Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China


AC Human Rights Topicality Answers



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page108/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   ...   144

2AC Human Rights Topicality Answers

  1. We Meet: The government makes the policy of economic engagement with China, then the companies use that policy—that’s our Lee evidence.

  2. Counter-Interpretation: Engagement includes non-government actors



Haas, 2000 [Richard, Dir., Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution), SURVIVAL, SUMMER 2000, 115.]
While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts. Funding non-governmental organizations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in this form of engagement.

  1. Counter-Standards

  1. Overlimiting: Government to government engagement is too limiting - these would only include direct investment of money or foreign aid. Almost every case includes companies that invest in China, with the help of the government. Having only a few Topical cases will make the debate round stale and neg biased. No case meets their interpretation.




  1. Ground: We increase Neg ground by having different actors. There are more Disadvantage links to changing how we regulate multinational corporations like Politics and the Neg has great ground like the Pressure Counterplan or Conditions Counterplan.




  1. Education: Our interpretation increases education about economic engagement outside the government. Corporations are among the key violators of human rights in China. It’s best we learn about realistic ways to curb human rights abuses than just the process of diplomacy.



Reasonability: We are having a fair debate. They have enough things to say against our AFF. Unless the judge is certain we have abused the neg, let’s focus on the substance of the debate.

2AC North Korea Topicality – “Engagement ≠Military” Answers

  1. We Meet—We cooperate with China to increase sanctions on North Korea—that’s our Feng evidence. We fit under your interpretation.




  1. Counter Interpretation: Diplomatic Engagement includes civil-military action



Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 2014 [an independent nonprofit organization founded in 1986. Located at the State Department’s George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center, “Ten Principles of Operational Diplomacy: A Framework”, http://adst.org/the-stump/ten-principles-of-operational-diplomacy-a-framework/, 9/14)
The complex arenas of American diplomatic engagement since 2001 — often in unstable, nontraditional environments — resulted in several new efforts to describe principles for specialized civil-military interaction. Principles have been developed for counterinsurgency and post-conflict stabilization, but relatively few proposals addresses the challenges of traditional diplomatic operations. The defense field, with a well-institutionalized system of doctrine and training, recognizes nine core Principles of War, and an expanded list of 12 principles of joint operations, to aid U.S. military planners conceptualize full-spectrum military operations. In the course of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency in Iraq, Australian military officer and analyst David Kilcullen’s “Twenty-eight Articles: Fundamentals of Company-level Counterinsurgency” proposed steps tactical military leaders can take to understand and interact with their security environment to achieve local political success. In “Nine Principles of Reconstruction and Development,” USAID Director Andrew Natsios linked the development of civilian stabilization principles directly to the Defense Department’s nine principles of war and described development-focused guidelines. Traditional diplomacy, however, may seem too diffuse, too situational, or arcane, to match to a set of guiding principles. “Until recently, diplomacy has occupied a place at the margins of international theory, and social theory in general. Academics have noted the resistance of diplomacy to being theorized,” notes a recent comprehensive survey. A few publications from American practitioners have sketched out ideas for principles active in diplomacy. Retired American diplomat Marc Grossman summarized four principles of diplomacy guiding his personal career philosophy: optimism, a commitment to justice, truth in dealing, and realism tempered by a commitment to pluralism.

  1. Counter Standards:

  1. Core of the Topic: Military conversations are the core of the topic. It’s the main focus of the South China Seas, North Korea, and Taiwan. These are the most educational conversations we can have.




  1. Ground: We give even more ground to the neg with this aff. They can argue that reducing the military triggers bigger Disadvantages. Limited diplomatic talks would not be enough for a link.




  1. Reasonable Limits: There are only a few forms of military engagement that would fit under the topic. They would have to be directed toward China, come from the US, and be substantial. This means we’re predictable.

Reasonability: We are having a fair debate. They have enough things to say against our AFF. Unless the judge is certain we have abused the neg, let’s focus on the substance of the debate.


1AR North Korea Topicality – “Engagement ≠Military” Extensions

  1. They are wrong – military to military contact is diplomatic engagement



Reveron, 2007 [Derek S., U.S. Naval War College, Shaping and Military Diplomacy, Prepared for delivery at 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 8/30 – 9/2
Abstract: While the Department of State is the lead foreign policy organization within the U.S. government, the Department of Defense plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy largely through its a long tradition of international engagement through shaping the security environment. With a forward presence, large planning staffs, and various engagement tools, geographic combatant commanders pursue regional-level engagement by hosting international security conferences, promoting transparency through military-to-military contacts, and providing American military training and equipment. Throughout history, officers, such as Commodore Matthew Perry, General Tony Zinni, and Admiral Joseph Prueher, have played critical roles in U.S. foreign policy formulation and implementation. Officers like these provide ready evidence that the military does much more than “fight the nation’s wars.” This paper considers military diplomatic engagement activities as a part of U.S. grand strategy and explores the legal and policy implications of an increasingly militarized foreign policy

  1. Engagement with China includes the military



Brown et al, 2013 Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University [Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. Adamson, with Mike M. Mochizuki and Deepa Ollapally, Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability, August 2013, http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf]
U.S. engagement with China: At the same, the Obama administration has continued to engage Beijing at the highest levels. In the first months of his second term, President Obama sent the secretaries of Treasury and State to China, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Adviser. Beijing has welcomed these initiatives and the continuation of more than 90 formal dialogues with the United States, including the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue chaired by the U.S. Treasury and State secretaries and their Chinese counterparts. As noted earlier, military-to-military exchanges also have improved. Chinese officials and non-official commentators have been more inclined to emphasize the positive, following the announcement in spring 2013 of the presidential summit in California in June.


Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   ...   144



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review