enforcement capacities of institutions plus whatever legitimacy legalization may confer,
might it happen that the claims would gain rampant recognition while the restraints would he ignored? The
danger is real, but also, I think, avoidable. Legalization alone would not seem to result in a bias for enforcing
separatism over the restrictions. Human rights, including minority rights, and democracy are currently far
more entrenched in international law and state foreign policies than is self-determination, and there is no
reason to think that international bodies would abjure their enforcement, sacrificing them to an absolute value
of self-determination.’6 What arouses more worry is the role of states in judging and enforcing international
law. The Security Council, the most probable enforcer of law, is made up of states; recognition is granted by
states; and states pursue primarily their traditional desiderata of security, position, and wealth, not legal
rectitude. Here again, though, it is not clear that a general secessionist bias will result. Germany and Croatia
was a single case; one can easily imagine other cases where great powers find it in their interests to oppose
the breakup of a state. But if states’ tendencies do not slant one way or the other in the aggregate, this hardly
assures us that states will make the just decision in the single case of a Bosnia, a Quebec, or a Kashmir. Our
hopes for impartial judgement and enforcement, in the end, depend on our confidence in the judgement of
states, or of states acting in the Security Council, or, most speculatively, of states acting on behalf of an
international judiciary body. Of these forums, we may have the most confidence in states as they act through
the Security Council. Again, post-Cold War interventions sanctioned by the Security Council give us some
reason to believe that the Council can act where justice demands it: imperfectly and selectively, to be sure,
but also with some prospect for success.
The slippery slope is a sham: Recognizing autonomy doesn’t lead to secession

Ted Gurr; Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland, May/June 2000, Foreign Affairs
For several reasons, however, creating autonomy within the state for minorities is harder than simply banning
discrimination. Most governing elites want to hold on to central authority. Many also fear that autonomy will
lead to outright secession. Finally, negotiating arrangements that satisfy all parties and address each
situation's unique quirks is not easy. The second fear -- autonomy as a slippery slope -- is not supported by
the facts on the ground. In very few contemporary instances did negotiated autonomy lead to independence.
Sometimes an autonomous regional government pushes hard for greater authority, as the Basques have done
in Spain. But the ethnic statelets that won de facto independence in the 1990s -- Somaliland, Abkhazia, the
Trans-Dniester Republic, and Iraqi Kurdistan -- did so in the absence of negotiations, not because of them.
Those truly looking to reduce ethnic bloodshed should embrace autonomy, not fear it.
SELF-D≠SECESSION
Self determination doesn’t translate to succession. International law.
Leon-Diaz, 2002 [F.J free service covering some aspects of International Human Rights Law, Criminal Law and
Humanitarian Law. http://www.javier-leon-diaz.com/docs/Minority_Status1.htm]
A different concept is the one referring to indigenous communities, many of them throughout the
world are claiming the right to self-determination. These are peoples, such as American Indians and
Australian Aborigines, who constitute a "first people," with a prior history of territorial occupation and
an ancestral attachment to their land before it was conquered and occupied by others. At various international
fora, spokespersons for indigenous groups have claimed that their situations are identical to those of
colonized peoples who have been conquered and then ruled by others. They argue that the salt water test
should not apply to them. Both the UN's Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-
American Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People provide for the right of self-government or
autonomy for indigenous peoples within their states of residence. Neither draft, however, recognizes a right
of complete territorial and political independence. For example, the UN Draft Declaration states that "as a
specific form of exercising their right of self-determination, [indigenous peoples] have the right to autonomy
or self-government in matters related to their internal and local affairs." Further, in General comment 23 (50)
the Committee stated that 'the covenant draws a distinction between the right to self-determination and the
rights protected under art. 27'. (Para. 3.1). 'The enjoyment of the rights to which art. 27 relates does not
prejudice the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State party' (para. 3.2). Minorities (whatever the
definition) appear not to have the right to self-determination in the form of succession.All the above implies
that minorities, at least in principle, do not have a right to secession (so called "external self-determination")
they are restricted to "internal self-determination": through the granting of some form of autonomy within the
state structure, inclusion in the democratic process and through protection of minority rights. 'Internal' self-
determination means the right to authentic self-government, that is the right for a people really and freely to
choose its own political and economic regime, while 'external' self-determination implies the choice of the
international status of the people and the territory where it lives.
INTERNAL SELF-D SOLVES SECESSION

Internal self determination is the best way to prevent secession and secure world peace
Recently, however, some commentators have suggested that the international community should begin to
resist movements for self-determination. This perspective derives from a misguided conception of self-
determination and a short-sighted view on geo-political realities. Contrary to the assumption of these
observers, self-determination is not coterminous with secession, and therefore, self-determination movements
do not inherently produce international instability. In fact, since efforts to limit the self-determination
movements of today often foment the conflict of tomorrow, recognizing legitimate claims for self-
determination might ensure world stability. Rather than abandoning this important right, the international
community must readjust its conception of self-determination to address the changing needs of the post-Cold
War world. It should emphasize the internal aspects of this right, which in many respects comport with
principles of democratic governance that have recently assumed a primacy throughout the world.
Additionally, by the international community supporting movements for internal self-determination, it can
potentially avoid the disruption that often accompanies movements for external self-determination. Because
some peoples still suffer under neo-colonial oppression, however, the international community should not
categorically reject movements for external self-determination. Only when principles of internal self-
determination cannot satisfy the legitimate needs of an aggrieved people, should the international community
support this people's right to external self-determination. It should attach stringent conditions upon the
legitimate exercise of this right, however. Only by limiting movements for external self-determination and
recognizing legitimate movements for internal self-determination, can the international community
simultaneously foster human rights, support democracy, and maintain world peace and stability.
Internal self determination stops secession movements

Michael Kelly, Director of Legal Research, Writing & Advocacy at Michigan State University's Detroit College of
Law, 1999, Drake Law Review
Ironically, devolution, and other internal self-deterministic moves like increased federalism, could be the
salvation of the nation-state. Acquiescing to internal self-determination provides the recognition, sovereignty,
and identity that homogenous groups crave without breaking apart the country so those groups can achieve
independence in what might prove to be unviable nation-states of their own. "All over the developed world,
devolution is a fact of life. In the dictum of Daniel Bell, an American sociologist, 'the nation-state has now
become too small for the big problems of life and too big for the small problems.'" So, utilizing internal self-
determination to avoid external self-determination is a path to continued viability for the multi-ethnic nation-
state today.
Refusal to grant autonomy is the cause of secession

Oloka-Onyango, Associate Professor and Dean of Law, Makerere University, 1999, American University
International Law Review
The foregoing viewpoint assumes that secessionists are born and not made. Rasheed asserts that the urge for
autonomy is often fostered by deliberate marginalization, such that "demands by ethnic groups for power-
sharing, political freedom, greater political autonomy, and the right to self-determination have on occasion
led to large-scale reprisals and atrocities against these groups and have often driven them to insurrection."
Rather than reaffirming the notion of statehood, which has produced these various problems, we should
consider how to make the State more flexible, as the first stage to "statelessness."
Internal self determination prevents anarchy and international resistance.

Michael J. Kelly, B.A., J.D., Indiana University; LL.M.- International & Comparative Law, Georgetown
University. Mr. Kelly currently serves as Director of Legal Research, Writing & Advocacy at Michigan State
University's Detroit College of Law. Drake Law Review 1999
So, the re-emergence of the principle of self-determination has manifested itself in such a manner as to have
three situational meanings based upon the context in which it arises. When a nation-state breaks apart,
peacefully or violently, self- determination can mean independence for a previously oppressed people. This is
sometimes referred to as "external self-determination," and encompasses the first two examples. However,
when a homogenous group within a [*222] democratic nation-state rankles for self-determination, the
international preference is for more autonomy through devolution of power within the existing nation-state
instead of full independence. This is sometimes referred to as "internal self-determination" and encompasses
the last example. Why the bifurcation in the application of this principle? Simply put, the international legal
system is based on nation-states' relations with each other-it is the state, as a cohesive entity, that has standing
in the international community. Sub-states or minority groups within nation-states have no standing in
international law and, therefore, no forum in which their voices may be heard. Beyond the decolonization
context, the International Court of Justice has refused to recognize a "sub-state" claim for external self-
determination. The practical basis of "internal self-determination" is an extension of the maxim: self-interest
is the prime motivator. The United Nations and other international governmental organizations, generally do
not support secession by minority identity groups from a state because to do so would be to invite "'attacks
on the unity and integrity of their own member states.'" Consequently, the threat of secession cannot be
tolerated. If it were, then the sovereignty of the nation-state as a viable political unit would be constantly
under threat by its smaller constituent units. As the League of Nations Commission of Rapporteurs stated in
the 1921 Aaland Islands case: [*223] To concede to minorities . . . the right of withdrawing from the
community to which they belong, because it is their wish . . . would be to destroy order and stability within
States and to inaugurate anarchy in international life; it would be to uphold a theory incompatible with the
very idea of the State as a territorial and political unity. So, there is logically more support among nation-
states for the internal, devolutionary aspect of this principle. By granting a degree of autonomy to a sub-state
or minority group within a nation-state, a central government may be acting in furtherance of its own
continued self-preservation. But, care must be taken to ensure individual minority rights to avert the risk of
devolving repression along with power from central to regional elites, thus leaving minorities no better off
than they were before.

A model of internal self determination is necessary to prevent further conflict.
Michael J. Kelly, B.A., J.D., Indiana University; LL.M.- International & Comparative Law, Georgetown
University. Mr. Kelly currently serves as Director of Legal Research, Writing & Advocacy at Michigan State
University's Detroit College of Law. Drake Law Review 1999
Some overly-eloquent political commentators, such as William Safire, have even endorsed the evolution of a
new form of self-determination for ethnically repressed peoples: After World War I, . . . Wilson had an
idealistic notion called "the self- determination of nations": national boundaries should be drawn around
peoples who have a common language and cultural heritage. A generation later, . . . Churchill and Roosevelt
made "self-determination" a part of the Atlantic Charter. Sounds great, but it runs counter to every nation's
natural impulse to hold itself together. . . . Serbia today wants to hold on to a historic part of its territory
called Kosovo. . . . [The Kosovars] want to break away from Serbia's oppressive rule . . . . Not surprisingly,
Serbia says no. . . . . . . . Here is where the age-old power of a nation to put down a rebellion comes up
against this generation's power of unacceptable suffering. The Clinton Administration, facing the prospect of
television coverage of tens of thousands of freezing [Kosovar] refugees, will ultimately [act militarily]. . . .
That's what happened after our "victory" over Saddam Hussein. Only when we saw the televised human
tragedy of the Kurdish people, . . . did we create a sanctuary for them in northern Iraq . . ., limiting Iraq's
sovereignty in that "no-flight zone." Thus, . . . a new policy is being backed into by the Western world: if
enough civilian lives are in danger of starvation or massacre, and if intervention by airpower can make a
difference and if the U.S. takes the lead then an alliance of nations will reluctantly act to impose a temporary,
de facto self-determination. . . . . Needed now is a new policy of evolutionary self-determination that time
can advance or modify. Some leader must formulate and sell a new form of shared sovereignty, a tertium
quid to accommodate insurgencies and defuse ethnic conflict not just in Kosovo, but in other lands where
there can be no clear winner from Iraq to East Timor and the West Bank. History awaits that newly practical
and more sophisticated Wilson . . . Nonetheless, self-determination, whatever its form, continues to threaten
nation-state sovereignty, though perhaps not to the extent that the nation-state will cease to exist on the
international stage as the primary mover and shaker. There is too much self-interest yet for that to occur; and
like all things when their survival is threatened, the nation-state will react to insure its continued relevance.
By not denying the right to self-determination, but instead emphasizing internal self-determination, through
aspects of federalism and devolution, over external secessionist self-determination, nation-states would be
wise to take such action.
INTERNAL SELF-D ≠ SECESSION

Their authors oversimplify: internal self determination doesn’t send a model for secession
Sandor Ballogh, retired profess of politics, 1999, Autonomy and the New World Order, p. 86
There would be less of a problem with definitions if instead of the minority group the individual would be
considered the depository of the right. But this would be impractical in the political community, since
individual self-determination could lead to anarchy. Even groups having the right to self-determination seems
to scare many of our statesmen: according to Reuters News Service: “The big powers fear granting Kosovo
independence would set off a disastrous chain reaction of demands for the same prize from disgruntled
nunonties nearby in the Balkans, especially Albanians in Macedonia.” But is this fear justified? Ved P. Nanda
mentions that there are some observers who seem to “fear that secessionist claims by various ethnic-
nationalist groups will acerbate the existing fragile international order [and} call for placing severe limits on
the scope of self-determination so as to regulate, control, and minimize its evil consequences,” and names
Etzioni as one such writer. But instead of debating Etzioni, Nanda evades the answer dismissing Etzioni’s
ideas that “it may be argued that this hypothesis remains untested and lacks validity.” So he changes the
focus of the paper to “study the mechanism under which all these claims can be peacefully pursued and
resolved.” Eric Kolodner takes a more effective approach: he argues that Etzion,’s argument takes a very
limited view of the concept of self-determination.’ Kolodner distinguishes between internal and external self-
determination, arguing that Etzioni’s fear might apply to certain cases of external self-determination, but not
to internal self-determination. External self-determination means complete independence, while internal self-
determination means various forms and degrees of autonomy. Unfortunately, some authors who oppose self-
determination, equate self-determination with secession, i.e. external self-determination, Kolodner’s
distinction notwithstanding. Disregarding autonomy as a form of (internal) self-determination creates
problems, because external self-determination is much more difficult to achieve both administratively and
politically. This allows many politicians to pay lip service to human rights and self-determination without
effectively pursuing it, using yet another argument: they defend the sanctity of frontiers under the guise of
defending peace and stability.
International institutions can safeguard a distinction between self determination and

unchecked secession
These ancient political drives raise our general question about incorporating self-determination into
international law, whether through the World Court, the Security Council, or state recognition policies. If we
legalize claims to self-determination along with the qualifications and the last resort criterion, buttressing all
these values with the enforcement capacities of institutions plus whatever legitimacy legalization may confer,
might it happen that the claims would gain rampant recognition while the restraints would he ignored? The
danger is real, but also, I think, avoidable. Legalization alone would not seem to result in a bias for enforcing
separatism over the restrictions. Human rights, including minority rights, and democracy are currently far
more entrenched in international law and state foreign policies than is self-determination, and there is no
reason to think that international bodies would abjure their enforcement, sacrificing them to an absolute value
of self-determination.’6 What arouses more worry is the role of states in judging and enforcing international
law. The Security Council, the most probable enforcer of law, is made up of states; recognition is granted by
states; and states pursue primarily their traditional desiderata of security, position, and wealth, not legal
rectitude. Here again, though, it is not clear that a general secessionist bias will result. Germany and Croatia
was a single case; one can easily imagine other cases where great powers find it in their interests to oppose
the breakup of a state. But if states’ tendencies do not slant one way or the other in the aggregate, this hardly
assures us that states will make the just decision in the single case of a Bosnia, a Quebec, or a Kashmir. Our
hopes for impartial judgement and enforcement, in the end, depend on our confidence in the judgement of
states, or of states acting in the Security Council, or, most speculatively, of states acting on behalf of an
international judiciary body. Of these forums, we may have the most confidence in states as they act through
the Security Council. Again, post-Cold War interventions sanctioned by the Security Council give us some
reason to believe that the Council can act where justice demands it: imperfectly and selectively, to be sure,
but also with some prospect for success.
INTERNAL SELF-D ≠ SECESSION
international norm
Patrick Thornberry, Professor of International Law, Keele University, 2000, Operationalizing the Right of
Indigenous People to Self Determination, p. 64
SECESSION≠ DESTROY DEMOCRACY

A right to secede doesn’t destroy democracy
and Secession, p. 95-96
A right to secede would not necessarily undermine democracy, either. Indeed, one could imagine it helping a
federal state to form, inducing a wary group to join in the first place. If some or all of a region’s inhabitants
did develop a desire to secede over time, a constitutionally prescribed procedure might help to avoid
bloodshed, or even to diffuse radicalism, perhaps even helping to dissipate popular support for secession.
Consider the cases of Quebec and Slovakia, the first a region whose inhabitants narrowly voted down seces-
sion, the second a region which did secede, and both cases in which little blood was shed over the question.
Although in neither case did a constitutional right to secede guide the way, in both cases the larger state’s
government and the separatist region’s inhabitants were willing to abide by agreed-upon procedures. We may
take these regions, then, as experimental proxies for constitutional secession. Now, there are admittedly
grounds in both cases for scepticism. The procedures were messy and contested, the referenda presented the
question of independence ambiguously to the voters, safeguards for minority rights were questionable, and
depending on whom one asks, other flaws existed as well. But the crucial question to ask is: What if there
had been no (approximation of a) right to secede at all? What if the Czechs and the Canadians had failed to
brook even the possibility of secession in the first place?
***A2 SELF-DETERMINATION BAD

SCENARIOS***
A2 CHINA TURN
Resolution of Kashmir dispute results in territorial and economic benefits for China.
Jacob, 08. (Jabin T., Research Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, “China and Kashmir,”
Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament,
and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 / Winter 2007-8,
Its current professed neutrality apart, China retains a continuing interest in the
resolution of the dispute for several reasons. First, the status of the over 2,000 square
miles of territory ceded by Pakistan to China under the Sino-Pakistan Frontier
Agreement of 1963 would come up for renegotiation under the terms of the
Agreement if India and Pakistan resolved their dispute over Kashmir and India became
the sovereign power over the ceded area. Second, in the event of a resolution and
India regaining control over the Northern Areas, this would cut all land connections
between China and Pakistan and put traffic through the KKH also under Indian control.
This would imply losses or at least a degree of wariness for China on several strategic
fronts, including its plans of routing energy supplies from West Asia through Gwadar.
Third, even if resolution of the Kashmir dispute comes in the form of an acceptance of
the current status quo, but with soft borders or “irrelevant” borders as is now being
mooted, India will certainly demand greater access to the Northern Areas (and indeed,
the rest of Pakistan), beginning with economic access, which could challenge Chinese
plans in the region. But fourth, and more positively, resolution—even if on the basis
of status quo—can actually lead to greater possibilities for economic interactions
between India and China, as outlined above, and certainly these could prove more
profitable from the Chinese point of view than those with Pakistan. Further, there
could conceivably be added impetus for the resolution of the Sino-Indian boundary
dispute as well.
China views peace over Kashmir as essential.

Jacob, 08. (Jabin T., Research Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies “China and Kashmir,”
Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament,
and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Volume XVI / No. 1 / Winter 2007-8,
China aims to have stability in its neighborhood and increased market penetration in South Asia, and for
both reasons stability in Kashmir and peace between India and Pakistan are essential. China’s Western
Development Strategy (WDS) for its interior provinces including Tibet and Xinjiang make it imperative that
there is peace and stability on the borders of these provinces as they aim to increase their external trade and
serve as major hubs for trade with China’s western neighbors. China has hitherto been viewed in the
countries of South Asia largely either in terms of the strategic potential it provided vis-à-vis another country
or in terms of the threat that it posed. This latter was the case, it must be remembered, even with Pakistan in
the 1950s and led then-Pakistani President Ayub Khan to propose to India a joint defense of the subcontinent
against the communist threat. As relations with India deteriorated, Pakistan subsequently changed its
position to viewing China as a hedge and an ally against India. It is time that such short-term positions give
way to more sustainable grounds for the Sino-Pakistan partnership. And economics provides the way
forward, especially for the Northern Areas, which remain among the most neglected regions under Pakistani
governance.
A2 TURKEY DA
Kurds in Iraq overwhelmingly support remaining in the Iraqi federation
Middle East Times ’07 (Claude Salhani, “Kurdish Self-determination ‘by All Means’’,
December 24, http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2007/12/24/kurdish_self-
determination_by_all_means/3979/)
As for accusations from Ankara that Kurdish Workers Party militants are finding refuge across the border in
Iraqi Kurdistan, where they find sympathy among the locals, Zebari had this to say: "The sympathy is not
toward the PKK. The sympathy is to the Kurdish aspirations and to the Kurdish community wherever they are,"
said the Kurdish leader who stressed that the Iraqi Kurdish community supports a peaceful solution both for the
Iraqi Kurds and for the Kurds living in Turkey, and even for the Kurds living in Iran. But what exactly are the
Kurdish aspirations? They differ from one part to another part. The struggle of the Iraqi Kurds has always been
for autonomy, and right now for federalism, and for Iraq to be a stable and democratic state. "The aspiration is
self-determination, by all means," Zebari told The Middle East Times. "The constitution of Iraq which Iraqi
Kurds have also voted for by 90 percent, was a commitment to remain in a federal Iraq. We have to create a
model of success," adding: "The success of the Kurdistan region is a success that will reflect over all of Iraq.
Iraq won’t fragment- elected Kurdish leaders promote stability

Star-Ledger ’07 (Eric Davis, “Many Kurds support Iraq, not independence”, December, 16, Newark Morning
Ledger, Lexis)
Many Kurds say that federalism may eventually lead to an independent Kurdish state, but they see that
happening far in the future. At the moment, they argue that Kurdish interests call for a strong federated Iraq and
not partition. They point with pride to Iraq having a Kurdish president, vice-president, foreign minister and
army chief of staff, and the role that 6,000 Kurdish troops in the Iraqi army are playing in bringing stability to
Baghdad.
Turn – Succession stabilizes Iraq and will not domino, our evidence is comparative
Jeffrey Goldberg, 2008 [author of Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, which is now out in
paperback, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast]
Iraq has been unstable since its creation because it’s Kurds and Shiites did not want to be ruled from Baghdad
by a Sunni minority. So why not remove one source of instability—the perennially oppressed Kurds—from
the formula? Kurdish independence was—literally—one of Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points (No. 12, to be
precise), and it is quite obviously a moral cause (and no less moral than the cause that preoccupies the West
—that of Palestinian independence). There is danger here, of course: Kurdish freedom might spark
secessionist impulses among other Middle Eastern ethnic groups. But these impulses already exist, and one
lesson from the British and French management of the Middle East is that people cannot be suppressed
forever.
No chance of war – Middle East has already moved into an era of stability and Iran gave
up its nukes.
Jeffrey Goldberg, 2008 [author of Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, which is now out in paperback,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast]
It is conceivable, if paradoxical, that the actual outcome of the recent turmoil in the Middle East could be a new
era of stability, fostered by realists in this country and in the region itself. This might be the most unlikely
potential outcome of the Iraq invasion—that it turns out to be the Seinfeld War, a war about nothing (except, of
course, the loss of a great many lives and vast sums of money). Everything changes if America attacks Iranian
nuclear sites, of course—but the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which came out in early December and
reported that Iran had shut down its covert nuclear- weapons program in 2003, makes it unlikely that the Bush
administration will pursue this option. And the next one or two U.S. presidents, who will be inheriting both the
Iraq and Afghanistan portfolios, will probably be hesitant to attack any more Muslim countries. It’s not
impossible to imagine that, in 20 years, the map of the Middle East will look exactly like it does today.
A2 TURKEY DA
No risk of escalation – conflicting parties’ resources will be exhausted within ten years.
Jeffrey Goldberg, 2008 [author of Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, which is now out in paperback,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast]
Of course, winning in Iraq—or at least not losing— would help fortify America’s deterrent power, and check
Iran’s involvement in Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere. America’s situation in Iraq is not quite so dire as it was a
year ago; the troop surge has worked to suppress much violence, and there have been tentative steps by both
Shiite and Sunni leaders to prevent all-out sectarian war. To be sure, very few experts predict with any
assurance an optimistic future for Iraq. “Ten years is a reasonable time period to think that the sectarian conflict
will need to play out,” Martin Indyk, the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings
Institution, told me. “The parties will eventually exhaust themselves. Perhaps they have already, although I fear
that the surge has just provided a break for Sunnis and Shias to better position themselves for further conflict
when American forces are drawn down. There’s no indication yet that the Shias are prepared to share power or
that the Sunnis are prepared to live as a minority under Shia majoritarian rule.
Turkey will not go to war – they are an international advocate of non-proliferation, nuclear
bans, and peaceful settlement of conflict.
M2 PRESSWIRE-OCTOBER 10, 2007 (accessed via lexis nexus)
BAKI ILKIN ( Turkey) said he advocated global, general and complete disarmament. The revitalization of the
international disarmament agenda depended on the United Nations playing a "more effective role", and on the
restructure of the office for Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations. It was important for the international
community to work together, since "universalization, effective implementation and further strengthening" of
disarmament and non-proliferation instruments must be the common goal. Stressing that Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was the core of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said that its integrity
and credibility required the renewed commitment of all. Turkey would promote the Treaty's universalization, by
strengthening of the Agency's safeguards system, reinforcing export controls, and promoting the early entry into
force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Further, as one of the countries that would assume the
presidency of the Conference on Disarmament next year, Turkey would "spare no efforts" to allow the
Conference to resume its negotiating role, with the goal of concluding a fissile material cut-off treaty. He
underscored the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and expressed his support for such a zone in the
Middle East. Turkey would continue to support the work of the Security Council's 1540 Committee on global
efforts against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Proliferation Security Initiative and the
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism were also vital tools. The Chemical and Biological Weapons
Conventions were "important components of the global system against proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction", and he called for their wider adherence. He also supported The Hague Code of Conduct against
ballistic missile proliferation. On Iran, he said, "we attach great importance to the settlement, through peaceful
means and as soon as possible, of the ongoing crisis of confidence between Iran and the international
community." Further, he said "we welcome the recent progress achieved through the six-party talks for the
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula." Touching on other topics, he said that "terrorism in all its forms is a
crime against humanity," and could not be justified, and Turkey was committed to fighting all forms of
terrorism. Chemical weapons proliferation was another concern, as was the spread of small arms and light
weapons. Turkey would continue to support the conclusion of an arms trade treaty. The proliferation of man-
portable air defence systems was another major concern, and Turkey would once again co-sponsor the draft
resolution on that menace. Further, Turkey supported efforts to universalize and implement the Mine Ban
Convention. It also supported the United Nations Register for Conventional Weapons, and would continue to
cooperate and fully support the work of the First Committee.
A2 TURKEY DA
N/U--The US’ invasion and its treatment of Kurds in the reconstruction has already
destroyed US-Turkish relations
[Canberra Times. Friday October 26, 2007. “THE CONSEQUENCES OF TURKEY'S KURDISH
DILEMMA.” Lexis.]
The Iraq fiasco has had many unintended consequences, ranging from empowering the Iraqi Shi'ite majority,
to causing a bloody sectarian conflict in the country, to strengthening Iran's regional position. A further
consequence that has been brewing but is now causing wider problems for the United States and its allies is
related to the struggle waged by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) for autonomy or independence for
Turkey's Kurds and Turkey's resolve to launch a military campaign in Iraq's US- backed northern Kurdistan
province to destroy PKK bases there. Turkey's resolve comes against the backdrop of the PKK's killing of
dozens of Turkish soldiers and civilians in the last month. A Turkish military assault will have the potential to
cause a further blow to American efforts to stabilise Iraq and contain Iran, and achieve its wider goals in the
region. The Kurds form 20 per cent of the population of Iraq and about 15 per cent of the population of
Turkey, with a further four to six million living in Iran and a smaller number being scattered in Syria and in
other parts of the region. They have historically sought to create an independent state of their own, but to no
avail. All the regional states have rejected any proposition that could involve chunks of their territories being
carved away. However, the Iraqi Kurds have been able to consolidate an autonomous entity under the
protection of the US since the 1991 Gulf war over Kuwait, and more specifically since the 2003 US-led
invasion of Iraq. This entity operates almost as a state within a state, enabling PKK guerrilla fighters, who
have been fighting Turkey since 1984, to secure safe sanctuaries in Iraqi Kurdistan and receive valuable
logistic support from their kindred. Although Turkey had in the past managed to suppress the PKK through
several military expeditions into northern Iraq, since the US-led invasion it has remained hamstrung. As a
close NATO ally of the US and strategic partner of Israel, but under the rule since 2002 of the
democratically-elected moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (AK), Turkey has grown very
unhappy about the degree of American protection of the Iraqi Kurds and the anti-Arab and anti- Iranian
activities of Israel's intelligence service Mossad which have helped the Iraqi Kurdistan to grow strong and the
PKK to regain much of its past strength. Until now, Turkey has found it expedient to refrain from any major
military actions, for three main reasons. The first is that the AK Government has wanted to promote regional
cooperation and peace as part of a cooperative foreign policy, driven by its desire for political and economic
reforms as well as entry into the European Union. The second is that it has been keen to avoid further
inflaming Turkish public opinion against the US, which is now opposed by more than 70 per cent of Turks,
and therefore causing more complications in Turkey's alliance with the US. The third is that it has wanted to
refrain from castigating Israel publicly for its involvement with Iraqi Kurds contrary to Turkey's interests.
EXT: TURKEY- NO WAR

Economic and military consequences discourage collapse
Star-Ledger ’07 (Eric Davis, “Many Kurds support Iraq, not independence”, December, 16, Newark Morning
Ledger, Lexis)
Kurds, especially those beyond the elites that tightly control Kurdish politics, understand the benefits of a
federalism based on shared interests as well as the dangers of partition. Partition would not only cut off needed
investment from the Arab south and, more important, from the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, but it would
make Iraqi Kurdistan more vulnerable to attacks from Turkey and Iran. The latter consideration is especially
important because the problems in Turkey and Iran that created the PKK and PJAK insurgencies will not be
solved anytime soon and support for these organizations remains high among Iraq's Kurds.
Turkey does not react violently to acts of Kurdish bolstering

Qahaar ’07 (Khadija Abdul, “US Arms Kurdish PKK As Part Of American/Zionist Middle East Destabilization
Plan”, November 4, 2007, http://www.brwska.org/en/index.php?news=72)
It is common knowledge that for over a decade the US has been supporting Iraq's Kurds in North Iraq with both
arms and cash. What is often overlooked is that in the past, this has been done with the support of Turkey itself.
Turkey not only facilitated passports for Jalal Talabani, the founder of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and one
time president of Iraq and Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party Turkish but arranged
their travels in Europe and USA to meet American officials prior to the American invasion of Iraq. The US has
been arming the Kurdish militias long before the second Gulf war began and with Turkey’s full knowledge.
When the invasion became clear, the Bush administration accelerated arms to the Kurds in Northern Iraq, and
sent military advisors to train them.
Turkey and Kurdish states will accommodate – they interact as partners

The Economist 2007 (“Does Independence beckon? Iraqi Kurdistan. (The Future of Iraqi
Kurdistan)”September 8, Gale)
However, the Turks and Iraqi Kurds have been getting on better, as the Kurdish government settles down and
since Turkey's mildly Islamist government was re-elected in July, scoring notably well in Turkey's Kurdish
areas. Moreover, Turkey is by far the Iraqi Kurds' biggest economic partner. Erbil's huge new airport, for
instance, is a Turkish (and British) project. If Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan could come to an accommodation,
which looks more feasible than before, it would vastly boost the chances of the latter's survival. To a lesser
extent, the same goes for the Iraqi Kurds' relations with Iran and Syria, both of which are wary of an
independent Iraqi Kurdistan but could probably live with it.
2AC INDONESIA TURN (1/3)

1. Self-determination already happened – Separatist demands were successfully diffused
New York Times, Jan. 12 (SETH MYDANS, Asia Pacific, “A Resilient Indonesia Moves Beyond Suharto,”
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/world/asia/12indo.html
There are no fresh faces in the presidential field for 2009. Political analysts say they are waiting until the next
vote, in 2014, to see a new generation emerge. One of the most profound changes has been the
decentralization that dispersed power and political accountability from the all-powerful executive in Jakarta
to local governments around the country. The country’s bank deposits fell from 70 percent in the capital,
Jakarta, to 35 percent, said Craig Charney, a political scientist and pollster based in New York — “a
redistribution of wealth rare in countries outside of revolution or war.” This has increased the political
accountability of local leaders, potentially improving the delivery of government services, and it has
increased stability by defusing separatist demands. But it has also run the risk of creating what people here
call hundreds of corrupt and autocratic mini-Suhartos. And it has weakened the hand of the central
government in putting its policies into effect. This accomplishment is Indonesia’s main task today, said
Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono, a cabinet minister under every president since the time of Suharto.
2. Turn- only risk of disintegration is if self-determination is denied

International Forum for Aceh, 2000.(“An Analysis for Self-Determination for Aceh”, International Forum
for Aceh. January 29. http://acehnet.tripod.com/determine.htm)
As the Acehnese, we have always known that freedom comes with a price. This price has been paid by thousands of Acehnese lives. It
started when Holland declaration of war against Aceh in 1887; Japanese invasion; Indonesian revolution; Governor Daud Beureeh
rebellion; Communist revolution; Hasan Tiro's Free Aceh Movement; DOM (Indonesian Military Security Operation); and the latest is
the Democracy Movement for self-determination via Referendum; where hundreds has been tortured, kidnapped, and killed just because
they wanted a choice to choose. The root of the problem is that the political system existing in Indonesia was and is
not suitable for the Acehnese. And some people in Aceh still argue about the process of transfer of sovereignty from the Dutch
power to Indonesia pertaining to Aceh in 1949. State violence and the process toward self-determination Within Indonesia, Acehnese
only have eight years of relatively peaceful time, the rest of forty-three years, it is filled with military and security operations and armed
conflicts where thousands have been killed, missing, displaced, and in some cases (in the last 10 years) hundreds of women were raped.
The state violence against the Acehnese happened in the view of the international community and in full view of Indonesian
neighbors.The central government of Indonesia are soon to learn that domination, oppression, misinformation, in-justice and military
operation without morality also comes with a price. The Acehnese has decided what that price will be: the right to exercise self-
determination. Today, all level of the Acehnese society (from the legally elected provincial governor, legally
elected legislative body, head districts, scholars, religious leaders, the student movement, and villagers, the
businessmen and women) have accepted the process for self-determination democratically via a referendum
for independence to the decide the future of Aceh. If Indonesia use security means again to solve this conflict
/ the democratic actions, we predict that thousands of Acehnese will be killed. Indonesia leaderships and
referendum in Aceh President of Indonesia, KH Abdurrahman Wahid, and the Head of General Consultative
body of Indonesia, Amien Rais, have agreed that a referendum be held in Aceh. We respect their views. Their
direction is in line with the wish of the Acehnese majority. We belief, Gus Dur and Amien Rais are men of
Integrity. We belief that the current president of Indonesia, its assembly and most of its cabinet are serious in
solving Indonesia's problems. However, their views represent the interest of Indonesia, not Aceh. They have "juggled" with the
options of referendum and its timing. The Acehnese, on the other hands, have decided their stand: "A divorce from the 54 years old
forceful marriage with Indonesia" through a democratic and peaceful means. We wanted to choose whether or not Indonesia is the right
home for us. Throughout open dialogs, it has been given a clear sign by the Acehnese that Aceh conflict with Indonesia must be solved
by non-violence means. Acehnese are no longer interested in retribution or even compensation for these items only relevant if they
wanted to remain within Indonesia.If the rights to self-determination by the Acehnese is not allowed, Indonesia
and Aceh is at risk in long and unnecessary conflicts. It also can fuel other discontents across the
archipelagos. The rest of Indonesia is watching.The Acehnese case is quite different than the rest of the 25
provinces in Indonesia. The abuse, the discrimination, the neglect and failed promises by the central
government and military power in Aceh over 54 years have in over time built an effective "anti-bodies" in the
Acehnese society.

3. Indonesian extremism has lost all momentum.
Since Mr. Suharto was ousted as president in May 1998, Indonesia has had four presidents, all of whom have
worked, unlike him, within the democratic system. The next election is a year away but already three of them
the four have declared that they want the job again. In the past decade, Indonesia has held three national
elections and more than 300 elections for provincial and district officials in votes that have been judged to be
relatively clean and in which the results have mostly been accepted by the losers. In the marketplace of
elections, political Islam has failed to win support, and Indonesians have mostly rejected the radicalism and
violence of Islamist groups. In general, the country has become more devoutly religious but has not
embraced extremism. “I think the more hard-line Islamists discredited themselves in the early post-Suharto
period” when they attempted to bully the nation into Islamic conservatism, said Greg Fealy, a specialist on
Indonesia at the Australian National University. “They added to the wariness that the general public had
toward strong Islamism.” After three decades in power during which he bent Indonesia to his will, Mr.
Suharto disappeared almost completely from public life, puttering quietly in his modest home in central
Jakarta as his health grew steadily worse. “What we learned,” said Mr. Boyce, “is that at least in Indonesia,
when you lose absolute power, you lose it absolutely.”
4. Indonesia won’t collapse – unified democracy, end of radicalism, and peaceful elections
prove.
Yudhoyono, 2007(Dr. H. Susilo Bambang, Situs Web Resmi Presiden Republik Indonesia, Bureau for Press and
Media Affairs, December 11, Keynote Address, NUSA DUA BALI,
http://www.iapcbali2007.com/files/presentation/KEYNOTE_President_RI.pdf)
Because of these concerns, many Indonesians were as excited as they were anxious about Indonesia’s
political journey into this un-chartered territory of democracy. Today, we can take a sigh of relief as the good
people of Indonesia has convincingly refuted these concerns: Our democracy has become stronger and more
vibrant than ever; Indonesia successfully held what is said to be the world’s largest and most complex
elections—peacefully; Rather than breaking apart, Indonesia is becoming even more united, as reflected in
the Aceh peace deal; Rather than becoming a bastion of radicalism, the heart and soul of Indonesia remains
moderate and progressive. Indeed, in Indonesia democracy, Islam and modernity go hand-in-hand effortlessly
together; And despite the early years of turbulence, where we changed Presidents four times in
the four years between 1998-2002, our democracy is now producing political stability and
economic growth, the highest since the financial crisis. Indeed, I would say that democracy in Indonesia has
reached a point of no return. There are many signs to this: We have safely passed the “two elections” test,
and also passed several Presidential change-overs peacefully. We have radically and fundamentally changed
the political landscape in Indonesia, as a result of our national and local direct elections. We have instituted
strong military reforms where the function of the TNI, apart from defending the territory of the state, is also
to guard democracy and reforms. Not with standing political problems that sometimes arise, unlike in other
democratizing countries, there has never been any concern about an impending c’oup. And there are
countless public opinion polls showing that even though the public may lose faith with politicians,
institutions or policies, their faith in the value of democracy remains unshaken and in fact only increased
over time. The conclusion is crystal clear: democracy is here to stay in Indonesia permanently.

5. No Collapse – vast economy, population, and lack of resources prevents separation.
Emmerson, 2000.( Donald K., May/June, Council on Foreign Affairs, “Will Indonesia Survive?”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000501faessay47/donald-k-emmerson/will-indonesia-
survive.html)
Anyone skimming recent Western reporting on Indonesia could be forgiven for assuming that the world's
fourth most populous country is on the verge of disintegration. The recent secession of East Timor is unlikely
to cause a chain reaction, however. The geographic and cultural patchwork of Indonesia may shrink, but it is
not about to unravel. A vast archipelago through whose waterways pass two-fifths of world shipping,
Indonesia has recently undergone a series of political reforms that could eventually lead it to become that rare
thing, an Islamic democracy. Its size, location, and natural resources make it a potentially formidable obstacle
to any Chinese attempt to gain hegemony over Southeast Asia. The scale and diversity of the Indonesian
economy enhance its importance for the larger region and make urgent its resurrection from the Asian
financial crisis. Whether Indonesia will survive in something resembling its present form is thus a topic of
concern well beyond the South Pacific.
EXT: #1 SELF-D NOW

1. Extend New York Times in 08. It clearly identifies that dispersal of power from executive
to local governments has already been successful. This has increased accountability,
national stability, and neutralized separatism.
2. Governments make successful concessions of self-d now.

Inside Indonesia, 01.(Nic Maclellan, Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, Jul - Sep 2001,
http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit67/nic1.htm)
For decades, human rights abuses in West Papua have received attention from advocacy groups, while
environmental organisations have lobbied over pollution from the Freeport mine. But in the wake of
Suharto's fall, the 1999 Timor crisis and growing tensions in Maluku and Aceh, there is increasing
international concern over West Papua, as the crisis forces itself onto the regional and international agenda.
Most governments have dropped their mantra that West Papua's independence movement is irrelevant and
lacks popular support. Now, they express concern over human rights abuses by the Indonesian military in
West Papua, while stressing their support for Indonesia's territorial integrity. Growing international attention
has been given to the call for West Papuan self-determination, but it has been overshadowed by a focus on
the impact that independence will have on Indonesia's democratic transformation.
EXT: #2 LINK TURN

1. Extend our Link Turn, International Forum 2000. If self-determination is not granted,
Indonesia risks long and unnecessary conflicts as a result. Political automony is at the root
of the conflict. Plan is the only sustainable solution.
2. No secession – only a risk that plan ends current Indonesian conflict over self-
determination.
Gershman, 2002. (John, Senior Analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource and Asia-Pacific Editor for Foreign
Policy In Focus, “Indonesia: An Archipelago of Self-Determination and Communal Conflicts,” October 22,
http://selfdetermine.irc-online.org/conflicts/indonesia_body.html)
Self-determination conflicts involve conflicts where major political organizations raise demands for
independence or significant autonomy. These include Aceh, West Papua and, previously, East Timor.
Communal conflicts involve violent conflict among groups typically organized along ascriptive (ethnic,
religious, or cultural) lines. The issues at stake in such conflicts are not typically cultural, but may involve
struggle over economic, environmental, and political resources. Demands for autonomy or secession are
typically not central to such conflicts.
3. The US must support Indonesian self-determination as the means of resolving conflict.

GWU Archive. 2006. (“8.6.4 Responsibility of the United States of America,” January 24,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB176/responsibility_us.pdf)
Successive administrations, even those such as the Carter administration which made much of its
commitment to human rights, were driven by hard-nosed realism in their policy towards Timor-Leste: they
all consistently stressed the overriding importance of the relationship with Indonesia and the supposed
irreversibility of the Indonesian takeover, even as they acknowledged that the people of Timor-Leste had
been denied their right to self-determination. Although the United States suspended its military cooperation
programme with Indonesia after the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991, its policy on Timor-Leste on that and other
occasions was reactive rather than proactive. In response to the massive violations that occurred in Timor-
Lestein September 1999 President Clinton threw the considerable influence of the United States behind
efforts to press the Indonesian Government to accept the deployment of an international force in the territory,
demonstrating the considerable leverage that it could have exerted earlier had the will been there. In the
Commission’s view, the support given by the United States to Indonesia was crucial to the invasion and
continued occupation of Timor-Leste. This was so not only because weapons and equipment purchased from
the United States played a significant role in Indonesian military operations in Timor, but also because it
never used its unique position of power and influence to counsel its Indonesian ally against embarking on an
illegal course of action.The actions of the Government of the United States of America in supporting
Indonesia’s invasion of Timor-Leste was in violation of its duties, under the general principles of
international law, to support and refrain from undermining the legitimate right of the East Timorese people to
selfdetermination17and to take positive action to facilitate the realisation of that right.
U.S. support for internal autonomy is key to prevent Indonesian fragmentation

Newsweek, 5/17/2001
A third step is for the U.S. to make it clear that it will not help the various secessionist movements in their
struggles for independence. The international community set an awkward precedent after Suharto's fall when
it helped pressure Jakarta to grant independence to East Timor, a one-time Portuguese territory invaded by
the Indonesian military in 1975. Now other separatist leaders-especially in oil-rich Aceh and Irian Jaya,
which has vast copper and gold mines-argue that "any other area that has been colonized by the Indonesian
government has the right to its independence," as an Acehnese rebel commander recently put it. But with
literally hundreds of discrete ethno-linguistic groups, Indonesia could keep unraveling indefinitely if the
separatist trend were to gain momentum. Washington can express sympathy with ethnic concerns and support
government moves toward granting regional autonomy. But unless the Bush administration has the stomach
to bankroll and baby-sit a proliferation of dependent Southeast Asian protectorates, it needs to make clear
that Yugoslavia-style disintegration is not in the U.S. interest.
EXT: #3 NO EXTREMISM
1. Extend New York Times in 08. It post-dates and indicates that violent radicalism has
been rejected and separatists have absolutely lost influence.
2. There is no longer a threat of extremism in Indonesia

Van Klinken 08. [Gerry van Klinken. Member of Inside Indonesia’s editorial committee. KITLV Institute in
Leiden, the Netherlands. “Ten years of democratisation: Our new edition shows how far Indonesia has come, and
how much remains to be done.”. Inside Indonesia 92: Apr-Jun 2008.
http://insideindonesia.org/content/view/1065/47/]
Indonesia has made an amazing transformation these last ten years. Too often this story is buried among the
bad news. The military no longer dominates every level of government, as it did during the New Order. Free
elections have been held many times. The long-running separatist wars in East Timor and Aceh have been
resolved. This edition of Inside Indonesia looks backward and forward. It takes an honest look at how far the
country has come down the road towards meaningful democracy, and how much further it might still go.
3. Multiple new factors prove peace agreements will succeed. Separatist movements have
dropped their calls for independence.
Choi, 2007.(Hyun Jung Jo Choi, Fellow, Pacific Forum CSIS, Japanese Institute of Global Communications, Asia
Report #98, “Aceh - Third Time's the Charm?” March 9)
It was not clear if either GAM or the Indonesian government was committed to peace in Aceh.In addition, negotiators frequently
underestimated the difficulties on the ground and were overly optimistic about goals and timetables. There were flaws in previous
agreements that allowed both sides to shift blame and use the other as an excuse to renege on deals. There was a lack of understanding
over terms and no forum to discuss the misunderstandings that resulted. In the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism, both
sides were able to breach the agreement with impunity. All of these factors ensured the peace agreements would not survive long. New
elements? Is the situation different today? Jakarta, GAM, and the international community have expressed
optimism that a peace agreement will soon be reached. Jusuf Kalla, vice president of Indonesia, has said that
both sides have agreed to almost 90 percent of a comprehensive settlement. This expectation of peace is
bolstered by some new factors. One element that differentiates these talks from previous failed negotiations
is the Dec. 26, 2004 tsunami, that destroyed nearly one-third of the province and killed approximately
130,000 people. The devastation led to international awareness and sympathy and aroused goodwill.
Indonesia, usually resistant to any negotiations with GAM, began to view peace as a prerequisite to
rebuilding the province. The international community also encouraged a peace agreement to pave way for
international humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and development operations. Another element that may
rejuvenate the peace process is the newly elected and popular president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY).
SBY, who has experience with previous peace negotiations in Aceh, Ambon, and Poso, can utilize his
popularity and broad-based support to push the peace process forward. He has already made his mark by
giving a civilian, the vice president, a presidential mandate to direct the process, instead of having the
security apparatus closely involved as in previous negotiations. Kalla's role is another boost to the process as
he has experience in handling local conflicts (Ambon and Poso) and he is general chairman of the Golkar
Party, a position that may bring powerful constituencies to support the process. It appears that the rebels may
also be prompted by new opportunities created by the tsunami and are ready to compromise and commit to a
peace deal. GAM has allegedly dropped its demand for independence from the negotiations agenda, a
significant change from previous negotiations where independence was the sticking point between the two
sides. Finally, the use of an experienced mediator like the former Finnish President, Maarti Ahtisaari, may
also help both sides arrive at creative and lasting solutions.
EXT: #4 NO COLLAPSE
1. Extend Yudhoyono 07. Our evidence is conclusive, it says that rather than breaking apart,
Indonesia has become even more united – peace deals and elections prove. Public polls show
they are massively in favor of democracy and the political stability it has produced.
2. Indonesia has resisted collapse despite political turmoil—democratic foundation already

in place.
JAKARTA — As Indonesia’s former strongman, Suharto, lay on his sickbed this week, the country that
rejected him 10 years ago was in the early stages of a democratic election campaign. Though the nation’s
leaders spoke with respect of the man who had been their master and mentor for three decades, they were by
their actions repudiating him, moving forward with a new Indonesia that contrasts in almost every way with
one he bequeathed to them. From one of the most centralized and controlled countries in the region, it has
transformed itself into one of the most decentralized, free, open and self-regulating. From a brutal and
corrupt regime under the heel of the military, it has become the standard bearer of democracy in Southeast
Asia. It stands out for its political liberalism at a time when coups and coup attempts have discredited the
region’s two exemplars of democracy, Thailand and the Philippines. “Indonesia represents a good-news story
in the region and in the world,” said Ralph Boyce, a former United States ambassador to Indonesia during the
post-Suharto period. It did not disintegrate as a nation or fragment into a tumult of mini-wars, as many
people feared when the dictator suddenly released his grip. It was not engulfed in Islamic radicalism,
although that struggle is still playing itself out. It did not fall back into the grip of the military or collapse in
economic ruin. “They’re well on their way to establishing a more democratic and modern Indonesia,” Mr.
Boyce said, “which is quite a challenge when you are dealing with one of the world’s largest and most
disparate societies.” A vast archipelago with a population of 240 million, Indonesia is the world’s fourth
most-populous nation, whose people are 90 percent Muslim. As the country with the largest Muslim
population in the world, it is demonstrating that Islam can be compatible with democracy.
3. New reforms and institutional structures prevent collapse.

YUDHOYONO, 2003.(SUSILO BAMBANG, COORDINATING MINISTER FOR POLITICS AND
SECURITYREPUBLIC OF INDONESIA “A SECOND WAVE OF REFORM FOR INDONESIA,” Transcript, 20th
Asialink Lecture Jointly with Tasman Asia Pacific and Tasman Institute, October 10,
http://www.tasman.com.au/pdf%20files/Susilo%20Bambang%20Yudhoyono%20_SecondWav
e%20of%20Economic%20Reform_10%20Oct2003.pdf )
Taken together, this involved taking a much more comprehensive view of the reform process and priorities
than in the case of the more usual financial crisis. There are at times delicate balances to be struck between
the needs of economic liberalization and demands of social justice, between the promotion of civil society
and the strengthening of representative state institutions, between the requirements of democratic freedom
and the maintenance of social peace and ethnic harmony, between the sequence of political and economic
reform and between the national interest and local government authority. Although Indonesia has not
recovered fully from the interlocking crisis of the last five years, it has gone a long way towards the
establishment of institutional structures, which are likely to prevent another unexpected systemic collapse.
An important feature of the political and economic and security reforms undertaken over the last five years is
to make Indonesia significantly more resilient towards severe economic shocks of the future. Much remains
to be done, but much has been achieved.
EXT: INDONESIA 2AC NO IMPACT

Internal self-determination efforts for East Timor demonstrate the inevitability of secession
and economic downturn.
Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 2007 “The Missing Link
between Self-Determination and Democracy: The Case of East Timor”6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 176
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v6/n1/7.
However, the United Nations ("U.N.") failed to emphasize internal self-determination in its intervention in
the self-determination efforts of East Timor. The U.N. granted East Timor independence from Indonesia and
then carried out an expensive nation-building mission there. However, the U.N. civil authority in East Timor
was not representative of, or accountable to, the East Timorese people and could be characterized as
"benevolent despotism." In addition, East Timor's political leaders built "few bonds with average [East]
Timorese" and made decisions with little interaction with the people. Although East Timor has shown some
remarkable improvements since the end of Indonesian occupation, its people actually became poorer,
especially after the U.N. downsized its mission. Months before the U.N.'s planned end of its nation-building
mission, the newborn state descended into chaos again. Four years after its independence, people were still
"asking whether East Timor ha[d] any future at all as an independent nation.
***A2 OFF CASE ARGUMENTS***

KATO
Their rhetoric of nuclear impacts denies the history of nuclear war against the fourth world
Masahide Kato, Political Science at the University of Hawai’I, Alternatives, Summer, 1993, p. 348-349
Thus, from the perspectives of the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations, the nuclear catastrophe has never
been the “unthinkable” single catastrophe but the real catastrophe of repetitive and ongoing nuclear
explosions and exposure to radioactivity. Nevertheless, ongoing nuclear wars have been subordinated to the
imaginary grand catastrophe by rendering them as mere preludes to the apocalypse. As a consequence, the
history and ongoing processes of nuclear explosions as war have been totally wiped out from the history and
consciousness of the First World community. Such a discursive strategy that aims to mask the “real” of
nuclear warfare in the domain of imagery of nuclear catastrophe can be observed even in Stewart Firth’s
Nuclear Playground, which extensively covers the history of the “nuclear testing” in the Pacific. Nuclear
explosions in the atmosphere…were global in effect. The winds and seas carried radioactive contamination
over vast areas of the fragile ecosphere on which we all depend for our survival and which we call the Earth.
In preparing for war, we were poisoning our planet and going into battle against nature itself. Although
Firth’s book is definitely a remarkable study of the history of “nuclear testing” in the Pacific, the problematic
division/distinction between the “nuclear explosions” and the nuclear war is kept intact. The imagery of final
nuclear war narrated with the problematic use of the subject (“we”) is located higher than the “real” of
nuclear warfare in terms of discursive value. This ideological division/hierarchization is the very vehicle
through which the history and the ongoing processes of the destruction of the Fourth World and Indigenous
Nations by means of nuclear violence are obliterated and hence legitimized. The discursive
containment/obliteration of the “real” of nuclear warfare has been accomplished, ironic as it may sound, by
nuclear criticism. Nuclear criticism, with its firm commitment to global discourse, has established the
unshakeable authority of the imagery of nuclear catastrophe over the real nuclear catastrophe happening in
the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations almost on a daily basis.
Discourse of “extinction” delegitimizes the effects of nuclear violence for the last 60 years
on indigenous populations
Nuclear criticism finds the likelihood of “extinction” as the most fundamental aspect of nuclear catastrophe.
The complex problematics involved in nuclear catastrophe are thus reduced to the single possible instant of
extinction. The task of nuclear critics is clearly designated by Schell as coming to grips with the one and only
final instant: “human extinction whose likelihood we are chiefly interested in finding out about.”
Deconstructionists, on the other hand, take a detour in their efforts to theologize extinction. Jaeques Derrida,
for example, solidified the prevailing mode of representation by constituting extinction as a fatal absence:
Unlike the other wars, which have all been preceded by wars of more or lets the same type in human memory
(and gunpowder did not mark a radical break in this respect), nuclear war has no precedent. It has never
occurred, itself; it is a non-event. The explosion of American bombs in 1945 ended a “classical,”
conventional war; it did not set off a nuclear war. The terrifying reality of the nuclear conflict can only be the
signified referent, never the real referent (present or past) of a discourse or text. At least today apparently. By
representing the possible extinction as the single most important problematic of nuclear catastrophe (posing it
as either a threat or a symbolic void), nuclear criticism disqualifies the entire history of nuclear violence, the
“real” of nuclear catastrophe as a continuous and repetitive process. The “real” of nuclear war is designated
by nuclear critics as a “rehearsal” (Berrick De Kerkhove) or “preperation” (Firth) for what they reserve as the
authentic catastrophe. The history of nuclear violence offers, at best, a reality effect to the imagery of
“extinction.” Schell summarized the discursive position of nuclear critics very succinctly, by stating that
nuclear catastrophe should not be conceptualized “in the context of direct slaughter of hundreds of millions
of people by the local effects.” Thus the elimination of the history of nuclear violence by nuclear critics
stems from the process of discursive “delocalization” of nuclear violence. Their primary focus is not local
catastrophe, but delocalized, unlocatable, “global” catastrophe.
KATO
The representations of future nuclear apocalypse only serves to eliminate the history of
nuclear war against native american communities from the consciousness of the first world.
Let us recall our earlier discussion about the critical historical conjuncture where the notion of “strategy”
changed its nature and became deregulated/ dispersed be yond the boundaries set by the interimperial rivalry.
Herein, the perception of the ultimate means of destruction can be historically contextualized. The only
instances of real nuclear catastrophe perceived and thus given due recognition by the First World community
are the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which occurred at this conjuncture. Beyond this historical
threshold, whose meaning is relevant only to the interimperial rivalry, the nuclear catastrophe is confined to
the realm of fantasy, for instance, apocalyptic imagery. And yet how can one deny the crude fact that nuclear
war has been taking place on this earth in the name of “nuclear testing” since the first nuclear explosion at
Alamogordo in 1945? As of 199L 1,924 nuclear explosions have occurred on earth.28 The major perpetrators
of nuclear warfare are the United States (936 times), the former Soviet Union (715 times), France (192
times), the United Kingdom (44 times), and China (36 times). 29 The primary targets of warfare (“test site”
to use Nuke Speak terminology) have been invariably the sovereign nations of Fourth World and Indigenous
Peoples. Thus history has already witnessed the nuclear wars against the Marshall Islands (66 times), French
Polynesia (175 times), Australian Aborigines (9 times), Newe Sogobia (the Western Shoshone Nation) (814
times), the Christmas Islands (24 times), Hawaii (Kalama Island, also known as Johnston Island) (12 times),
the Republic of Kazakhstan (467 times), and Uighur (Xiryian Province, China) (36 times). So Moreover,
although I focus primarily on “nuclear tests” in this article, if we are to expand the notion of nuclear warfare
to include any kind of violence accrued from the nuclear fuel cycle (particularly uranium mining and
disposition of nuclear wastes), we must enlist Japan and the European nations as perpetrators and add the
Navaho, Havasupai and other Indigenous Nations to the list of targets. Viewed as a whole, nuclear war, albeit
undeclared, has been waged against the Fourth World, and Indigenous Nations. The dismal consequences of
“intensive exploitation,” “low intensity intervention,” or the “nullification of the sovereignty” in the Third
World produced by the First World have taken a form of nuclear extermination in the Fourth World and
Indigenous Nations. Thus, from the perspectives of the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations, the nuclear
catastrophe has never been the “unthinkable” single catastrophe but the real catastrophe of repetitive and
ongoing nuclear explosions and exposure to radioactivity. Nevertheless, ongoing nuclear wars have been
subordinated to the imaginary grand catastrophe by rendering them as mere preludes to the apocalypse. As a
consequence, the history and ongoing processes of nuclear explosions as war have been totally wiped out
from the history and consciousness of the First World community. Such a discursive strategy that aims to mask the “real” of nuclear
warfare in the domain of imagery of nuclear catastrophe can be obseIVed even in Stewart Firth’s Nuclear Playground, which extensively
covers the history of “nuclear testing” in the Pacific: Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere … were global in effect. The winds and seas
carried radioactive contamination over vast areas of the fragile ecosphere on which we all depend for our survival and which we call the
earth. In preparing for war, we were poisoning our planet and going into battle against nature itself.
A2 SPENDING
PTC will lessen tribal dependence of federal grants

It is commonly thought that Indian tribes enjoy a significant business advantage because they are tax-free
entities. This is often true - an entity that does not pay 35% of its earnings to the government is generally
better off than one that does. However, in certain industries, the tax credits available are so great that not
paying taxes hurts the tribes in a side-by-side business comparison to taxable entities, such as corporations.
This paper will argue that tribes should be given the opportunity to transfer to tax-paying partners the tax
credits they would have earned from certain projects but for their tax-free status. Making tax credits tradable
for tribes will accomplish three important goals: (1) The federal government will be able to better promote
targeted economic activities by giving tribes the same financial incentives as the rest of the business
community; (2) Tribal dependence on federal grants will be reduced, as larger pools of investment capital
become available to tribes and tribal wealth increases; (3) As dependence is reduced, tribal sovereignty will
increase. This paper will examine the issue of tax credit tradability through the lens of wind energy projects,
which normally receive large tax credits, but which are structurally very difficult for tribes - as non-tax-
paying entities - to develop.
Wind brings high levels of economic benefits to local communities

Traditional methods of electricity generation are faced with increasing difficulties: coal-fired generation is a
liability in the age of global warming; 7 natural gas prices are high and unpredictable; 8 nuclear power still
poses [*270] storage problems; 9 and there are few rivers in the U.S. left undammed for hydroelectricity. 10
These problems have opened up a market opportunity for wind-generated electricity. Wind power has stepped
in to fill the gap left by traditional power sources and provides new generation capacity. 11 Builders of wind
farms will add about 2750 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity in 2006, which will produce about as
much electricity as is used by the entire state of Rhode Island. 12 Wind enjoys three main advantages: price,
environmental benefits and economic benefits. When coupled with federal tax credits, new wind turbine
designs are now cost-competitive with new coal plants and natural gas generation. 13 With concerns of global
warming rising, wind is an energy source that results in few greenhouse gasses. Wind power also enjoys
political support for the positive impact it can have on domestic manufacturing industries. 14 Renewable
energy development brings high levels of economic benefits to the local community, when compared to
fossil-powered electricity. 15 Renewable energy is particularly popular in rural areas with few [*271] other
economic prospects. In 2006, a successful challenger for a U.S. Senate seat in Montana made wind power a
prominent part of his campaign. 16There is potential for tribes to play a major role in the U.S. wind industry.
As noted above, wind power on tribal lands could provide a substantial portion of U.S. electricity needs. 17
The Great Plains have wind in abundance, and many tribal reservations are located in the Great Plains. Wind
developers are interested in working with tribes because tribes are single landowners over vast, windy tracts
of land - the area within the Rosebud Reservation boundaries alone is larger than the land area of the entire
state of Rhode Island. Additionally, some power purchasers, realizing the economic plight of the reservations,
are willing to give the tribes better-than-market prices for tribally generated electricity. 18
A2 SPENDING
The federal government has already authorized the PTC for wind farms the plan makes
tax code revenue neutral allowing natives to compete for investors
Under the proposal, the tribes can partner with an outside investor, and no matter what the respective
ownership percentages, the outside investor could still get the PTC's full value (and the tribe would be paid
consideration in fair exchange for this value). Ideally, the tribe would want to leverage the deal as much as it
could - borrowing its share of the project and bringing in an outside investor who could take the tax credits,
bring in cash and/or a good credit rating to satisfy the lender as to the project's viability, and drop out after
ten years. Importantly, the proposed change is revenue neutral. Very few wind farms of any size are built
without access to the PTC. So, whether a wind farm is built under partial tribal ownership or without tribal
ownership, the tax credits the wind farm generates - and, therefore, the cost to the U.S. government - would
be the same. A tradable PTC may meet some opposition from non-Indian landowners who are afraid of wind
projects moving to reservations instead of their land. However, wind sites are chosen for a multitude of
factors, including wind speeds and access to transmission - the tribes will be competing with others based on
these many factors, and the most economically feasible projects will [*285] go forward. Clearly, the
Western Governors' Association did not feel it much of a concern - they have backed the idea of a tradable
PTC. 75
Turn – we actually generate revenue for the government

Taub 07. [Steve Taub. Senior Vice President of GE Energy Financial Services. “GE ENERGY FINANCIAL
SERVICES STUDY: Impact of 2007 Wind Farms on US Treasury.”]
Over the long-term, wind projects pump money into the US Treasury. Tax revenues flow mainly from the
projects, which become significant taxpayers once the PTCs run out. Income taxes on corporate profits and
individual workers’ income associated with wind projects also help offset the US Treasury’s cost of the PTC.
Calculations in this study are based on GE Energy Financial Services’ extensive experience investing in real
projects and the “Jobs and Economic Development Impact” (JEDI) Model from the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory…. Using this model, GE Energy Financial Services estimates that wind farms built in
2007 generates for the US Treasury: $1.9 billion in NPV of taxes on project income4, $540 million in NPV
of income tax on individuals’ wages, $280 million in NPV of income tax on vendors’ profits, $30 million in
NPV of income tax on lease payments and royalties to landowners. The total NPV to the US Treasury was an
estimated $2.75 billion, greater than the $2.5 billion total cost of the PTCs – resulting in a net inflow to the
Treasury of $250 million (See Figure 2).
A2 BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
PTCs are vital to ensure business confidence in the wind industry
AP 08. [Associated Press. June 2, 2008. “Tax credit seen vital for wind industry growth.”
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080602&id=8716988]
Renewal of federal tax credits expiring at the end of the year is critical to U.S. investment in the wind-energy
industry, executives and officials said Monday. Congress is debating whether to renew, and how to pay for,
production tax credits that help subsidize the growing industry. The existing subsidy of 2 cents per kilowatt
hour for wind developers is set to expire in December, and the uncertainty has prompted some to delay
investments beyond 2008, industry executives say. The tax credits were a hot topic at Windpower 2008, a
four-day gathering of more than 10,000 policymakers and energy professionals that began Sunday. Vic Abate,
vice president for renewables at GE Energy, an arm of General Electric Co., said failure to renew the tax
credit will almost certainly slow GE's business of supplying turbines to wind farms. "We're already starting to
see some customers ask, 'If this (credit) doesn't happen, can we put these in Canada or South America,'"
Abate said. The credits expired in 1999, 2001 and 2003, and wind-power installation fell significantly in each
of the following years, advocates of the tax credits note. Despite the subsidy question, legendary oilman T.
Boone Pickens' Mesa Power said last month it ordered 667 wind turbines from GE for a mammoth wind farm
in the Texas Panhandle — a $2 billion bet on what Pickens hopes will become "the wind capital of the
world." The entire project, whose cost could grow to $12 billion, is forecast to be finished in 2014. Pickens
acknowledged that questions over the subsidy made the GE order a bit harrowing but he said he's confident
Congress will understand the consequences if it doesn't OK the credit. Based on a price $125 a barrel for
crude oil, Pickens estimates the U.S. will spend $700 billion a year for foreign oil — a tab he said is not
sustainable. "People may say I'm foolish to have that kind of confidence in Congress, but I do because the
$700 billion is so overwhelming," he told The Associated Press. "We're going to have to go to all the
alternatives that we can." Wind energy today accounts for about 1 percent of the nation's electricity, but the
industry has been on a growth spurt. More than $9 billion in investments helped U.S. wind capacity grow by
45 percent last year, and 2008 is poised to match those levels, according to the American Wind Energy
Association. A report released last month — a collaboration between the Energy Department and industry —
concluded wind energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030, about the same share
now produced by nuclear reactors. Andy Karsner, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for efficiency
and renewable energy, said Monday that Congress should look beyond the current tax-credit subsidy and
create a policy that encourages investment in a variety of clean-energy industries. Ideally, he said, it would be
a "technology neutral" policy that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions growth regardless of the source —
wind, nuclear, solar, or some other. For now, however, he said it's important for Congress to renew the tax
credit. "This is the tool we've got in the tool kit," Karsner said. "Playing with it right now is not the answer."
Hunter Armistead, who helps oversee wind-farm projects for developer Babcock & Brown Ltd., agreed a
policy that extends beyond two years was far more desirable for the industry. "We see it as a bridge to
something more permanent," Armistead said. "For now, though, it's what we've got."
Wind PTCs are key to inducing investors to invest in wind businesses
Krenicki 07. [“CLEAN ENERGY.” Thursday March 29, 2007. CQ Congressional Testimony of John Krenicki,
President & CEO of GE. Committee on Senate Finance. Lexis.]
I will focus on the issues involved in expanding the opportunities for renewables, specifically wind and solar
energy, the benefits of these resources, and challenges in growing the renewable generation sector, and
particularly the wind industry. We have made considerable progress in expanding our use of renewables, and
supportive tax policies, especially the renewable energy production tax credit ("PTC"), have been essential.
There is much more that remains to be done, however, to secure the energy security and environmental
benefits of renewable energy generation. Summary of Key Recommendations. Congress should act this year
to extend the existing tax credit for production of electricity from wind energy and the investment tax credits
for solar energy. Action this year - before the credits expire - will assure that the stimulus provided for the
growth of the wind and solar industries continues undiminished by financial uncertainty. Putting Renewable
Generation in Context: Global Demand For Renewables… GE recommends the following actions to
accelerate the growth of wind energy in the US: extension of the renewable energy PTC, steps to assure that
wind-generated electricity will have access to the transmission grid, and national policies to expand the use
of low and zero-carbon technologies. PTC Extension: Wind is more competitive when the 1.9-cent per kWh
production tax credit is applied. The PTC provides a necessary economic incentive for power producers to
generate power from wind. As illustrated below, the role of the production tax credit in stimulating the
installation of wind generation is clear. This success comes despite the on again, off again nature of the PTC.
When the PTC was initially enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress provided a multi-year
duration for the credit. As the deadline for the credit to expire in July 1999 drew nearer, investment ramped
up in order to take advantage of the credit. Congress then extended the credit, but not until December 1999.
The credit was again allowed to expire in January 2002, before being extended via legislation enacted in
March 2002. The longest period of expiration occurred in 2004, when the credit expired on January 1, but
was not extended until October. The benefits of a timely extension of the PTC through the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 and again through legislation enacted in December 2006 are already being seen in the strong capacity
additions made in 2006 and forecast for 2007 and 2008. Simply stated, when the wind production tax credit
has been allowed to expire, new installed capacity has dropped dramatically in the following year due to lack
of component availability. Therefore, a more stable incentive for wind generation will create the confidence
for suppliers to make the long-term investments needed to assure the availability of critical components.
Today, there is industry discussion of a 5-year PTC extension, versus the 1-2 year extensions that have been
common in recent years. The objective of such a multi-year extension would be to provide a greater degree of
financial certainty to encourage long term investment by suppliers. …An on-and-off policy scheme has made
it difficult for suppliers to make long-term commitments. Conversely, a more stable long term incentive for
wind power would generate the confidence for suppliers to make the long-term investments in manufacturing
capability that are needed to assure the availability of critical components…In conclusion, wind power is a
cleaner, viable offset to fossil fuel generation. The U.S. is well positioned to benefit from this ample,
domestic resource and it is evident that wind can become a significant player in the US energy mix through
its proven technology and strong growth. Predictable incentives, however, are still needed to sustain this
momentum and drive costs down.
Expansion of PTC leads to increasing developer confidence
Business Wire 07. [Tuesday December 18, 2007. “Lured by the Investor-friendly Climate, Wind Energy Companies Flock to North
America.” Business Wire. Lexis.]
European wind energy companies have been making a beeline for the United States, which is fast emerging as an
investment hub for wind energy generators. The United States is drawing in investors from Denmark,
Germany, and Spain with its increased focus on alternate energy sources, technology advances, and tax break
extensions. This has compelled the domestic companies to be on their toes. Meanwhile, the wind power market in Canada has
become increasingly dynamic due to federal and more importantly, provincial efforts to promote it. The country will greatly benefit from
the new wind legislation aimed at achieving 10,000 MW wind power generation by 2010. The U.S. market witnessed a late surge in new
wind turbines installations in the past two years, but it still trails Germany in the global ranking. Meanwhile, in wind power production,
it is only a notch below Spain, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. To extend this good form and augment turbine
installations, wind turbine vendors will have to sort out issues regarding gearboxes, castings, and blades in the supply chain. They can
achieve this by developing close ties with component suppliers. The high demand for turbines will encourage suppliers to increase
capacity during the design of their manufacturing facilities. Renewable Policy Adoption and Implementation Sways Market Trends in
the Wind Energy Market. In the United States, production tax credit (PTC) continues to be an influential growth
factor, as installations have been increasing and decreasing depending on PTC's extension and termination.
"Industrial investments in production base and developer confidence have also been affected due to wavering
PTC policy," says the analyst of this research. "However, state-based polices such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS),
Renewable Electricity Standards, and Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) have moderately compensated for inconsistency
in PTC implementation." U.S. companies can take heart from the issuance of renewable energy certificate (REC), which encourages
domestic generation renewable energy. Market participants have also begun to understand that the future trends will be influenced more
by RPS than PTC, although the latter will still function as a developer confidence indicator. "Reforms such as
the proposed wind energy system standardization and utility integrated resource planning (IRP) methodologies, have found active
support from both the utilities and the industry," notes the analyst. "The idea is to effectively integrate renewable energy systems such as
wind energy systems into a utility's current grid and transmission systems to both satisfy RPS obligations and answer connectivity
issues." These initiatives have enhanced accountability and troubleshooting in the wind energy market, making it more competitive than
other renewable energy market.
Unique Link Turn--Business Confidence will decrease without tax credits

Red Orbit 2008 (Nichola Groom and Matt Daily, reporters
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1411912/alternative_energy_on_edge_in_us/)
Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are
backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for the burgeoning
renewable energy industry. After several failed attempts by Congress to prolong alternative energy subsidies
that are set to expire at the end of this year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to
increase their sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. "It certainly is
affecting business," said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment.
"It's a major issue for the solar industry," Splinter said. "We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start
to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives." The alternative energy
industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of renewable power competitive with electricity
generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months
as lawmakers argue over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives approved an
extension by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was
opposed by the Senate. The latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for one year the
federal tax credit for companies that produce electricity from wind, and extend it for three years for power
generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste. Businesses and homeowners
would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before 2014 with
a one-time tax credit.
A reliable federal PTC is critical to raising business confidence
Heesen and Westine 08. [Mark Heesen and Lezlee Westine. President of the National Venture Capital Association
and President and CEO of TechNet. “U.S. Needs to Extend Renewable Tax Credits Now.” May 22, 2008.
http://www.technet.org/news/oped/?postId=9322]
Some may ask what is the connection between green energy and the price of oil? The answer is the most basic of economic tenets ¿ high
demand and limited supply lead to higher prices. Today, two-thirds of the oil used in the United States is for transportation. Outside the
U.S., roughly 50 percent of the oil consumed is used for non-transportation purposes such as electricity generation. Given the world¿s
limited supply and heavy reliance on oil, there simply are no market forces working to drive down costs. To bring down and keep down
the price of oil (and America¿s gas prices), greater competition in the world energy market is needed. Consumption must shift from oil
to a more balanced mix that includes greener energy alternatives. But without reliable federal policy that drives this
transformation, clean energy sources are unlikely to reach the economies of scale necessary to compete with
oil in the world energy market. Congress deserves credit for legislation signed into law this past December that raised fuel
economy and energy efficiency standards. These steps represented good long-term solutions, but in that effort, the Senate failed by one
vote to approve critically needed incentives to promote investment and production of clean energy. The energy sector is among
the most capital-intensive industries in the world. The substantial upfront costs of generating electricity and
developing and installing new technologies requires a significant time and funding commitment. Federal tax
incentives can spur this process by helping new energy sources achieve the economies of scale necessary to
compete. Unfortunately, existing incentives that can help drive this process are set to expire at year’s end.
Without these tax incentives, promising clean energy industries may fail…Today, a broad, bi-partisan,
majority of economists and policy-makers agree that tax incentives are critical to long-term investment and
expansion of alternative energy sources. Project developers must know for certain, or possess a realistic level
of confidence, that the tax credit will be in place for roughly 2 to 6 years in advance, as the development
work is carried out. Failing to provide that certainty otherwise causes pre-construction project development activity to be reduced
and significant job loss. When the production tax credits last expired in 2004, the amount of power produced from
wind installations dropped 77 percent in a single year. There are more than 42,000 megawatts (MW) of clean power
generation projects now in development in 45 states, employing thousands of workers. Recent studies suggest that extending the
investment and production tax credits for green energy projects would help create 120,000 jobs and spur nearly $20 billion in economic
investment in the United States. (move that sentence to this paragraph to make it flow better) If no agreement can be made and the
incentives expire, it will deal a devastating blow to the renewable energy industry. Failure to extend the credits would be a tragedy as the
United States is now in a historic position to lead the world in clean energy. While our advancements are the envy of the world, our
global competitors are doing everything they can to corner the market through aggressive public policies and strong renewable energy
laws. In fact, it’s no surprise that in cold, gray Germany over the past five years, the top two job creating industries are the wind power
and solar energy industries. In the United States, the private sector has stepped up to the challenge on clean energy. In the venture capital
community alone, investment in the alternative energy sector has grown to $2.9 billion in 2007, up more than 50 percent from $1.9
billion in 2006. It’s pretty simple. Business leaders will not make these investment risks without knowing the
potential of this market. It’s time for our government to back them up and make real steps to support
renewable energy. Passing the energy incentives now being considered by Congress will help curb rising
energy costs and create a vast new wave of green collar jobs, while simultaneously helping future generations
live better lives on this planet.
PTC ensures business confidence

Taub 07. [Steve Taub. Senior Vice President of GE Energy Financial Services. “GE ENERGY FINANCIAL
SERVICES STUDY: Impact of 2007 Wind Farms on US Treasury.”]
The PTC is scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2008. Since its establishment in 1992, the PTC has been allowed to
lapse three times: 1999, 2001, and 2003. Each time, the annual increase of wind power capacity dropped
dramatically (See Figure 1). Beginning in 2005, wind energy power capacity soared in part because of
confidence in the PTC. Without confidence in the PTC, new wind power construction will slow significantly,
and the uncertain future of the PTC is already creating a chilling effect on construction and investments. In
early 2008, the House approved a one-year extension, but the bill failed a cloture motion by one vote in the
Senate. The latest attempt to extend the PTC failed in the Senate in June 2008.
Unique Link Turn The plan increase unstable business confidence
International Herald Tribune 08. [“Alternative Energy on Edge in U.S.” International Herald Tribune. Monday, 2 June 2008.
Nichola Groom and Matt Daily. http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1411912/alternative_energy_on_edge_in_us/]
Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are
backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for the burgeoning
renewable energy industry. After several failed attempts by Congress to prolong alternative energy subsidies
that are set to expire at the end of this year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to
increase their sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. "It certainly is affecting
business," said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. "It's a major issue for the solar
industry," Splinter said. "We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the
simplest, smallest of incentives." The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of
renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts to extend the
tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives
approved an extension by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was opposed by the
Senate. The latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for one year the federal tax credit for companies that produce
electricity from wind, and extend it for three years for power generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid
waste. Businesses and homeowners would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before
2014 with a one-time tax credit. The measure passed in the House last month, but the White House threatened to veto it. Democrats
have said election-year pressures and soaring gasoline prices will eventually lead to an extension of the
subsidies. But that confidence is not shared by the industry. Akeena Solar, a maker of solar power systems, recently cut 8
percent of its work force and warned of weaker demand this year, in part because of a pullback in large-scale projects that would not be
completed by the end of the year. Tom Werner, chief executive of SunPower, has said that his company was ready to move business into
markets outside the United States, including Italy, to offset a potential policy-driven drop in demand in the United States. The Solar
Energy Solutions division of Sharp, the Japanese electronics company, is seeing a strong increase in demand as its clients scramble to
finish projects before the U.S. tax credits expire, said Ron Kenedi, vice president of the division. But he warned that projects would
be halted if an extension of the credits did not materialize. "When you have a stoppage it gets tough to invest,
and you get people thinking about, 'Maybe I shouldn't do it now' - and that's not a good thing," Kenedi said.
Uncertainty about the subsidies has contributed to the volatility in renewable energy stocks this year. Akeena's
shares, for instance, are down about 60 percent from the all-time high of $16.80 they reached in January. Erik Olbeter, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities, said in a research note on
May 14 that failure to extend the tax credits soon would hurt companies with large exposures to the U.S. market,
like the solar companies Akeena and SunPower and wind turbine manufacturers like Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark. Still, at least one investor says he believes the industry will
thrive no matter what happens to subsidies because they are just one factor underpinning the skyrocketing demand for renewable energy sources. "The chief worry is not that demand
may slow, the chief worry is how fast can they make their business grow," said Kevin Landis, chief investment officer of Firsthand Funds, an investment firm based in San Jose,
California. Firsthand Funds counts Akeena, Suntech Power Holdings and Sharp among its portfolio of renewable energy stocks. "That's the right kind of problem to have," Landis
added. "I wouldn't shed any tears about end demand right now."
PTCs create strong investor confidence, but the government’s wavering PTC policy is
worrying investors
The Wall Street Journal 08. [Keith Johnson. “Renewing Renewable Tax Breaks.” January 28, 2008. The Wall Street
Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/28/renewing-renewable-tax-breaks/]
The economic stimulus package in Congress needs to stimulate clean energy. That’s the drumbeat from Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, who wants the fiscal jump-start to renew
federal tax credits for renewable energy. The tax credits, still crucial to making wind and solar power competitive, expire at the end of this year. There is a growing chorus behind
the American wind energy lobby, joined by its brethren in the solar, geothermal, and
renewal, not surprisingly, from renewable sectors themselves. Last week,
hydropower industries, called for Congress to renew the tax credit or risk pole-axing a growing sector. But Sen. Cantwell, getting
in the spirit of the stimulus debate, frames renewal of the tax credit as a shot in the arm for energy-addled consumers. In a letter to Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate—
Failing to
including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus—Sen. Cantwell and 32 colleagues called for Congressional action: “
act on these crucial incentives could choke off promising business investment in 2008 and miss an
opportunity to address high energy costs, a critical contributor to sinking consumer confidence and our
nation’s long-term economic challenges.” Sen. Cantwell argued last Thursday on the Senate floor that tax-credit renewal would combine a short-term jolt
—new jobs and economic activity this year—with longer-term benefits, such as more green-collar jobs and more energy security. A long-time proponent of both the tax credits and a
federal renewable-energy standard, she also winked at the stock market after this month’s solar stock flares: “Investors hate uncertainty…Congress
because of its delays are serving up nothing but uncertainty causing clean energy projects to become more
scarce and more costly — just at a time when we need energy costs to be going down, not up.” It’s true that the on-
again, off-again nature of the federal tax credits has created a rollercoaster pattern of development for renewable energy in the U.S., as renewable lobbies often point out.
Developers scramble to roll out new projects while the tax credits are in place—as in the record year for wind
power in 2007—then generally freeze investment as the credits set to expire. Increasingly, renewable-energy
companies think subsidies and price-supports will fade away as technological advances narrow the cost gap with traditional power
generation sources. But in the meantime, there are echoes of St. Augustine: God grant me chastity, just not yet.
A2 TERRORISM
Plan key prevent terrorism and failed states – time is now, states are uniquely vulnerable to
ally with terrorist organizations.
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/executive_summary/pc_es_20070613.pdf, pg 1)
While the global community is increasingly aware of the dreadful conditions facing the populations of
unstable and failing states, Peace and Conflict carefully traces the dangerous propensity for these states to
host domestic and international terrorist organizations (see chapter 6). Equally alarming is the likelihood that
these states will become participants in crises either on the regional or global stage. A staggering 77 percent
of all international crises in the post-Cold War era have involved at least one unstable or failing state (see
chapter 8). As Mohamed ElBaradei (2006) has recently observed, we must acknowledge the inherent
linkages between economic and social development, respect for human rights, and peace.
Case outweighs Terrorism – it’s only a threat when combined with the political instability
that is inevitable without the aff.
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/executive_summary/pc_es_20070613.pdf, pg 3)
By itself, terrorism is not likely to be the most serious future challenge to international security. Rather, the
most important threat to human security and state stability is the impact of a set of associated hazards, a
conflict syndrome, that poses the gravest danger. The evidence presented in this volume leads us to conclude
that high-risk states are simultaneously politically unstable, challenged by rebels and terrorists, tempted to
resort to mass killings of civilians, and enmeshed in international crises. There are predictable pathways into
these syndromes but no clearly marked exits.
A2 OTHER INCENTIVE CPS
PTC is the best mechanism to promote investment and wind growth.

Wiser, et al., 07.(Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger, and Galen Barbose, “Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to
Build a Durable Market for Wind Power in the United States,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, November 2007, http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMS/reports/63583.pdf)
The PTC reduces the price of wind-generated electricity by roughly 2¢/kWh on a 20-year levelized basis,
thereby making wind more attractive to electric utilities and other investors.6 In fact, with the PTC, wind power
is now economically attractive in some regions of the country relative to more-conventional electricity sources.7
The PTC, coupled with the rising cost of conventional fuels, R&D advances, and a variety of state policies, has
stimulated significant – though erratic – growth in the use of wind power over the past 10 years, as shown in
Figure 1. (In contrast, though not shown here, the PTC has not yet had a major impact on the development of
other eligible renewable technologies, in part because many of these technologies have only recently been made
eligible for the incentive). Figure 1. U.S. Wind Power Capacity (annual and cumulative) Partly as a result
of the PTC, the U.S. has led the world in newly installed wind power capacity for the last two years. Nearly $4
billion was invested in new U.S. wind projects in 2006 alone and, since the PTC began in 1994, U.S. wind plant
additions represent an aggregate investment of roughly $13 billion.
Landowner payments don’t provide long-term economic benefits

Another proposal has been for tribes to take landowner payments for placing wind turbines on their land -
becoming a passive partner in wind projects. Unfortunately, landowner payments for a project are tiny
compared to the overall profits of a project, and this option would not benefit tribes much. Landowner
payments for wind projects cluster around $ 4000 to $ 6000 per turbine per year. 61 However, the return on a
large wind turbine can equal $ 270,000 - $ 340,000 per year - over fifty times the landowner payments. 62
Clearly, the money is in owning projects, not in being a landowner.
Federal grants and bonds are difficult for tribes to rely on and don’t create the cash flow a
PTC would produce
Financing tribal wind farms though low-priced bonds also does not work in practice. Recent research has
shown the problems tribes encounter in seeking cheap or subsidized sources of capital that would obviate the
need to take advantage of the PTC. 63 The most obvious source of this cheap money would be tax-exempt
bonds issued by tribal governments. However, tax-exempt bonds present two problems. First, tribes have had
problems convincing the IRS that tribal projects are part of an "essential government function" as required
for tribal tax-exempt bonds. 64 Meeting this standard will be more problematic for large wind farms designed
to sell power to off-reservation customers - precisely the kind of wind farm that will make tribes the most
money. Second, even if financed with tax-free bonds, tribal projects do worse than PTC-enabled projects in a
side-by-side comparison and do not meet standard requirements for return on investment. 65
A2 OTHER INCENTIVES CPS
CREBS are too limited in amount and don’t ensure continued funding –Natives don’t want
them
Clean or Renewable Energy Bonds 66 - a federal attempt to help tribes and other non-taxable entities (such as
electric power cooperatives or municipal utilities) overcome the PTC issues - have also failed to work for
tribes and do not have the potential to work on a large scale. CREBs bonds give the buyer of the bonds a 1.9
/KWh tax credit, in the hope that non-taxable entities can finance projects by selling CREBs bonds to taxable
entities. One group of CREBs bonds has been approved, with apparently only one tribe among the 709
applicants. 67 Reasons for the non-participation are unclear, but may have to do with tribal inexperience with
this new financial mechanism - and with bonding in general, 68 due to historic restrictions on tribal bonding
authority. 69 Whatever the reasons, CREBs bonds have not appealed to tribes. The more serious problem for
wind development is that CREBs bonds are allocated in limited amounts - the national cap was $ 800 million
for 2006, and continued funding is dependent on year-by-year congressional approval, making them an
uncertain investment vehicle. Also, CREBs bonds are financed through a smallest-to-largest mechanism,
whereby the smallest qualifying projects are chosen first, and the largest ones receive funding on an as-
available basis. The size requirement tends to favor solar installations over wind farms - in the 2006 CREBs
allocation 434 solar projects were funded, as compared to 112 wind projects. 70 Indeed, the largest CREBs-
funded project was $ 31 million - hardly enough for a small wind farm - despite applications for projects up
to $ 80 million in size. 71
A2 STATES CP - USFG K
Denial of PTC eligibility is a failure of the USFG to fulfill its trust responsibility to Native
Americans--the federal government must act to access any of our self-determination
advantages
Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians U.S. Department of Energy 2004
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print
A number of national energy policy issues could support native renewable energy development, particularly wind
energy development. Tribes need to have equal access to the federal renewable energy incentives. In the Great Plains, we
are running into a variety of overriding policy issues, as well as local nuts-and-bolts concerns in the practical application of wind development on
Tribal lands. As a member of Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (COUP), we have proposed several specific policy directions and actions by the
executive and legislative branches that will do a great deal to assist Tribes in the development of wind energy. I will address these issues in three
areas, which are equally important: First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grants program for renewable
energy projects because they provide funding for planning, feasibility, and development of real projects. The DOE and the Wind Powering
America program have initiated a meaningful outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind Interest Groups and technical assistance
partnerships. This is a great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of the U.S. Government to the Tribal Nations. Second, Congress
must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that drives all wind projects in this country.
Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract the private investor to develop partnerships for projects on Tribal
lands. Indians are the only people with a "trust relationship" with the federal government. Our treaties require the
federal government to assist us in developing our reservation economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to
tax-paying developers via the PTC or to states or subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (REPI). Indians are the only group excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we
are the only ones with a legal obligation -- our treaties -- for federal assistance! Currently, because Tribes are not
taxed entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving them most of this continent), any
developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized by only being able to use a
portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of ownership in the
production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner must forego any
incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in this country, but this
federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands.
Only the federal government can do the plan - federal administrative agencies have
jurisdiction over tribal land
Dubois '06 (Leslie R., “COMMENT: CURIOSITY AND CARBON: EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF CARBON
SEQUESTRATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES AS OUTLINED IN THE
INDIAN ENERGY TITLE OF THE 2005 ENERGY POLICY ACT”, Lexis Law Review)
The federal government exercises jurisdiction over tribes concerning environmental and energy issues through
administrative agencies exercising authority granted by Congress. 121 The courts have used the government's
fiduciary or trust duty as a basis for awarding damages for the "mismanagement of Indian resources ..." when the
federal agency "has been assigned comprehensive responsibility to manage them for the benefit of tribes." The
federal government holds much of tribal land in trust and may exercise control over the tribes by requiring federal
governmental approval for contracts made regarding Indian interests in land. 123 For example, the Secretary of the
Interior, or a designee thereof, must approve agreements or contracts with tribes that encumber "Indian lands for a period of 7
or more years." 124 Thus, if energy contracts regarding sequestration last for more than seven years, the approval of the Secretary of the Interior
would be necessary in order for the contract to be valid unless the contract is covered under the new procedures in the Indian Energy Title. It
should be noted, however, that Secretarial review is applicable only to tribal trust lands and not agreements regarding tribal land held in fee.
Therefore, if sequestration and subsequent carbon trading occurred on tribally held fee land, Secretarial approval of carbon trading agreements
would not be necessary. The EPA, an administrative agency, has a subsidiary American Indian Environmental Office that exercises jurisdiction
over enforcing environmental protection laws on Indian reservations. 126 While there is no definitive answer on how the federal
government will treat carbon trade and sequestration on tribal lands, the EPA currently exercises authority over
various aspects of tribal environmental issues. 127 In addition, it authorizes tribes to assume responsibility [*616]
to adopt water or air quality standards for their reservations under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. 128 As
such, it is logical that tribes may extend this power to regulation of carbon sequestration and the carbon trade internally.
A2 STATES CP - USFG K
Federal Policies Supporting Tribal Governance Lead to Economic Development
The distinguished leaders and researchers testifying before the Committee today have repeatedly and convincingly
demonstrated that economic development in Indian Country is directly tied to strong, independent and culturally
appropriate Tribal governmental structures. However, the authority of Tribal governments is tied into a complex
relationship between inherent Tribal sovereignty, the federal power in Indian affairs, the federal trust responsibility,
and state government authority. It is in this area that the role of the U.S. Congress is most critical. Congress has the
authority to either support Tribal authority or to impede it, and all too often Tribal government authority is limited in
ways that impede the Tribal government's ability to effectively contribute to economic development. It is the
creation and passage of sound federal Indian policy, in a broad range of issue areas, that allows Tribes to work
within their own communities to enact change.
Tribes need to be provided with Federal assistance to administer programs
All too often, Indian nations are prohibited from receiving training and technical assistance to conform to new
federal statutes. While some appropriations have provisions for such measures, most are underfunded. This lack of
funding directly affects the success of the programs in question. If a Tribe is not provided with the knowledge and
expertise to administer a program, it is usually doomed to be unsuccessful. The funding shortfall in the
Administration's budget not just for technical assistance, but for feasibility studies, business infrastructure, and
research for legal code issues creates a gap that Indian Country is often unable to fill. Technical assistance, while
bringing stability to programs, can also address other important issues. For example, Empowerment Zone technical
assistance is a great example of a successful process. During the course of the program, the technical assistance
provided a grass roots structure to communities to talk about governance. Community members provided the much
needed input to ensure stability within their own government, furthering the idea that good governance is a result of
good policy.
A2 STATES CP - CONSTITUTION
Only the federal government can do the policy because of the Indian Commerce Clause.
Dubois '06 (Leslie R., “COMMENT: CURIOSITY AND CARBON: EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF CARBON
SEQUESTRATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES AS OUTLINED IN THE
INDIAN ENERGY TITLE OF THE 2005 ENERGY POLICY ACT”, Lexis Law Review)
The Commerce Clause states that Congress retains the authority to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and [*614] with the Indian Tribes." 113 This reference to Indian Tribes is commonly
known as the Indian Commerce Clause. 114 Over time, the relationship between the federal government and tribal
governments has evolved. One result of this evolution is the Trust Doctrine. The trust doctrine, one of the most
important aspects of relations between tribal governments and the U.S., originated in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
115 In Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee Tribe challenged the extension of Georgia state law onto Indian lands. 116
The Court described the Cherokees, and other Tribal Nations, as "domestic dependent nations" and characterized the
relationship between the federal government and tribes as "that of a ward to his guardian." 117 This has come to be
known as the Trust Doctrine. As a part of the Trust Doctrine, Congress retains plenary power over Indian tribes. 118
In United States v . Kagama, the Court specifically held that the United States, and not the individual states, retained
jurisdiction over the tribes [*615] because of the Trust Doctrine. 119 The Court stated "these Indian tribes are the
wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States." 120
State energy programs involving foreign nations is unconstitutional and cannot provide
adequate oversight.
Huffman & Weisgall '08 (Robert K. & Jonathan M., “EXPLORING HOW TODAY'S DEVELOPMENT AFFECTS
FUTURE GENERATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE: IN THIS ISSUE: CLIMATE LAW REPORTER: CLIMATE
CHANGE AND THE STATES: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARISING FROM STATE CLIMATE PROTECTION
LEADERSHIP”, Sustainable Development Winter, Lexis)
Linking a state or regional cap-and-trade program with a foreign trading system like the EU-ETS would raise
unique constitutional issues not present in a wholly domestic linkage situation. Emission trading linkages with
foreign parties would create a whole host of problems, from verification and standardization of credits at an
international level to accounting and securities disclosure laws and regulations. Credits created by European entities
would require some sort of regulation under federal securities and/or commodities law. The federal government
would have a good argument that states should not be involved in activities over which they do not have full control.
Because a state cannot independently regulate securities and commodities markets, it may be impossible for a state
or group of states to provide adequate oversight of a market linked to international participants.
A2 STATES CP - CONSTITUTION
Only the federal government can regulate foreign affairs.
The power to conduct foreign affairs is vested exclusively in the federal government. Aspects of the power are
constitutionally divided between the President in Article II (e.g., power to make treaties) and the Congress in Article
I (e.g., power to raise an army, declare war). States do not play a role in foreign affairs, as it is important for the
federal government to be able to speak with one voice on behalf of the national interest for matters involving foreign
affairs. Generally, the only cases where courts have struck down laws as interfering with foreign affairs power are
"state or local laws purporting to set up their own authorities as mini-state-departments, with power to oversee and
either approve or disapprove foreign regimes or the negotiation efforts of the U.S. Executive Branch[.]" 78 In
Zschernig v. Miller, 79 the Supreme Court invalidated an Oregon law that prevented a nonresident alien from
inheriting property unless certain conditions were met--primarily, a reciprocal right for Americans in the alien's
country and the assurance that any property received in Oregon would not be confiscated at home. Noting that states
are the typical forum for probate matters, the Court still found the law problematic. "The several States, of course,
have traditionally regulated the descent and distribution of estates. But those regulations must give way if they
impair the effective exercise of the Nation's foreign policy." 80 Zschernig involved a citizen of East Germany, a
country with which the United States had no treaties regarding inheritance. Regardless, "even in absence of a treaty,
a State's policy may disturb foreign relations." 81
States cannot enforce laws on reservations

US Commission On Civil Rights 1973, Staff Memorandum on the Constitutional Status of American Indians,
Washington, D.C. March 1973. http://www.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Americas/civil.txt.
A current major issue arising from the limitations on State authority due to quasi-tribal sovereignty is the hunting
and fishing rights controversy in the Northwest. It is well settled that a State cannot enforce its game and fish laws
within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.(31) However, the issue of State control over on-reservation hunting
and fishing should be distinguished from the question of the extent to which treaty rights prohibit States from
interfering with hunting and fishing by Indians off reservations. In a confusing decision the United States Supreme
Court recently held that treaty rights to "fish at all usual and accustomed places" may not be qualified by a State
but that the exercise of such rights is subject to reasonable State conservation legislation.(32)
States lack jurisdiction over tribes

Suagee 1992 [Dean B., J.D., University of North Carolina, 1976; LL.M., The American University, 1989; Associate,
Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Wilder, Washington, D.C.] University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform SPRING AND
SUMMER, 1992 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671 SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT THE
DAWN OF THE SOLAR AGE, 1992.
Indian tribes have governmental powers as an aspect of their original or inherent sovereignty, but these powers can
be divested by Congress through its "plenary power." 112 Within their reservations, tribes generally retain all powers
other than those they gave up in treaties, had taken away by an express act of Congress, or had taken away by
implicit divestiture as a result of their dependent status. 113 Accordingly, the tribes have authority over a wide range
of subject matter, although the federal government has concurrent authority over much of this range. State
governments generally lack jurisdiction over tribes and Indians within reservations, unless expressly granted
jurisdiction by the federal government, 114 but states generally do have jurisdiction over non-Indians within
reservations, except when preempted by federal law 115 or when the exercise of state authority would infringe upon
tribal self-government.
A2 STATES CP – INTERST8 COMMERCE
State energies could burden interstate commerce, violating the Dormant Commerce
Clause.
In addition, the Dormant Commerce Clause can potentially affect attempts to institute greenhouse gas performance
standards. This would not be a discrimination issue, as the performance standards are facially neutral. Rather, courts
would have to look at whether the performance standards unduly burden interstate commerce. If California's rules
prohibit long term contracts for the in-state sale of energy from out-of-state coal-fired plants, out-of-state producers
are likely to cry foul and sue over the lost business from California's utilities. At that point, the courts would have to
weigh the relative benefits of California's standards against the burden they place on interstate commerce.
A2 STATES CP - UNIFORMITY
State regulations cause patchwork - federal legislation creates uniformity.
Although there has not been affirmative congressional action to deregulate GHG emissions, as there was with the
motor carrier industry, the threat of inconsistent state regulations is a significant tool for the federal government to
yield. The threat of a patchwork of state laws was one of the major reasons EPA Administrator Johnson decided to
reject California's application for a waiver--even though there could never be more than just the federal standard and
the California standard in that instance. The easiest way to prevent the threat of a patchwork of standards is to
include in any federal legislation an express preemption clause that prohibits states from acting in a given area. 77
Should the federal government adopt comprehensive carbon legislation, it is likely to include some level of express
preemption of state laws to ensure a consistent approach for the entire country. This will inevitably lead to legal
battles that delay the implementation of any comprehensive carbon regulation program.
The federal government has the sole framework for environmental policy with natives -
using other actors destroys solvency.

Because of the complex jurisdictional rules applicable to tribal regulatory authority on the reservation, the EPA has
developed federal/tribal partnerships in most areas relevant to control of pollution, which enable uniform regulatory
jurisdiction over air and water resources. 125 The EPA's tribal policy recognizes the important federal interest in
avoiding dual regulatory jurisdiction over reservation lands and resources and favors tribal implementation of air
and water quality standards with EPA assistance and oversight. This regulatory scheme has a firm statutory
foundation in the tribal amendments to the major federal pollution control statutes. Each of the federal
environmental statutes, with the exception of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), was amended
during the late 1980s and early 1990s to include Indian nations as appropriate governments to assume regulatory
authority in partnership with the EPA. 126 Although various states brought challenges to tribal regulatory
jurisdiction, the courts have uniformly upheld the federal statutes as administered by the EPA.
A2 STATES CP – FISM N/U
Congress is developing global climate change legislation - state policies are in jeopardy.
State governments continue to demonstrate leadership in combating climate change--from adopting energy
efficiency standards to enacting renewable portfolio standards to developing cap-and-trade programs aimed at
reducing carbon dioxide emissions, often as part of regional compacts. At the same time, the
Congress is in the process of developing national climate change legislation and agencies in the Executive Branch
are defining their roles. As the federal and state governments begin regulating the same areas of the economy and
the environment, the potential for conflicting programs arises. State programs are potentially vulnerable to a variety
of constitutional challenges, including through the Commerce, Compacts, Supremacy, and Foreign Affairs clauses.
As the federal government solidifies its approach to global climate change over the next several years, the likelihood
for preemption of state programs will become more evident. It is apparent now, however, that state programs
are in serious jeopardy if the federal government actively seeks to restrict state authority. If the current or future
President does not want states to play an active role in climate change regulation, he or she will have several
constitutional tools at their disposal to handicap the states' abilities to create programs that reduce GHG emissions.
A2 STATES CP – NO CREDITS
Solvency Deficit: Not all states have income taxes.
IRS '07 (“States Without an Income Tax”, December 17, http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=130684,00.html)
States Without a State Income Tax: Alaska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, South Dakota, Washington,
Nevada, Texas, Wyoming
Only federal spending can solve - Native Americans don't pay taxes to state governments.
Katel '06 (Peter, “American Indians”, April 28, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006042800)
More than two centuries of court decisions, treaties and laws have created a complicated system of coexistence
between tribes and the rest of the country. On one level, tribes are sovereign entities that enjoy a government-to-
government relationship with Washington. But the sovereignty is qualified. In the words of an 1831 Supreme Court
decision that is a bedrock of Indian law, tribes are “domestic dependent nations.” The blend of autonomy and
dependence grows out of the Indians' reliance on Washington for sheer survival, says Robert A. Williams Jr., a law
professor at the University of Arizona and a member of North Carolina's Lumbee Tribe. “Indians insisted in their
treaties that the Great White Father protect us from these racial maniacs in the states -- where racial discrimination
was most developed -- and guarantee us a right to education, a right to water, a territorial base, a homeland,” he says.
“Tribes sold an awful lot of land in return for a trust relationship to keep the tribes going.” Today, the practical
meaning of the relationship with Washington is that American Indians on reservations, and to some extent those
elsewhere, depend entirely or partly on federal funding for health, education and other needs. Tribes with casinos
and other businesses lessen their reliance on federal dollars. Unlike other local governments, tribes don't have a tax
base whose revenues they share with state governments. Federal spending on Indian programs of all kinds
nationwide currently amounts to about $11 billion, James Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Interior, told the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February.
A2 TREATY CP
Treaty based indigenous rights create model for disastrous fragmentation and don’t help
most groups
Jeff Corntassel, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, May 1995, Human Rights Quarterly, p.
343-365 (Infotrac)
Referring to prior treaties made at the time of contact as a means of reclaiming "sovereignty" is an ill-
begotten strategy which has been rejected elsewhere. Anaya argues that a more fruitful strategy in terms of
achieving cultural integrity would be to invoke current human rights treaties within international law.(57) He
argues that there are three main reasons for dropping the treaty-based strategy: the intertemporality of
international law, the lack of recognition of their international status, and what he calls the stability through
pragmatism over instability" (which would result if the right of self-determination as presently defined under
international law were to be extended to each indigenous group).(58) Under the concept of intertemporal law
one "judges historical events according to the law in effect at the time of their occurrence."(59)
Unfortunately, during the eras of contact, the concepts of discovery and right to acquisition of territory via
conquest were accepted norms under international law. There was also a complete lack of official recognition
of the sovereign status of the Indian nations by the international community (although the argument may be
made that the treaty-making process is implicitly a form of tacit recognition). Finally, given that there are
presently over 5,000 identified peoples in the international system, contained within roughly 160 discrete
territorial units, the wholesale extension of the right of self-determination (as found in current international
practice) and the resultant fragmentation would lead to disastrous consequences.(60) Consistent with Anaya's
suggestions, another reason for not utilizing the treaty strategy is that many groups were not a part of the
treaty-making process, and not all of them were extended the same types of rights.(61) Moreover, neither the
Portuguese nor Spanish as colonial powers normally interacted with indigenous populations via the treaty-
making process.(62) Thus there are numerous indigenous groups (particularly within the Southern
hemisphere) which have no access to abrogated treaties at all. A more universal approach, and one which is
accessible to all indigenous populations, is found in existing human rights laws to which most states of the
international community are currently party.(61) Our argument is that Indian claims to sovereignty via the
treaty-making process are out of sync with current trends among indigenous groups in the international
system. Such an approach is out of sync because it is a strategy which is exclusive in nature, while the
current international trend is towards universalism. The indigenous movement is becoming increasingly more
global. Due to the unprecedented level of modern communication, indigenous populations around the world
are uniting and acting in a concerted fashion. A treaty-based approach is legally questionable and ultimately
has limited applicability - it addresses the situation of a small minority of the world's indigenous populations,
and could only exacerbate an already nearly intractable state-centric system.
A2 SUNSET CP
Short term PTCs create a boom-and-bust cycle that undermines investment and
manufacturing and creates fluctuating costs that prevent solvency.
Though the historical impacts of the PTC are well known, somewhat less-recognized is the fact that the frequent
expiration/extension cycle that we have seen since 1999 has had several negative consequences for the growth
of the wind sector. Due to the series of 1- to 2-year PTC extensions, growing demand for wind power has been
compressed into tight and frenzied windows of development. This has led to boom-and-bust cycles in renewable
energy development, under-investment in wind turbine manufacturing capacity in the U.S., and variability in
equipment and supply costs, making the PTC less effective in stimulating low-cost wind development than
might be the case if a longer-term and more-stable policy were established. More specifically, some of the
potentially negative impacts of the PTC expirations and shorter term extensions on the wind industry are as
follows: 1. Slowed Wind Development: Data in Figure 1 demonstrate that the risk of non-renewal of the PTC
can slow wind development in certain years. Even in years in which the PTC is secure, uncertainty in the near-
term future availability of the PTC may undermine rational industry planning, project development, and
manufacturing investments, thereby leading to lower levels of new wind project capacity additions. 2. Higher
Wind Supply Costs: Wind project costs in the U.S. decreased substantially from the early 1980s to the early
2000s, demonstrating the success of public and private R&D investments and the commercial success of the
technology. Since 2001, however, installed wind costs have risen by roughly $500/kW, with power sales prices
rising in turn.12 Although capital costs for all generation technologies have risen in recent years, there is reason
to believe that this increase in the cost of wind power has been exacerbated by the erratic boom-and-bust cycle
created by the 1- to 2-year PTC extensions in recent years. 3. Greater Reliance on Foreign Manufacturing:
Uncertainty in the future scale of the U.S. wind power market has limited the interest of both U.S. and foreign
firms in investing in wind turbine and component manufacturing infrastructure in the U.S. Consequently, the
U.S. remains heavily reliant on wind turbines and components manufactured elsewhere. 4. Difficulty in
Rationally Planning Transmission Expansion: Accessing substantial amounts of wind energy will require
investments in the transmission grid. Uncertainty in the future of the PTC makes transmission planning for wind
particularly challenging because the economic attractiveness of wind projects – and therefore of expanding the
transmission system for those projects – hinges in many cases on the PTC. 5. Reduced Private R&D
Expenditure: Shorter-term PTC extensions may lower the willingness of private industry to engage and invest
in long-term wind technology R&D that is unlikely to pay off within a 1- to 2-year PTC cycle, given uncertainty
in the future domestic market demand for those advanced technologies.
The industry agrees that policy stability would spur wind projects.
Survey respondents ranked a number of potential benefits from a 5- to 10-year PTC extension, relative to a
continuation of the current 1- to 2-year extension cycle. Respondents were asked to answer the question from an
aggregate industry perspective. Survey respondents view the most important benefit of a 5- to 10-year PTC
extension to be the greater number of wind project installations expected to result from that policy stability
(Figure 2). Other major benefits include more rational transmission planning, reductions in installed project
costs, and enhanced private R&D. Though expectations for reductions in project costs are not surprising, it is
interesting to note the perceived importance of a 5- to 10-year PTC extension on transmission planning and
private R&D investments. Neither of these potential benefits has typically been emphasized in discussions over
PTC extension. A longer-term PTC extension is expected to have lesser impacts on O&M costs and siting and
permitting conflicts.
A2 SUNSET CP
Without long term PTCs, wind costs will spike, limiting growth.
Because consideration of a long-term PTC extension has, until recently, occurred with little systematic analysis
of the potential advantages of such an extension, recent research at Berkeley Lab has sought to investigate, with
more specificity, some of the possible benefits of a 5- to 10-year PTC extension, or some other stable and long-
term promotional policy. Preliminary analysis by Berkeley Lab in late 2006 suggested that a longer-term PTC
extension may be able to drive the installed cost of wind down by 5% to 15%, relative to a continuation of the
present cycle of 1- to 2-year extensions. Savings were estimated to come, in part, from delinking U.S. wind
turbine prices from the Euro-Dollar exchange rate and reducing transportation costs as local manufacturing
becomes more prevalent.13 More recent statistical analysis of historical wind capital cost trends in the U.S. also
suggests the possibility of a capital cost premium of up to 12% as a result of the present boom-and-bust cycle.
Short term PTCs discourage investment in wind power- only long term PTCs can solve for
this
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 (“ Energy Tax Credit Extended Again, but Risk of Boom-Bust
Cycle in Wind Industry Continues”, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/production-tax-
credit-for-renewable-energy.html)
Combined with a growing number of states that have adopted renewable electricity standards, the PTC has been
a major driver of wind power development over the past six years. Unfortunately, the "on-again/off-again"
status that has historically been associated with the PTC contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that
plagues the wind industry (see Figure below). The cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong
growth in development around the country during the years leading up to the PTC’s expiration. Lapses in the
PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the implementation of planned wind projects. When the PTC is
restored, the wind power industry takes time to regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth until the
tax credits expire. And so on. The last lapse in the PTC—at the end of 2003—came on the heels of a strong year
in U.S. wind energy capacity growth. In 2003, the wind power industry added 1,687 megawatts (MW) of
capacity—a 36 percent annual increase. With no PTC in place for most of 2004, U.S. wind development
decreased dramatically to less than 400 MW—a five-year low. With the PTC re-instated, 2005 marked the best
year ever for U.S. wind energy development with 2,431 MW of capacity installed—a 43 percent increase over
the previous record year established in 2001. With the PTC firmly in place, 2006 was another near record year
in the U.S. wind industry. Wind power capacity grew by 2,454 MW—a 27 percent increase. The American
Wind Energy Association projects similar growth in 2007. Extending the PTC through 2008 will allow the wind
industry to continue building on previous years’ momentum, but it is insufficient for sustaining the long-term
growth of renewable energy. The planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take up to two
years or longer to complete. As a result, many renewable energy developers that depend on the PTC to improve
a facility's cost effectiveness may hesitate to start a new project due to the uncertainty that the credit will still be
available to them when the project is completed. UCS is continuing to work with our coalition partners to
secure a longer PTC extension that helps boost development of clean renewable electricity, not polluting energy
sources.
A2 SUNSET CP
Short-term PTC limits domestic manufacturing base at 30%. Permanency increases this
average to 70%, while also stimulating jobs and local economic growth.
Wiser, et al., 07. (Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger, and Galen Barbose, “Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to
A Longer-Term PTC Extension Is Expected to Encourage Growth in Domestic Wind Turbine Manufacturing. As the
wind power business becomes more global in scope, turbines and components will be increasingly manufactured in
areas where labor and materials are relatively inexpensive. Given transportation costs, however, some degree of
local manufacturing will remain. In part because of the uncertain availability of the federal PTC, however, U.S.-
based manufacturing of wind turbines and components remains somewhat limited. This is true despite recent
progress in increasing local manufacturing of certain components by both domestic and international firms.15
Industry members were asked to estimate the proportion of U.S. wind project costs currently sourced from or
manufactured in the United States, as well as expected trends in domestic manufacturing in the coming ten years
under both an uncertain (i.e., short-term) PTC environment and under a single 10-year PTC extension. Though
responses show a range of opinions on the magnitude of future domestic manufacturing, directional consistency is
clear: a longer-term PTC extension is expected by industry to yield a sizable increase in domestic wind turbine and
component manufacturing (Figure 3). Under the present uncertain (i.e., short-term) PTC extension path, domestic
manufacturing content is expected to remain largely constant over time at its current base of roughly 30%. A single,
10-year PTC extension, on the other hand, yields a median expected domestic manufacturing share of over 70%,
bringing with it jobs and local economic development benefits.
A2 WIND PIC
PTCs are ineffective for non-wind technologies
Wiser, et al., 07. (Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger, and Galen Barbose, “Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to
The implications of a short-term PTC extension cycle are even more severe for eligible non-wind renewable
energy technologies. This is because the 12-24 month development window created by shorter-term PTC
extensions is simply not long enough to directly and significantly spur the development of other PTC-eligible
technologies, such as geothermal and biomass. Both of these technologies require longer development periods
than does wind. As such, a longer-term extension of the PTC, in the range of at least 5 years, may well be
necessary for the PTC to provide value to the biomass and geothermal industries that is equivalent to that which
is provided to the wind industry. Furthermore, some non-wind renewable technologies have only become PTC-
eligible within the last few years, yet have already endured legislative changes to the length and/or value of the
available credit. By making it hard to plan and arrange financing, such policy changes exacerbate the challenge
of bringing non-wind renewable projects online within the short development window afforded, and thereby
have further limited the effectiveness of the PTC for non-wind technologies. Moreover, because PTC incentive
levels vary by technology, some eligible renewable sources are unlikely to see much growth even with a longer-
term extension to the policy. As such, in addition to a longer-term extension, Congress may wish to better-tune
PTC incentive levels to the market needs of the various renewable technologies. In particular, it may be
appropriate to apply the higher (2.0¢/kWh) PTC incentive level to a broader range of renewable technologies,
including traditional open-loop biomass; a lower incentive might be reserved for renewable resources that are
closer to economic competitiveness.
A2 GIVE THE LAND BACK

Territorial solutions to self determination cause regional wars and genocide
Kamal Shehadi, Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, December 1993, Ethnic
Self Determination And the Break Up of States, p. 73
There are three main arguments levelled against border changes as a solution to protracted self-determination
conflicts. The first objection is that border changes in one case, however desirable in ending the conflict, will
have adverse consequences on other borders in the region and, possibly, elsewhere. This raises the scenario
of self-determination conflicts spilling over into neighbouring states and challenging their borders as well. It
is based on the assumption that the future and legitimacy of one international border is tied to all others, that
if one pillar goes, the whole edifice will crumble. This assumption is warranted only when demonstration and
contagion effects are likely to operate. The demonstration effect means that a change in one border is likely
to lead to changes in other borders. The success of one communal group in bringing about this change
encourages others and facilitates further changes. The demonstration effect operates mostly within the same state, by
demonstrating the weakness of the central authorities in dealing with communal groups. Only in such a situation will giving in to one
communal group’s desire to secede encourage others. The concern for ‘contagion’ is more serious since new states are unlikely to be
stable internally. The creation of independent Central Asian states, for example, has made it easier for conflict to spread from Central
Asia to China. The Uighurs, among others, now find a more receptive environment from which to operate inside China than when these
states were part of the Soviet Union. Contagion from Kosovo could also drag Macedonia into a civil war which opposes ethnic
Albanians and ethnic Macedonians. Except in these limited circumstances, a change in borders is not likely to destabilise a whole region.
Even in one of the unstable regions of the world, the Horn of Africa, Eritrean success in achieving self-determination has not caused
other border changes or even made future ones more likely to succeed. Further more, when a new state is created, measures can be taken
to protect it from the spill-over of neighbouring conflicts: the deployment of UN observers; the dispatch of CSCE missions; and
international help in building an internal security force and developing democratic institutions (organisation and monitoring of elections,
independent judiciary, representative bodies, and intermediate associations such as unions and political parties). The second
objection is that opening up the possibility of border changes will revive dormant conflicts and ignite the use
of force. This is based on the assumption that self-determination claims are made when there is an
opportunity for the creation of a new state. However, this is seldom the case. Self-determination conflicts
take place mostly for internal reasons and are driven primarily by internal considerations, not by international
ones. Force will be used irrespective of what is on the bargaining table, whether borders or political systems,
because adversaries know that their bargaining power depends in large part on the military situation. The
possibility of border changes, however, may also encourage genocides and mass transfers of populations as
militias seek to create ethnically homogenous entities before they are recognised. To avoid this, the
possibility of border changes should be linked explicitly to the behaviour of the combatants.
A2 CONSULT IO
Multinational organizations would oppose –environmental policy for tribal nations are
fatally divisive.
Within the domestic arena, the battle between local and national control of the environment has engendered
some of the fiercest battles over federalism within contemporary law. 2 The lines between federal, state, and
tribal sovereignty over environmental conditions are still ambiguous. Within the international arena, however,
the tension between sovereignty and responsibility is even more apparent. The nation-states have the
governmental responsibility and authority to make environmental policy, but they must first reach agreement
through treaties and conventions and consent to be bound by such structures. Centralized decision-making is
virtually impossible at the international level, promoting a lack of coordinated policy efforts and an inability
to locate legal responsibility for the negative global impacts of particular national practices and policies. For
instance, multinational corporations operate across borders and, as private entities, have only limited legal
liability. As a result, the consequences of this lack of [*1627] coordination and responsibility are
increasingly apparent, particularly in the debate about climate change. The legal issues engendered by the
lack of consistency in domestic and international environmental policy are further compounded by issues of
justice and equity. For at least two decades, the term "environmental justice" has been used to highlight the
distributional impacts of the dominant society's environmental decision-making process on disadvantaged
communities, including the poor and racial minorities. At the global level, such disparities are extended to the
inequities between the North and the South, between developed and developing countries. 3 Within these
divides, complex issues of economics, environmental integrity, and human rights get rolled into pithy terms
such as "environmental racism," 4 "radioactive genocide," 5 and "ecocide." 6
A2 KRITIK
By keeping action out of the public sphere, the alternative reinforces colonialism and
continues the denial of the holocaust of the Americas.
Simpson, Past director of Indigenous Environmental Studies at Trent University, 2004
[Leanne R., Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge, American Indian
Quarterly, 28:3&4, 2004]
I have made a conscious effort to publish papers on IK and TEK in journals dealing with natural resource
management, conservation biology, and ecology since 1997 with little success. Editors have consistently
removed references to colonialism from my manuscripts because it is "too off topic"; at the same time I have
been asked to write introductory articles about TEK that would appeal to scientists. Native studies journals
have accepted and published the same papers. Unfortunately, scientists do not often read out of their field,
and so the body of knowledge around TEK written by non-Native scientists comfortable manipulating IK
into the frameworks, definitions, and conceptualizations dictated by non-Native scientists is building up. The
depoliticizing of Indigenous Peoples and TEK serves to make the discussion of TEK more palatable to
scientists by sanitizing it of the ugliness of colonization and injustice, so scientists can potentially engage
with the knowledge but not the people who own and live that knowledge. Disconnecting TEK from the
colonial oppression of Indigenous Peoples also disconnects academics from their responsibilities as
beneficiaries and perpetrators of both political and intellectual colonialism, entrenching the relationship
between the colonizers and colonized. By depoliticizing we lose a potential opportunity to transform and to
decolonize settler society, and it is the transformative potential of the processes and concepts embodied in
Indigenous Knowledge systems that hold the greatest possibility for this kind of change. Removing
Indigenous Knowledge from a political sphere only reinforces the denial of the holocaust of the Americas
and trains a generation of scientists to see contemporary Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Knowledge as
separate from our colonial past, as an untapped contemporary resource for their own exploitation and use.13
This serves as a reminder that it is not enough to recover certain aspects of Indigenous Knowledge systems
that are palatable to the players in the colonial project. We must be strategic about how we recover and where
we focus our efforts in order to ensure that the foundations of the system are protected and the inherently
Indigenous processes for the continuation of Indigenous Knowledge are maintained. The most vulnerable and
fragile components are often those that are subversive in nature and that are a direct [End Page 376] threat to
those who maintain their power as beneficiaries of the colonial system.
A2 STATISM K
Indigenous self-determination is the best way to challenge the modern incarnation of the
state
The political flexibility in indigenous-state relations that indigenous peoples have recently asserted, not from
a state of confusion but as a status of choice, may be the most creative political idea international society has
heard in over 300 years. In 1648, European powers established the secular state, and the interstate system.
Some time thereafter this political institution of the state, armed already with the monopoly of force and the
spoils of mercantilism, began to mimic, and appropriate to itself, many of the persuasive attributes of religion
and culture as well. This powerful, wealthy, and now also seductive political institution was then exported by
Westerners to the rest of the world. By the end of the 20th century, most of the former colonies had driven
back their Western rulers, but not their legacy. Alone in being unwilling or unable to replicate the nation-state
in order to defeat it, indigenous peoples now suggest an experiment: the de-linking of ethnicity and
statehood. Separation to be followed by re-engagement, but with an appreciation of distance and non-appro-
priation this time, in the construction of new ways, or perhaps re-construction of old ways of being, relating,
exchanging. A way that largely defangs the state of its coercion, making its repudiation thereby possibly
superfluous. Modern history is wholly against this experiment. But the longer cumulative legacy, is not. So,
perhaps, possibilities remain.
A2 CAPITALISM KRITIK
Recognizing the indigenous right to self-determination is a prerequisite to disrupting the
capitalist world order
CHURCHILL - 03 [Ward, Qualifications are for the white man, Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader 263-
5, Questia]
I am here, however, as may have been gleaned from my opening quotation of George Manuel, to discuss a
reality left unmentioned not only by Mao, but by analysts of almost every ideological persuasion. This is the
existence of yet another world, a world composed of a plethora of indigenous peoples, several thousand
of us, each of whom constitutes a nation in our own right. 3 Taken together, these nations comprise a
nonindustrial “Fourth World, ” a “Host World” upon whose territories and with whose natural
resources each of the other three, the worlds of modern statist sociopolitical and economic
organization, have been constructed. 4 In substance, the very existence of any state—and it doesn’t
matter a bit whether it is fascist, liberal To put it another way, the denial of indigenous rights, both national
and individual, is integral to the creation and functioning of the world order which has evolved over the
past thousand years or so, and which democratic, or marxist in orientation—is absolutely contingent upon
usurpation of the material and political rights of every indigenous nation within its boundaries. It is
even now projecting itself in an ever more totalizing manner into our collective future. 5 We say, and I
believe this includes all of us here, that we oppose this prospect, that we oppose what was once
pronounced by the papacy to be the “Divine Order” of things, what England’s Queen Victoria asserted
was the worlds “Natural Order, ” what George Bush, following Adolf Hitler, described as a “New World
Order, ” what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have sought to consummate behind alphabet soup banalities
like GATT and NAFTA and the MAI. In other words, we are opposed to the entire system presently
“coordinated” by bodies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the Trilateral
Commission. 6 We say we oppose all of this, and, with at least equal vehemence, we announce our
opposition to more particularized byproducts of the trajectory of increasingly consolidated corporate
statism, or statist corporatism, or whatever else it might be more properly called, that we as a species
are presently locked into. The litany is all too familiar: an increasingly rampant homogenization and
commodification of our cultures and communities; the ever more wanton devastation and toxification of our
environment; an already overburdening, highly militarized and steadily expanding police apparatus, both
public and private, attended by an historically unparalleled degree of social regimentation and an
astonishingly rapid growth in the prison-industrial complex; conversion of our academic institutions into
veritable “votechs” churning out little more than military/corporate fodder; unprecedented concentration of
wealth and power…. We say we oppose it all, root and branch, and of course we are, each of us in our own way, entirely sincere
in the statement of our opposition. But, with that said, and in many cases even acted upon, what do we mean? Most of us here identify ourselves as
“progressives, ” so let’s start with the term “progressivism” itself. We don’t really have time available to go into this very deeply, but I’ll just observe that it
comes from the word “progress, ” and that the progression involved is basically to start with what’s already here and carry it forward. The underlying
premise is that the social order we were born into results from the working of “iron laws” of evolution and, however unpalatable, is therefore both necessary
and inevitable. By the same token, these same deterministic forces make it equally unavoidable that what we’ve inherited can and will be improved upon. 7
The task of progressives, having apprehended the nature of the progression, is to use their insights to hurry things along. This isn’t a “liberal” articulation.
It’s what’s been passing itself off as a radical left alternative to the status quo for well over a century. It forms the very core of Marx’s notion of historical
materialism, as when he observes that feudalism was the social precondition for the emergence of capitalism and that capitalism is itself the essential
precondition for what he conceives as socialism. Each historical phase creates the conditions for the next; that’s the crux of the progressive proposition. 8
Now you tell me, how is that fundamentally different from what Bush and Clinton have been advocating? Oh, I see. You want to “move forward” in
pursuance of another set of goals and objectives than those espoused by these self-styled “centrists. ” Alright. I’ll accept that that’s true. Let me also state
that I tend to find the goals and objectives advanced by progressives immensely preferable to anything advocated by Bush or Clinton. Fair enough?
However, I must go on to observe that the differences at issue are not fundamental. They are not, as Marx would have put it, of “the base. ” Instead, they are
superstructural. They represent remedies to symptoms rather than causes. In other words, they do not derive from a genuinely radical critique of our
situation—remember, radical means to go to the root of any phenomenon in order to understand it 9 —and thus cannot offer a genuinely radical solutions.
This will remain true regardless of the fervor with which progressive goals and objectives are embraced on, or the extremity with which they are pursued.
Radicalism and extremism are, after all, not really synonyms. Maybe I can explain what I’m getting at here by way of indulging in a sort of grand fantasy.
Close your eyes for a moment and dream along with me that the current progressive agenda has been realized. Never mind how, let’s just dream that it’s
been fulfilled. Things like racism, sexism, ageism, militarism, classism, and the sorts of corporatism with which we are now afflicted have been abolished.
The police have been leashed and the prison-industrial complex dismantled. Income disparities have been eliminated across the board, decent housing and
healthcare are available to all, an amply endowed educational system is actually devoted to teaching rather than indoctrinating our children. The whole nine
yards. Sound good? You bet. Nonetheless, there’s still a very basic—and I daresay uncomfortable—question which must be posed: In this seemingly rosy
scenario, what, exactly, happens to the rights of native peoples? Face it, to envision the progressive transformation of “American society” is to presuppose
that “America”—that is, the United States—will continue to exist. And, self-evidently, the existence of the United States is, as it has always been and must
always be, predicated first and foremost on denial of the right of self-determining existence to every indigenous nation within its purported borders.
Cultural integrity can be maintained while economies are developed
2000, p.15
Additionally, maintaining cultural integrity does not necessitate returning to pre-Columbian economies—not
even the Havasupai desire to do so.4 Rather, the behavioral characteristics that make an individual an Apache
or a Navajo or a Mohawk are maintained and developed. As Native Americans’ standard of living rises,
more resources are available to them for developing and maintaining these cultural elements. For example,
the Navajo Nation is facing a diminishing stock of both “singers”5 and weavers. As the Navajo economy
develops, there will be resources available to pay for ceremonies, and as the market for woven rugs develops,
there will be income from weaving, thus increasing the number of both singers and weavers, which bolsters
the cultural integrity of the tribe.This by no means implies that economic development should be engaged in
simply for the purpose of improving income. Development for the sake of development is not being
suggested, rather, development as a means toward a well-defined end. Clearly, there are many potential
negative aspects, such as those mentioned concerning the Hopi, Hualapai, and Havasupai, when considering
development plans. Well-designed tribal plans and institutions can aid in avoiding some of the pitfalls of
inappropriate development activities. For instance, Paul Nissenbaum and Paul Shadle (1992) designed a land-
use planning board for the Puyallikp Tribe that included a definitive process of looking at impacts on the
salmon fisheries of any proposed land use. In other words, the tribe has prioritized the various subsystems of
the culture and has deemed the spiritual aspects of the fisheries to be more important than simple dollars.
Thus the economic subsystem has been made compatible with the spiritual subsystem. This cultural
compatibility of the subsystems is vital for a progressing society.
Sovereignty would decrease classism in the US

There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster
class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their
own devices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manner.
Look to the example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee
(Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly
perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and
democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist
can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned.
A2 CAPITALIST KRITIK
Even if Indigenous communities engage in capitalism commodity based practices; their ties
to the concept of an Indigenous community allows them to re-conceptualize and subvert
traditional capitalist views and transform them into forms of resistance
Hall and Fenelon 2004 [Thomas, Department of Sociology and Anthropology at DePauw University, James,
Department of Sociology at California State University “The Futures of Indigenous Peoples: 9-11 and the
Trajectory of Indigenous Survival and Resistance” http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ ]
Even though resistance to incorporation is old, survival of indigenous groups remains problematic. This
survival is one of two persisting puzzles: 1) the persistence of ethnic groups and 2) the persistence of
indigenous groups. Both are distinctive in that they are organizations not based on capitalist relations. Let us
hasten to say, before someone jumps up to beat us about the head and shoulders with the “primordialist” or
“essentialist” bludgeons, that we claim neither. Rather, we claim that both types of groups have their
fundamental social links around kinship and community, irrespective of how they make their livings. Here
we must confront a basic misunderstanding by Marx, that ties of common work experiences—relations of
production—are often not sufficiently powerful to overcome completely ties of kinship and face-to-face
community. This is why both nations and movements adopt metaphors of kinship to build solidarity; or to
invert Benedict Anderson, that is why the “imagined community,” the nationstate, must be imagined. This is
not to gainsay that such a transformation might happen, but rather to note that it has not happened
completely. When these ties of kinship and community coincide with ways of making a living, they become
extremely powerful in binding people together and in maintaining a sense of solidarity. This is precisely what
happens within most indigenous communities. Even where members participate in the wider capitalist
economy and its wage-labor processes, they remain tied to their indigenous communities. Thus, it is no
accident that the most successful of such groups are ones with a continuously existing land base—even if it is
a land base from which they have become widely dispersed. In the homeland, means of making a living, or of
surviving, are tied to that land base: tribal identities linked to reservations in the U.S.; to traditional lands
elsewhere. Phrased alternatively land still maintains for many indigenous peoples meanings that preceded
what Polanyi called the “Great Transformation.”¹⁴ Again, we are not asserting some sort of “primitiveness,”
but alternative ways of viewing land, not as a commodity, but as something much broader. This comes out
again and again in the resistance statements of indigenous peoples, especially those called “Indians” on the
North and Central American continents.
Perm solves – Recognizing the multiplicity of alternatives through the survival of
Indigenous populations and connecting them to action is key to overcome capitalism by
crafting new relationships between us and the rest of the world though new forms of
ontology and ways of knowing
Cleaver 1997 [Harry of U of Texas, Nature, Neoliberalism and Sustainable Development: Between Charybdis &
Scylla? http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/faculty/Cleaver/port.html ]
From my point of view, one of the most attractive things about Zapatista thinking and politics is just this
emphasis on multiplicity, on the power of collective bodies and on diverse paths or lines of flight that these
bodies can trace into the future.30 Two great mistakes in the Western revolutionary tradition have been the
obsession with totalization and the idea that system must follow system. Revolutionaries, despite their
rejection of capitalism's imperial efforts to absorb the world and impose a universal hegemony, have still
thought the future in terms of unity and counter-hegemony. Many Marxists have believed that just as a
unifying capitalist system followed feudalism, so must some unifying system called socialism (or
communism) be constructed to replace capitalism. Many radical environmentalists, while condemning the
destructiveness of capitalism's imposed unity, think in terms of bio-systems, of a holistic Gaia. To use
Marcos' metaphor of mirrors, such conceptions, even in the intellectual form of the dialectic, or the spiritual
form of Goddess worship, never escape an endlessly repeated mirroring of the past in which the best you get
is inversion (e.g., public instead of private ownership, Mother Nature instead of God-the-Father) but no
liberation of human society from a single hegemonic framework for the organization of life, no liberation of
humans or the rest of Nature from the imposition of singular measures of value (e.g., money or labor). To see
that mirrors can be set aside and newness crafted links the Zapatistas' vision to the best of contemporary
Western thought, to a certain anti-dialectical tradition of philosophy, to the embrace of difference within
contemporary feminism, to autonomist Marxism and to the most interesting biocentric explorations of deep
ecologists.31 The implications of this line of thinking are at least two-fold: first, recognizing that we can reject the normally
inescapable framework of the economy (capitalism) means that we are freed to see what alternatives are already
being elaborated, and second, freed from the search for a single comprehensive alternative, we can take a more enjoyable
phenomenological and experimental approach to the study of and participation in the crafting of alternatives. Unlike Odysseus, we can thank
Circe sweetly for her "roasted meat and good red wine" and sail off into the sunset on courses of our own choosing. Whether we sail in search of
Camðes' Isle of Love or follow Odysseus to Lisbon or head off into completely unknown waters, we are truly free to choose. We can even, like
Old Man Antonio, simply paddle our log canoe into the middle of a quiet mountain lake, under a full moon, have a smoke and tell old tales for
conclude. We must find ways to link the emerging alternative new
each other's amusement and edification.32 To
approaches to redefining and organizing the genesis and distribution of "wealth" and to crafting new
relationships among humans and between them and the rest of the universe in ways that are capable of linked
or complementary action. There are many on-going experiments around the world whose experiences and
creativity can be shared. This does not mean unity for socialism or any other singular post-capitalist
"economic" order, but rather the building of cooperative interconnections among diverse projects. Nor does it
mean a delinked and divided localism. It means putting together a new mosaic of interconnected alternative
approaches to meeting our needs and elaborating our desires. It means inventing new politics that welcome
differences but provide processes of interaction which minimize antagonism.
A2 POMO KRITIKS
Self-determination for American Indians is the best step to deconstruct oppression in all
forms
CHURCHILL, 03 [Ward , “Acts of Rebellion”: The Ward Churchill Reader 263-5, Questia]
Now, by way of closing, I’d like to take up the question of whether the indigenist vision is “unrealistic. ” All
I have to say on the matter is that if you are colonized or otherwise oppressed, you must never allow your
oppressor to define what’s “realistic” for you. If you do, you’ll just end up reinforcing the terms of your own
colonization. That’s because your oppression is reality to your colonizer. Anything else will always and
inevitably be dismissed as “unrealistic”—or “impossible, ” to put it less politely—by those who benefit from
the oppressive relationship. The best reply to this I’ve ever heard came from the 1968 student/worker revolt
in France. To “be realistic, ” the insurgents announced, it was essential that they “demand the impossible. ”
47 One thing that confirms my conviction that indigenism is the correct recipe for the contemporary setting will be found in
the sheer virulence of state efforts to repress it. A decade ago, Bernard Neitschmann did a global survey of armed conflicts then
occurring. The results were remarkable. Of the more than 100 wars he catalogued, fully 85 percent were between indigenous nations and
one or more states presuming an authority to subordinate them. 48 The situation has not abated in the 1990s. If anything, it’s intensified.
Chiapas is sufficient evidence of that. Right here in the U. S. a “low intensity” war was waged during the mid-1970s against the
American Indian Movement, an unabashedly indigenist organization. Put simply, a counterinsurgency campaign was conducted to quell
AIM’s efforts to decolonize the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. At least 69 AIM members and supporters were killed on Pine
Ridge between March 1973 and March 1976, while another 350-odd people suffered severe physical assaults during the same period.
Another casualty was Leonard Peltier, the details and implications of whose case have been dealt with elsewhere in this conference. 50
Let’s pause for a moment to consider the number of dead I just mentioned. It may not seem great when compared to the body counts
racked up elsewhere. But you have to realize that there were never more than a few hundred AIM members and that the population of
Pine Ridge was only about 10,000 in 1975. Proportionately, the rate of AIM fatalities was identical to that incurred by the Chilean left
during the three years following Pinochet’s overthrow of the Allende government. 51 Nobody questions the severity of what happened in
Chile. I can’t say for sure what happened to the Chilean left as a result of its repression—I suspect it dissipated, because I’ve not heard
much of it for a long time now—but I do know what’s happened with AIM. We’ve absorbed the body blows, evolved, decentralized and
reappeared all over the continent in different guises. During the armed confrontation at Oka, near Montréal, in 1990, AIM was called the
Mohawk Warrior Society. 52 At the armed confrontation at Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, a couple of years later, AIM was called
something else. 53 Whatever the name, whatever the location—James Bay, Big Mountain, Lubicon Lake, Western Shoshone, it doesn’t
matter—it’s all the same thing and it’s all indigenist to the core. 54 The same can be said of the native sovereignty movements in
Hawai‘i and elsewhere across the Pacific, of the struggles for a “Karin free state” in Burma and for the independence of Nagaland in
India, of the Kurdish secessionist movement in the Middle East, the Polisario in the Western Sahara, the Basques and Catalans in Spain,
the Irish in Ulster, even the Scots and Welsh on the main British isle. 55 Anywhere you look, on every continent save Antarctica, you’ll
find Fourth World liberation struggles. Indigenism, not communism, is the “specter haunting Europe” and the rest of
the world these days. 56 It seems obvious than anything considered threatening enough by the world’s ruling
élites that they’d wage ninety simultaneous wars to suppress it is something to be taken seriously. Assessing
what he’d discovered, Neitschmann described it as amounting to a “Third World War, ” and in many ways he
was right. 57 World War III, the war for the most fundamental forms of human liberation and against what
Noam Chomsky has called “world orders, old and new, ” is going on right now, as I speak. 58 Because of it,
the world as we all know it is changing rapidly and irrevocably for the better. The only choice to be made in
seeking to come to grips with this new face of liberation is whether, like Sartre and Simone, you wish to
stand on the “right side of history.” If so, the possibilities which present themselves are limitless.
***TOPICALITY QUESTIONS***
YES—FOREIGN
US treats tribal organizations as foreign nations—treaty abrogation proves

U.S. Code (Date Last Accessed) 06/23/08
(Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, § 72, “Abrogation of treaties,”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode25/usc_sec_25_00000072----000-.html)
Whenever the tribal organization of any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United States, the President is
authorized, by proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe abrogated by such tribe if in his opinion
the same can be done consistently with good faith and legal and national obligations.
Treaties and war time violations prove tribes are sovereign nations.
US Commission On Civil Rights 1973, Staff Memorandum on the Constitutional Status of American
Indians, Washington, D.C. March 1973. http://www.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Americas/civil.txt.
In considering the constitutional status of American Indians a distinction must be made between tribal
entities and individual citizens. As stated before, the legal status of Indian tribes has vacillated throughout
this Nation's history in the eyes of the Federal Government. The numerous treaties made with Indian tribes
recognized them as governments capable of maintaining diplomatic relations of peace and war and of being
responsible, in a political sense, for their violation. When engaged in war against whites, Indians were
never treated as rebels, subject to the law of treason, but, "on the contrary were always regarded and treated
as separate and independent nations, entitled to the rights of ordinary belligerents and subject to no other
penalties."(12) Hostile Indians surrendering to armed forces were subject to the disabilities and entitled to
the rights of prisoners of war.(13)
Capacity to make treaties mean tribes are the equivalent of foreign nations
Tribal sovereignty was originally formally recognized by Chief Justice Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia:
"The Constitution, by declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, to be the supreme law of
the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous treaties with the Indian nations, and consequently, admits
their rank among those powers who are capable of making treaties."(14)
Indian tribes are recognized as distinct political communities

Indian tribes are recognized in Federal law as distinct political communities, with basic domestic and
municipal functions. This includes the power to adopt and operate under a form of government of the tribe's
choosing, to define conditions of tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations of members, to prescribe
rules of inheritance, to levy taxes, to regulate property within the jurisdiction of the tribe, to control the
conduct of members by tribal legislation, to administer justice and provide for the punishment of offenses
committed on the reservation.(18)
Tribes are sovereign political entities

Congress has alternatively viewed tribes as sovereign political entities or as anachronism which must
eventually be extinguished. The result has been two conflicting Federal policies -- separation and
assimilation, one designed to protect Indians from the rest of society and to leave them with a degree of
self-government within their own institutions, and the other calculated to bring Indians within the
mainstream of American life by terminating special Federal trust relationships and Federal programs and
services. Termination reached its aegis during the Eisenhower Administration of the 1950's.
NO—FOREIGN
We will win on reasonability—the sovereign status of natives is dependent upon specific
attributes of power—tribal governments are not the same as independent nations
Today, the concept of tribal sovereignty is widely misunderstood and can only be meaningfully discussed
with regard to specific attributes or powers. Clearly, tribal governments are not on the same legal footing as
independent nations; on the other hand, they are widely recognized as political units with governmental
powers which exist, in some sense, on a higher level than that of the States. The contemporary meaning of
tribal sovereignty is defined in Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation(16) as follows:
It would seem clear that the Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court, acknowledges the paramount
authority of the United States with regard to Indian tribes but recognizes the existence of Indian tribes as
quasi-sovereign entities possessing all the inherent rights of sovereignty except where restrictions have been
placed thereon by the United States, itself.
Native Americans are citizens of the US—this solves all of their literature arguments
By virtue of the Indian Citizenship Act of June 2, 1924, all Indians born in the United States are citizens of
the United States. As such, they are also citizens of the State in which they live, even though they may
reside on a reservation.(38) Although many Indians acquired citizenship prior to 1924, pursuant to various
Federal statutes, it was early held that the provision of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution
conferring citizenship on "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof" did not confer citizenship on Indians.(39) State and Federal citizenship and tribal membership are
not incompatible;(40) Indians are citizens of three separate political entities. As citizens of the Federal
Government they are subject to the laws of the Federal Government no matter where they may be located.
As citizens of the tribal government they are subject to the civil and criminal laws of the tribe when they are
on the reservation and within its jurisdiction (except, as stated above, in Public Law 280 States). They are
ubject to the laws of the States while off the reservation.
Indian Nations are no longer recognized as foreign nations.

U.S. Code (Date Last Accessed) 06/23/08
(Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, § 71, “Future treaties with Indian tribes,”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode25/usc_sec_25_00000071----000-.html)
No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an
independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty; but no obligation of
any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3, 1871, shall be
hereby invalidated or impaired. Such treaties, and any Executive orders and Acts of Congress under which
the rights of any Indian tribe to fish are secured, shall be construed to prohibit (in addition to any other
prohibition) the imposition under any law of a State or political subdivision thereof of any tax on any income
derived from the exercise of rights to fish secured by such treaty, Executive order, or Act of Congress if
section 7873 of title 26 does not permit a like Federal tax to be imposed on such income.
Minnesota American Indian Communities No Date. “American Indian Communities in Minnesota

Basic Principles”
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/report/bands/SOVEREIGN.HTM.
American Indian tribal sovereignty includes some of the attributes included in the general definition of
"sovereignty," but with some limitations and modifications that are a consequence of the tribes' being subject
to the overriding sovereignty of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court described this status as follows:
Upon incorporation into the territory of the United States, the Indian tribes thereby come under the territorial
sovereignty of the United States and their exercise of separate power is constrained so as not to conflict with
the interests of this overriding sovereignty.(42)
American Indian Policy Center 2005 http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html

Trust Responsibility In treaties, Indians reliquished certain rights in exchange for promises from the federal
government. Trust responsibility is the government's obligation to honor the trust inherent to these promises
and to represent the best interests of the tribes and their members.
That position which determined the Federal Judiciary's basic policy toward Indian tribes throughout the
19th century may be contrasted with the attitude of later court decisions such as Montoya v. United
States,(15) wherein the court concluded that "the word 'nation' as applied to the uncivilized Indians was
little more than a compliment."
Although Indian tribes began their relationship with the Federal Government as sovereign governments
recognized as such by treaties and in legislation, the powers of tribal sovereignty have been limited from to
time by the Federal Government. It should be noted, however, that the powers which tribes currently
exercise are not delegated powers granted by Congress but rather, are "inherent powers of a limited
dependent sovereignty which had not been extinguished by Federal action. What is not expressly limited
often remains within the domain of tribal sovereignty simply because State jurisdiction is Federally
excluded and governmental authority must be found somewhere. That is a principal to be applied generally
in order that there shall be no general failure of governmental control."(19)
The powers of self-government are normally exercised pursuant to tribal constitutions and law and order
codes. Normally, these powers include the right of a tribe to define the authority and the duties of its
officials, the manner of their appointment or election, the manner of their removal, and the rules they are to
observe.(20) This right, as with the exercise of all functions of tribal sovereignty, is subject to
Congressional change. For example, Federal law has removed from some tribes the power to choose their
own officials and has placed the power of appointment in the President and the Secretary of Interior.(21)
Indian tribes, having the power to make laws and regulations essential to the administration of justice and the protection of persons and
property also have the power to maintain law enforcement departments and courts to enforce them.(22) Some smaller tribes have no
courts at all or maintain very traditional customary courts which lack formal structure. Larger tribes, such as the Navajo, maintain
quite advanced law and order systems with well-equipped police departments, modern tribal codes and a hierarchy of trial and appellate
courts overseen by a tribal supreme court.
Several important limitations have been placed by Congress on tribal jurisdiction. Under the 1968 Indian
Civil Rights Act(28) tribes may not exercise jurisdiction over criminal offenses punishable by more than a
$500 fine or 6 months in jail. Federal courts have jurisdiction to try and punish certain major offenses such
as murder, manslaughter, rape, etc., pursuant to the Major Crimes Act.(29) In certain instances, Congress
has provided that the criminal laws and/or civil laws of a State shall extend to Indian reservations located in
the State.(30) States which have assumed responsibility for the administration of justice on Indian land are
commonly referred to as "Public Law 280 States."
A thorough treatment of the constitutional status of American Indians would involve a complete analysis of the unique and complex
field of Federal Indian law which cannot be adequately described merely by reference to the numerous treaties, statutory enactments of
Congress, and court decisions or Federal administrative decisions.(1) The legal and political status of Indian tribes, the relationship of
Indians to their tribes and to their States, and the relationship of tribes to the States and to the United States Government have long
been issues of controversy. Tribes have traditionally been viewed by Federal courts as dependent or "tributary"
nations possessed of limited elements of sovereignty and requiring Federal protection.
The historic relationship to which the President refers has a somewhat confusing background. The Federal
Government has exercised plenary power over Indians for almost 200 years. This power emanates from
three sources. First, the Constitution grants to the President(3) and to Congress(4) what have been construed
as broad powers of authority over Indian affairs. Second, the Federal courts have applied a theory of
guardianship and wardship to the Federal Government's jurisdiction over Indian affairs.(6) And, finally,
Federal authority is inherent in the Federal Government's ownership of the land which Indian tribes occupy.
The treaty power was the traditional means for dealing with Indian tribes from the colonial times until 1871,
when recognition of Indian tribes as sovereign nations for this purpose was withdrawn by the Indian
Appropriation Act, which provided that "...hereafter, no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the
United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the
United States may contract by treaty..."(8) Treaties made before 1871 were not nullified by that Act, but
remain in force until superseded by Congress. It is a well established principle of constitutional law that
treaties have no greater legal force or effect than legislative acts of Congress, and may be unilaterally
abrogated or superseded by subsequent Congressional legislation.(9) Until so abrogated, however, treaties
with Indian tribes are part of the law of the land and are binding on the Federal Government.
There has been some confusion regarding the status of American Indians because of the common notion that
Indians are "wards" of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is a trustee of Indian property,
not the guardian of individual Indians. In this sense, the term "ward" is inaccurate. Indians are subject to a
wide variety of Federal limitations on the distribution of property and assets and income derived from
property in Federal trust. Land held in trust for an Indian tribe or for an Indian individual may not be sold
without prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his representative (the Bureau of Indian Affairs).
Related restrictions limit the capacity of an Indian to contract with a private attorney and limit the heirship
distribution of trust property. Many Americans erroneously believe that as wards of the Federal Government
Indians must stay on reservations(50) and that they receive gratuitous payments from the Federal
Government. Indians do not in fact receive payments merely because they are Indians. "Payments may be
made to Indian tribes or individuals for loses which resulted from treaty violations...individuals may also
receive government checks for income from their land and resources, but only because the assets are held in
trust by the Secretary of the Interior and payment for the use of the Indian resources has been collected by
the Federal Government."(51) Like other citizens, Indians may hold Federal, State and local office, are
subject to the draft, may sue and be sued in State courts,(52) may enter into contracts, may own property
and dispose of property (other than that held in trust) and, as stated before, pay taxes. The large number of
Federal and State laws and provisions which in the past denied Indians political rights and public benefits
have either been legislatively repealed, ruled invalid by the Judicial branch or remain unenforced.

Aff PTC 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff PTC 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MICHIGAN DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 1

SEVEN WEEK MIXED PTC AFFIRMATIVE

NATIVE AMERICAN PTC AFFIRMATIVE

WEST NOT ACCESS REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE..............................................................................................59

EXT: UN CRED- PLAN ↑ CRED..............................................................................................................................116

***A2 OFF CASE ARGUMENTS***......................................................................................................................184

Native Americans have the highest occurrence of severe poverty

We have a moral obligation to eliminate extreme poverty as it dehumanizes its victims

U.S. support for self-determination has dramatically waned.

Scenario One: Soft Power

America’s treatment of Native Americans fosters anti-Americanism

Failure to achieve autonomy as the method to promote democracy and counterterrorism

The impact is extinction.

A diplomatic model of internal self-determination is the only lasting solution to the

A struggle over Kashmir will escalate into a nuclear conlict

Cultural diversity is vital for human survival

Observation Two: Solvency

Money from casinos is unevenly distributed.

Native Americans lag far behind the rest of population.

Inequality results in pockets of poverty and contributes to poor health.

Poverty is a form of structural violence that outweighs war

POVERTY HEALTH RISKS

Inequality and poverty are tightly linked to health risks.

Poor people suffer more from poor health issues.

CULTURE LOSS BRINK

Extinction is inevitable without massive change

Extinction of Indian culture is imminent

PTC SOLVE RENEWABLES

Tax credits/incentives make renewables instantly competitive

Renewable energy boosts the entire economy of the reservation

PTC→ ECONOMIC GROWTH

Tax credits solve the lack of capital investment in Indian Country

PTC ECONOMIC GROWTH

Native Americans support federal legislation for wind projects.

Credits are a prerequisite to wind industry development

Credits are necessary to offset tax liabilities in wind production

Lack of tax credits makes renewable energy unfeasible

TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY

TRIBAL WIND SOLVES ENERGY

Wind energy is low-cost and environmentally friendly.

CULTURE SOLVES EXTINCTION

Their attempt to weigh death vs. cultural genocide is horrific

American Indian governments in the US are vital to successful development of alternative

Each extinction risks collapse.

Invisible threshold means reject species extinctions at all costs.

There’s an ethical imperative to save species.

Loss of species is ethically repugnant.

M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

M.O. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

It is the responsibility of academics to force recognition of the historical and sustained

NA K/T REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE

REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE K/T ENVIRONMENT

REVELATORY K/T ENVIRONMENT

WEST NOT ACCESS REVELATORY KNOWLEDGE

REVELATORY SOLVES OBJECTIVICATION

US attempts to promote self-determination have only been gestures

Despite conventions and treaties the destruction of indigenous peoples continues

The international community is reluctant to recognize rights to self-determination—

The international community is blocking independence aspirations of the Kurds of

States are already willing to recognize right to internal self-determination

The recent declaration of independence in Kosovo has emboldened separatist movements

NO-US SELF-D--YES INT’L SELF-D

US international credibility has been undermined by its failure to address growing

A2 OFF CASE ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................................184

SELF-D SCENARIO EXTENSIONS