Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File
Download 2.71 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: Positive Peace
AT: Port TerrorThe Secure Freights Initiate solves past problems with port and freight security - Goodby, Coffey, and Loeb 2k7 (James, served in ambassadorial assignments in the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Clinton and was chief negotiator for Nunn-Lugar agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, Timothy, holds the Edison Chair for Technology in the Center for Technology and National Security Policy. He is also a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland, Cheryl, Research Associate at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University and is also a Ph.D. candidate in the Biodefense Program at George Mason University, "Deploying Nuclear Detection Systems A Proposed Strategy for Combating Nuclear Terrorism," July, Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473225&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, AD: 6/30/09) jl On December 7, 2006, the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy announced a new initiative called the Secure Freight Initiative, a collaborative program aimed at deploying a globally integrated network of radiation detection and container imaging equipment to seaports worldwide.27 The initial phase of the new program involves deploying nuclear detection technologies to participating ports in Honduras, South Korea, Pakistan, Oman, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Beginning in early 2007, containers at the participating ports will be scanned for radiation and evaluated on risk factors before they are cleared for shipment to the United States and other international locations. If radiation is detected, an alarm will sound, simultaneously alerting homeland security officials and security personnel in the participating country. Data gathered on the containers will be combined with other intelligence and risk assessment data and shared among partnering countries to improve analysis of high-risk containers.28 The recent collaboration between the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy and the combination of intelligence and risk assessment in government-to-government information sharing are key components in the defense against nuclear terrorism. However, while progress is being made through the joint program, the legislatively mandated but unrealistic goal of one-hundred-percent coverage, coupled with little coordination among other U.S. programs, likely will diminish their effectiveness. Current U.S. programs to combat international illicit trafficking of nuclear material have focused on installing portal monitors or conducting checkpoints along seaports and major highways, usually selecting locations based on gross tonnage of cargo. While this has led to several seizures of nuclear and radiological materials, deployments of nuclear detection technologies in this fashion focus primarily on areas subject to extensive commercial and industrial activity. It has been shown that in seaports having advanced portal monitoring equipment, only 10–20 percent of the cargo is scanned for nuclear or radiological material due to the massive amounts of shipments traveling through these major ports.29 Our detection capabilities can be improved, however, by coordinating international activity through an established institution to spearhead and coordinate global nuclear detection and interdiction activities. Such an organization could operate under UNSCR 1540, which would provide a means for exchanging technology, sharing intelligence, correcting flaws in the operation of the system, and encouraging best practices, with the end goal of rapid emplacement of sensors at key locations identified through intelligence collection and risk assessment. Emplacement would be based not on gross tonnage estimates but on threat analyses. Such locations would include, for example, land, air, and sea ports and other locations along known smuggling routes and shipment lanes. A recent State Department initiative can provide lessons on how to collaborate internationally. AT: Positive PeacePositive peace is a justification for intervention and war. Maley ’88 (William, Prof. and Founding Dir. Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy – Australian National University, The Australian Outlook, “Peace Studies: A Conceptual and Practical Critique”, 42:1, p. 30) The deployment of a notion of positive peace has been a far from innocuous development in peace research. A comprehensive theory of needs, where needs are not defined simply as necessary means to an agreed end, can be the basis for a suppression of both democratic and liberal aspirations. Democracy and Liberty are both concerned with personal desires, the former in the sphere of the polity, and the latter in the sphere of the individual. Needs theory subjugates both the individual and the polity to the abstract ideology of the needs theorist. When Maxim Litvinov remarked in Geneva in the 1930s that peace is indivisible, he was referring to the negative sense of the term. 'Negative peace' is one of the few social values in whose name crimes can be committed only at the cost of self-contradiction. However, if 'negative peace' must be associated with 'positive peace' to give rise to peace in totality, then peace is no longer indivisible — since direct violence may be defended as a means of eliminating 'structural violence'. This defence is a familiar one, resembling the classic liberal justification for rebellion, and even in certain circumstances intervention. Christian Bay has argued that structural violence 'may be so extreme that a limited war must be deemed a lesser evil, if there is no other way to end or mitigate the structural violence, and if the war is sure to remain limited and brief in duration." This blithe assumption — that there could ever be circumstances in which one could be absolutely sure that a war would remain limited and brief in duration — is a splendid illustration of Bay's detachment from the real world. Nonetheless, the greatest danger in his claim stems from the extraordinary elasticity of the notion of structural violence. This is best brought out by the Danish peace researcher Lars Dencik, although using slightly different terminology. He defines conflicts as 'incompatible interests', and goes on to remark that 'incompatible interests are here defined objectively, i.e. by the observing scientist according to his theory and is [sic] independent of the actual subjective consciousness of the actors involved. This means that incompatible interests are conceived of as structural (actor independent), the structure defined according to the theory of the scientist.'" He draws the predictable conclusion that 'in certain situations "revolutionary violence" may be the necessary means to obtain conflict resolution proper'." This is irresistibly reminiscent of the conclusion of Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence, that it is `to violence that Socialism owes those high ethical values by means of which it brings salvation to the modern world'2°, and it is instructive, though for peace educators perhaps not very comforting, to recall that Sorel's ideas eventually were used in justification of Italian Fascism." This turns their violence and militarism claims Maley ’85 (William, Prof. and Founding Dir. Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy – Australian National University, Political Studies, “Peace, Needs and Utopia”, 33:4, Ebsco) The well-entrenched minimali,st notion of peace has recently been augmented by a notion of positive peace, defined as the absence of structural violence. This paper opens with a critique of Johan Galtung's usage, which conflates ideas better approached separately. It then criticizes the notion of human needs used by Christian Bay as the normative foundation for his idea of positive peace, and by comparing positive peace with Berlin's notion of positive liberty highlights the danger that positive peace might be pursued with direct violence. Despite what Popper argues, the peaceful Utopias of Bay and Galtung need not be pursued with direct violence. However, as they could justify the instrumental use of direct violence, they demand stronger normative foundations than Galtung and Bay have hitherto provided. Directory: files -> documents documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library documents -> In the Red and Brown Water documents -> - documents -> I. Disaster Summary Sheet II. Tropical Cyclones documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015 documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems documents -> Cartographic Concepts for Realizing a Location Based umts service documents -> 1/ Background Statistics Human development index rank Download 2.71 Mb. Share with your friends:
|