Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 449
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 450
- 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 451
1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 449[Marshall evidence continues, no text deleted] “objectives” in Latin America, the NSC document stated that the United States could achieve a “greater degree of hemisphere solidarity” – i.e., hegemony – if it utilizes the Organization of American States (OAS) “as a means of achieving our objectives,” because this would “avoid the appearance of unilateral action and identify our interests with those of the other American states.” It further recommended undertaking consultations with Latin American states, “whenever possible,” before America took unilateral action within Latin America. The “consultations,” it should not be confused, were not designed to weigh the opinions of Latin American states in the decision-making processes of the empire, but rather to explain “as fully as security permits the reasons for our decisions and actions.” So essentially, it’s more of a courtesy call, a polite announcement of imperial actions.[4] Importantly, one major “course of action” included the encouraging – via ‘consultation,’ assistance, and “other available means” – of “individual and collective action against internal subversive activities by communists and other anti-U.S. elements.” What this amounts to, then, as a “course of action,” was for America to undertake a comprehensive program aimed at advising (“consulting”), financing, arming, and organizing Latin American states to internally and regionally oppress, control, or eliminate dissidents and activists. Not unrelated, of course, the “courses of action” also stated that the United States should work to “encourage” Latin American nations to “recognize” (i.e., submit) to the idea that the “best” way to “development” for them is through “private enterprise,” which required “a climate which will attract private investment,” which meant to grant favourable concessions, low tariffs, and easy exploitation of resources to foreign conglomerates, namely, American. The document even directly recommended simplifying “customs procedures and reduction of trade barriers” in order to “[make] it easy for Latin American countries to sell their products to us,” which is kind of like saying, “If I give you a large loan, it will make it easier for you to pay a higher interest to me.” What it really implies, then, is not to improve conditions for Latin American countries in “selling” products, but in making it “easier” for Northern countries to buy products, as in, making them much cheaper, and thus, Latin American countries will get less for them, and their resources could be appropriated with greater ease than previously. Naturally, the “courses of action” in the economic realm also stipulated that the United States should “assist” Latin America in playing “a more vigorous and responsible role in economic development of the area.”[5] 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 450C) Neo-Colonialist Implications: 1) Latin America is the laboratory for fine tuning neoliberalism, leading to all lives being valued only by their economic worth. BARDER, 13 [Daniel, Department of Political Studies & Public Administration, American University of Beirut; “American Hegemony Comes Home: The Chilean Laboratory and the Neoliberalization of the United States” May, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(2)] Under conditions of what later became known as shock treatment, Latin America during the 1970s proved to be the crucible for experimenting with the ideas put forward by the Chicago School of economic theory. In Latin America, economic regulatory mechanisms were radically and quickly transformed in favor of market-based solutions characteristic of neo-imperial reassertion. 69 The Chicago School of economic theory, embodied in the writings and teachings of Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in 1976, advocated the deregulation of markets and the contraction of the state as a way of promoting individual freedom and wealth. 70 Following Friedrich von Hayek, Friedman and other neoconservative proponents believed that markets in general possess an internal rationality that nullifies the potential for state domination. The ideas emanating from the Chicago School of economics depoliticized economic questions by emphasizing how ‘‘markets’’ were able to address substantive political problems. Neo-liberalization, Wendy Brown argues following Michel Foucault, takes for granted that ‘‘The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence, is submitted to an economic rationality ... [and that] all dimensions of human life are cast in terms of a market rationality.’’ Neoliberalization was then much more than simply the financialization of the international and domestic economies, as Arrighi argues, but the attempt at completely rewiring the political–economic form of American liberal hegemony. 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 4512) Neoliberalism’s drive to save Western culture by experimenting on the periphery will ultimately lead to extinction. SANTOS, 3 [Boaventura de Sousa, director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, “Collective Suicide?” Bad Subjects, April, http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html] According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|