Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China
NC/1NR Democracy #3—Countries Model the US
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- African and third world countries model us democracy
- 1NC Solvency Frontline
- Solvency Turn: Imperialism
- Imperialism causes global wars, terrorism, and cultural violence
- Solvency Turn: Sullivan Principles hurt Companies—they’ll just return to the US
2NC/1NR Democracy #3—Countries Model the USThey say __________________________________________________, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts) (their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true) (their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument) ( ) (their evidence supports our argument) [WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] and this reason matters because: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Washington Times, 2011 [ “African nations look to U.S. for model of democracy”, July 28, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/28/african-nations-look-to-us-for-model-of-democracy/] While many see the political crisis over the debt ceiling as yet another example of Washington’s dysfunction, at least one African leader has a different take. “This is very instructive for Africa,” says Mahmadou Issouffou, president of Niger. “This is a system where a single man cannot decide everything alone. This is very important for all African countries to see.” Mr. Issoufou made the comments during a panel discussion at the U.S. Institute of Peace with three other West African presidents: Guinea’s Alpha Conde, Benin’s Boni Yayi, The four men, who will visit the White House tomorrow, are being held up as exemplars of progress in a continent where democracy was once an exception. Sub-Sahran Africa has quintupled its number of electoral democracies over the past two decades, according to Freedom House. But the leaders said that preserving democracy will remain the greatest challenge. “Your president said when he was in Accra [Ghana’s capital], ‘Africa doesn’t needs strongmen, it needs strong institutions,’ and we agree with President Obama,” said Mr. Issoufou. All four men acknowledged the challenges of democratization in a region plagued by ethnic divisions, economic deprivation and persistent security threats. Mr. Conde, who survived an assassination attempt in July, said that African leaders need to “attack the problem of security without weakening human rights,”adding that economic growth also is key. “There’s no magic wand,” he said, “so it’s very important that we understand that if democracy doesn’t advance living conditions, democracy itself can’t advance.” Mr. Yayi agreed: “Democracy needs to feed itself, it needs sustenance. People must know that its via democracy that we’re moving toward prosperity. If people believe that misery will continue, we will not have democracy, so that is why democracy must be accompanied by economic renewal.” Mr Ouattara, who assumed office this year after a violent, five-month standoff with his predecessor, crowed that voter turnout rates in his country’s recent elections exceeded those of post-apartheid South Africa, but he insisted that democracy is about more than just a ballot box. “It’s not just about organizing democratic elections, it’s about behaving democratically afterwards, about respecting the rule of law,” he said, adding that “democracy means the protection of minorities.” He said that America, with its array of ethnic groups, provides a good model for his fractious country. “Whatever your color, whatever your religion, you’re an American, and this is what I tell my people: We need to be Ivorians first,” he said. “Americans have a sacred idea of citizenship, and that’s what I want to achieve in my country.” The wave of democratization is part of a rare spate of good news out of sub-Saharan Africa, which now boasts 10 of the world’s 20 fastest-growing economies, as well as its newest nation — South Sudan. 1NC Solvency Frontline
Christenson, 2009 [Thomas, professor of politics and international affairs and the director of the China and the World Program, which is a joint venture between Princeton and Harvard Universities. He also served as the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2006/—2008., “Shaping the Choices of a Rising China: Recent Lessons for the Obama Administration”, July, https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/14890/uploads] The discussions that the United States and other actors have had with China in recent years on these issues are worthwhile and have produced some limited, but notable results. For example, China created new, more liberal regulations for journalists in the lead/-up to the Olympics in the summer of 2008, and following international pressure to do so, extended those regulations indefinitely. In the past three years, China also accepted international advice that its supreme court should review all death penalty cases. According to Chinese government claims and some independent observers, the number of executions, while still high, dropped markedly in 2007/—2008 as a result.7 Still, the overall record of engagement on human rights and religious freedom has not been very encouraging and the environment for dissidents and the boldest reporters, lawyers, and religious leaders remains very poor. Perhaps there is a better approach than the one adopted by the Bush administration in 2008 on issues of human rights and religious freedom, but I am not aware of one. Linking human rights issues to other areas of cooperation, such as trade and investment, simply has not worked in the past and there is no reason to believe it will begin working now. Similarly, principled refusal to discuss human rights issues with Beijing prior to concrete improvements have only reduced Shaping the Choices of a Rising China the number of venues in which the United States has been able to express its legitimate concerns to Beijing in a systematic way.
Callahan, 2010 [William, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, “A new approach to human rights (and China)”, February, https://www.opendemocracy.net/william-callahan/new-approach-to-human-rights-and-china] Human rights is a subject conspicuously absent from these discussions - except when it is framed as a problem of western cultural imperialism that a Chinese world order would solve. Why isn’t human-rights discourse popular in the People’s Republic of China? Most people in the west take the meaning of human rights for granted; this is not the case in China. While in the PRC human-rights advocates like Liu Xiaobo are routinely censored, there also needs to appreciation among outside observers of China’s active debates about human rights and identity. A common criticism voiced in them is that human rights are not universal moral laws, but merely a parochial product of European political and cultural history. Chinese leaders thus describe global politics as a battle between nationalist state sovereignty and interventionist human rights. Sovereignty here is not only territorial, but also cultural. Chinese intellectuals talk at length about China’s national character, especially how it differs from the west: different civilisation; different national conditions; and even a unique Chinese DNA-line. The party-state thus has been able to reframe human rights from universal rights that are held by everyone, to be another example of western meddling in China’s internal affairs, as imperialist powers did in the 19th century. This is how Beijing understands the Dalai Lama’s visit to the White House. A different debate How can this division between China and the west be overcome? One way is to shift the discussion away from 19th-century history - which the Chinese call the “century of national humiliation” - towards addressing the detailed mechanisms enshrined in the PRC’s legal system. The Chinese constitution actually enshrines all the human rights that western democracies enjoy, and more: including the right to work and even the right to rest. While the west should support Chinese dissidents, it is also necessary to do the less glamorous task of working with Chinese judges and lawyers to hold the PRC up to its own standards – just as the US or European countries are challenged to maintain theirs. But the law is not enough; the west needs to think about human rights in a different way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is based on a particular understanding of humans as rational animals who have abstract moral obligations. Yet for many this argument is unconvincing - as the Chinese critics say, human-rights discourse is a product of a particular time and place: the European Enlightenment. The implication is that rather than arguing about rights as part of some “essential human nature”, the focus should shift towards asking questions such as: “what sort of world can we prepare for our great-grandchildren?” This approach, guided by the ideas of the American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty, would involve moving from debates about universal rationality to understanding human rights as a culture, a shared moral identity that extends sympathy to others. Here the reason to support for human rights is not because they are true, but because they are “good” - and more importantly, because violating human rights is bad. This is a tough argument to make right now; with its economic success, Beijing is promoting illiberal global norms. But rather than get sucked into a “clash of civilisations” that pits China against the west, the focus in the west should be on building interpersonal relations with Chinese friends and colleagues. The goal here is not so much to create shared understanding, but shared sympathy that is both critical and self-critical. This is very different from the dominant legalistic approach to human rights; but there are (as even the PRC constitution shows) enough human-rights laws. In the effort to expand human-rights culture, it is not possible just to rely on conversations among (for example) Hu Jintao, Barack Obama, and the Dalai Lama. There must be more transnational conversations in all sectors of society, including people who work in education, business, and NGOs. Human rights used to be an issue of how the rich west could save “backward” people in the poor world. But with the shift in global power to Asia, China is increasingly exporting censorship and promoting illiberal global norms. In any event, human-rights violations are no longer just the problem of people “over there”; now those in the west too have to think about how to protect their own human rights. A globally assertive China creates the opportunity as well as the necessity for a rethink.
Bandow, 2006 (Doug, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute “A Foreign Policy of Fools,” http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=8954 ) Today, however, this policy of global empire is madness. It is dangerous and foolish. It is inexcusable and unforgivable. The costs of America’s policy of empire have become obvious to everyone except those charged with selling and implementing it. The most obvious is cash. Military spending is the price of one’s foreign policy. And the bill is high: Next year America will officially devote some $440 billion to the military. Toss in the costs of the Iraq war (routinely funded by “supplemental” appropriations), nuclear programs installed in the Energy Department, health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and aid payments to various foreign clients and dependents, and the total climbs inexorably past the half-trillion mark. The policy of promiscuous interference and intervention makes war, at least war with America, more likely. If China attacks Taiwan, if Russia battles a former dependent, if Middle Eastern neighbors tangle, Washington promises to be there. Threatening war with America might discourage the parties from risking a fight, but if conflict comes the U.S. will be in the middle. Moreover, America makes often ancient quarrels harder to solve by encouraging friendly parties to be more recalcitrant. After all, Washington always inserts itself as an ally of one of the parties, never as a disinterested observer. And why deal if you have a superpower at your side? Although America would be unlikely to lose any such war, the consequences nevertheless would be horrendous. And as 9/11 demonstrated, the U.S. homeland no longer is sacrosanct. Americans once presumed that they could bomb without consequence. In the cases of Serbia, Iraq, Haiti, Panama, Somalia, Grenada, North Korea, Iraq again, Vietnam – and even Germany and Japan (other than Pearl Harbor, the Aleutians, and a few balloon bombs) – the U.S. did the bombing. Other nations got bombed. Such a world made empire seemingly easy, if not cheap. But no longer. Which is what makes the prospect of an Iranian bomb so frightening. Not that even the mullahs are stupid, crazy, or addled enough to believe they could attack America without being destroyed. They could pass off their technology to groups more than willing to marry terrorism with WMD, however, groups that are angry enough to use such weapons because of U.S. policy. For despite the nonsense emanating from President George W. Bush, his neocon acolytes, and what passes for Democratic foreign policy experts, terrorists seek to kill because they believe that America is at war with them. They didn’t fell the World Trade Center because they disliked the Bill of Rights, attack the Pentagon because they detested Disneyland, or plot the destruction of the Capitol because they abhorred free elections in America. Rather, they sent the simple message: you want to be an empire? You’ll pay the price for attempting to enforce your edicts on the rest of us. Finally, and perhaps most ironically, attempting to be a democratic empire ensures that we will be less democratic – or certainly less free, to be more accurate – at home. The Bush administration’s nomination as CIA head of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and responsible for the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless spying program, is emblematic. Empire abroad can be sustained only by empire at home. The national security state must grow, individual liberties must diminish. We spy on you, search your bodies and cars, restrict what the media can tell you, and, of course, mislead you and lie to you. But it’s in the cause of making the world democratic, so don’t worry, be happy.
Hoffman and McNulty, 2009 [Michael and Robert, PhD, is the executive director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University and the Hieken Professor of Business and Professional Ethics, the director of programs at the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University “International Business, Human Rights, and Moral Complicity: A Call for a Declaration on the Universal Rights and Duties of Business”, http://www.bentley.edu/sites/www.bentley.edu.centers/files/centers/cbe/cbe-articles/international-bus-human-rights.pdf] One of the difficulties companies face when moving overseas is recognizing when corporate actions cross a line from respecting local customs and traditions to participating in acts that are ethically unacceptable. This distinction is particularly important now that globalization is the norm and businesses often need to create policies that apply to employee comportment in offices around the world. In this article, we will argue, that business ethics, unlike compliance, requires a universality that links it closely to the principles of universal human rights. And yet, while it is appropriate and laudable for businesses to commit themselves to such principles, given the competitive nature of capitalism, adherence to ethical policies can put a firm at a disadvantage if others are not playing by the same rules. The price of ethical behavior may be particularly high for firms that act according to policies that are generally respectful of human rights at home, but are not feasible when operating in countries with poor records of human rights. We may admire a company that passes up a financial opportunity in order to avoid participation in unacceptable actions. And yet, however laudable such actions may be, they leave the problem intact. What is needed is a solution. Such a solution, we will argue, may be found by formulating and adopting a Declaration on the Universal Rights and Duties of Business (or “the Declaration”) that is sufficiently robust to provide unambiguous guidance in policy formulation and implementation to all companies wherever they may be operating. YAHOO’S CANARY IN CHINA In November, 2007, Rep. Tom Lantos, then the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly excoriated Yahoo’s CEO, Jerry Yang: “While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies.”1 The basis for Lantos’s lashing was Yahoo’s role in cooperating with the Chinese police against a local journalist, Shi Tao, who was jailed for 10 years for using the Internet to advance pro-democracy views. Yahoo’s actions were not a violation of Chinese law. To the contrary, Yahoo conformed to Chinese law and that is the problem. Yahoo was complicit in cooperating with a legal system that clearly violates basic principles of human rights, including those of free speech and the peaceful participation in the political processes of one’s community. Judging from the perspective of well-established principles of human rights, such as those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),2 Shi Tao was a victim of an unjust regime. As for Yahoo, the situation is not so straightforward: by Yahoo’s own admissions, it was complicit in a serious injustice. And yet, Yahoo was, in important respects, a victim as well—it was forced to comply with laws it knew to be unjust, but to which it was bound if it were to continue operating in one of the world’s most important markets. It was in a no-win situation: if it complied with the Chinese authorities, it would be complicit in the injustice perpetrated on Shi Tao. If it refused, its own employees and its business operations would be put at risk. Yahoo chose the path of legal compliance and its international reputation suffered as a result. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|