Mattis, Jamestown Foundation China Program fellow, 2015
Download 0.59 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- That means the plan must be a quid-pro-quo
- Plan isn’t --- voting issue
- Violation – 2NC
- With – 2NC
- “With” requires an exchange
NEGTopicality1NC“Engagement” requires the provision of positive incentivesHaass 00 – Richard Haass & Meghan O’Sullivan, Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies Program, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, p. 1-2 The term engagement was popularized amid the controversial policy of constructive engagement pursued by the United States toward South Africa during the first term of the Reagan administration. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. To the Chinese, the word appears to mean simply the conduct of normal relations. In German, no comparable translation exists. Even to native English speakers, the concept behind the word is unclear. Except in the few instances in which the United States has sought to isolate a regime or country, America arguably "engages" states and actors all the time in one capacity or another simply by interacting with them. This book, however, employs the term engagement in a much more specific way, one that involves much more than a policy of nonisolation. In our usage, engagement refers to a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives. Certainly, engagement does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign policy instruments such as sanctions or military force. In practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet the distinguishing feature of engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behavior of countries with which the United States has important disagreements. That means the plan must be a quid-pro-quoDe LaHunt 6 - Assistant Director for Environmental Health & Safety Services in Colorado College's Facilities Services department (John, “Perverse and unintended” Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, July-August, Science direct) Incentives work on a quid pro quo basis – this for that. If you change your behavior, I’ll give you a reward. One could say that coercion is an incentive program – do as I say and I’ll let you live. However, I define an incentive as getting something you didn’t have before in exchange for new behavior, so that pretty much puts coercion in its own box, one separate from incentives. But fundamental problems plague the incentive approach. Like coercion, incentives are poor motivators in the long run, for at least two reasons – unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Plan isn’t --- voting issue:Limits --“engagement” is a strategy – if the topic allows the aff to just be “doing stuff with China” it becomes massive and unlimited, destroying educationHass & O’Sullivan, 2K (Richard N. Haass formerly a senior aide to President George Bush, is Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution; Meghan L. O’Sullivan is a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. Together, they are editors of Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy; “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies”; Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. xx–xx © The International Institute for Strategic Studies; http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf) CJC The term ‘engagement’ was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administration’s policy of ‘constructive engagement’ towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime or country, America arguably ‘engages’ states and actors all the time simply by interacting with them. To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term ‘engagement’ must refer to something more specific than a policy of ‘non-isolation’. As used in this article, ‘engagement’ refers to a foreign-policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives. Certainly, it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as sanctions or military force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet the distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behaviour of countries with which the US has important disagreements. Ground --- QPQ locks in core generics like soft power and foreign politics DAs, counterplans to add or remove a condition, and critiques of diplomacyViolation – 2NCConditional engagement is distinct from appeasement (must be tied to specific policy changes, must reward after behavioral change, and must be contingent on follow-through).Litwak 7 — Robert S. Litwak, Director of the Division of International Security Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former director for nonproliferation on the National Security Council staff, 2007 (“Strategies for a Change of Regime — or for Change within a Regime?,” Regime Change: U.S. Strategy Through the Prism of 9/11, Published by JHU Press, ISBN 0801886422, p. 117) Conditional Engagement The conditional engagement strategy is conducted on the government-to-government level and requires reciprocity by the target state on essentially a contractual basis. It is typically focused on a discrete issue but can be broadened to encompass a range of issues in a "grand bargain" (as some have proposed in the case of Iran). "Conditional reciprocity" is a form of conditional engagement, elucidated by George, in which meaningful changes in behavior by the target state would be explicitly linked to each concession or benefit bestowed by the United States.45 The engagement of an adversary under conditional reciprocity has three key features, which clearly distinguish this strategy from appeasement. First, the inducement must be tied to specific policy changes in the target state's behavior, not general expectations of improved behavior. Second, the reward should come only after the specific change in behavior. If the reward is provided in advance of behavior modification or is not linked to a specific behavioral change, it may be legitimately criticized as a bribe. And, third, such an approach depends on mutual adherence to the specific conditional reciprocal steps in the sequence. If the target state does not fulfill its obligations, the process can be halted and the benefit withdrawn.46 With – 2NC“With” means a conditional approachIndeglia 00 – Gilbert V. Indeglia, Judge on the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, “Manuel Rezendes v. American Insulated Wire”, 4-17, https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/OpinionsOrders/pdf-files/99-125order.pdf In support of his argument that he complied with the notice requirement seven years after commencing his light-duty job, Rezendes asserts that ' 28-33-18.2 does not contemplate a time frame for giving notice. In the absence of such a specified period, we construe the notice requirement to be performed within a reasonable time. Such a construction is consonant with the plain language of ' 28-33-18.2. The Legislature specifically provided that an employee may be “offered suitable alternative employment as agreed to by the employee and employer with written notice to the director.” Section 28-33-18.2(a). (Emphasis added.) The preposition “with” is defined inter alia as “expressing * * * accompanying conditions.” The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus 1765 (American ed. 1996). We construe the language of the statute to mean that the Legislature intended that notice to the director accompany mutual assent, or at a minimum, be given within a reasonable time from accepting an offer of a light-duty job. “With” requires an exchangeMacMillan 16 – MacMillan Dictionary, “with”, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/with 2 used for saying that people share or exchange things She shares her food with all the family.
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> sites sites -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 sites -> Medical Radiography Program sites -> Background on the Haitian Earthquake sites -> Desk review yemen sites -> Safe Transitions for the Elderly Patient (step) sites -> District profile Haripur Introduction sites -> Germanie VanTrease and Tyler Tetzloff sites -> For more information sites -> To be completed by the cerf secretariat. Type of submission sites -> Sponsor Content Above the Clutter with Pete Krainik Download 0.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|