Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase the number of Rapid Impact Packages it sends through the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief to so-called sub-Saharan Africa.
Contention 1: The Forgotten Epidemic
The status quo focus on HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB has led to the disregard of some of the most devastating diseases in Africa
Peter J. Hotez, Professor of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, and of International Affairs at George Washington University and the Sabin Vaccine Institute, No Date Given, “Neglected Tropical Diseases Initiative.”
The World Health Organization …geographic isolation and intense poverty.
The impact is half a million deaths annually
Public Library of Science, January 31, 2006, “Incorporating a Rapid-Impact Package for Neglected Tropical Diseases with Programs for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria”
The burden of disease resulting … behind lower respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, and diarrheal diseases (Table
Rapid Impact Packages are the only effective way to lessen the devastating effects of NTD’s in sub-Saharan Africa – low price, effective medicine, and coordination.
The New England Journal of Medicine, September 6, 2007, Volume 357:1018-1027,
“Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases”
Populations in such regions …. treated for $400 million or less annually.
And, forming a coherent policy to help treat NTD’s is key to US global health leadership
Peter J. Hotez, Professor of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, and of International Affairs at George Washington University and the Sabin Vaccine Institute, Winter/Spring 2006, “The Biblical Diseases and U.S. Vaccine Diplomacy,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2.
Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger …. important area of international diplomacy.
The US is uniquely situated to take the leading role in the worldwide goal to eradicate major diseases
Scojo Vision, LLC and Co-Founder and Chairman, Scojo Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, May 2001, “Why Health is Important to U.S. Foreign Policy.”
The United States is in … infrastructure in the developing world.
And, suppressing phrase like “sub-Saharan” because it is offensive preserves its injurious meaning – only by using the language can space be opened to reconstruct a more humane meaning – terms like ‘so-called’ are key to acknowledge the arbitrariness of colonially constructed boundaries.
John Agnew, professor at University of California, Los Angeles, “Progress in Human Geography,” 28,5 (2004) pp. 619–640.
Contention 2: The Great Power War
Initially note, realism is inevitable due to the nature of international relations
John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3., Winter 94/95. [Bhattacharjee]
Scenario 1: Public Health Diplomacy
Due to the prevalence of NTD’s throughout the world, United States focus on treating them is a great way to increase US soft power and hegemony
Peter J. Hotez, Professor of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, and of International Affairs at George Washington University and the Sabin Vaccine Institute, Winter/Spring 2006, “The Biblical Diseases and U.S. Vaccine Diplomacy,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2.
Former national security …. and Latin America are at risk for NTDs.
Building upon the PEPFAR will help the U.S. rekindle international partnerships and create a sustainable foundation for benevolent hegemony
The Lancet – 2005 (Editorial, “America at home and abroad,” Jan 1-Jan 7, 2005, vol. 365, no. 945, Proquest)
And, a new American global health commitment is critical to rebuilding our image abroad – prefer our evidence, it takes the negative’s so-called alternate causalities into account
Joshua Kurlantzick, visiting scholar for Carnegie Mellon University, “Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power is Transforming the World,” 2007,
What’s sad about Kurlantzick’s account is the sorry story …. is to leverage our skills in combating disease.
The impact to soft power is nuclear proliferation, environmental destruction, failed states and diseases
Reiffel, 5 (Lex, Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas, 12-27-2005, www.brookings.edu/views/papers /20051207rieffel.pdf)
Additionally – soft power is key to US hegemony
Nye, dean of the Kennedy school of government at Harvard, 2003 (Joseph, “U.S. power and strategy after Iraq” Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug)
And, US hegemony is critical to preventing global warming, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism – the alternative to unipolarity really is apolarity
Owen Harries, visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, 10/19/07, “Bush not the only problem” < http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22609649-7583,00.html>
But perhaps the most dangerous ….problem of global terrorism, which is real enough even if it is sometimes grossly exaggerated.
Scenario 2: Put Away Your Impact Turns
It is no longer a question of hegemony being good or bad. US hegemony is literally on the brink of collapse – we must begin acting now in matters of public health diplomacy and foreign aid because the alternative to unipolarity is truly apolarity – prefer our evidence – it’s the most recent and qualified and empirically proves why hegemony is good
New York Times, 1/28/08, “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony” < http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print>
Turn on the TV today, ….. Let’s hope whoever is sworn in as the next American president understands this.
And, withdrawal is not an option – it will only lead to more instability
Thayer 2006 [Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis]
And, US power projection is inevitable – it’s only a question of effectiveness
Philip Gordon, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, July/August 2006, Foreign Affairs, “The End of the Bush Revolution,” p. lexis
The more likely course is ….. considerably worse.
Contention 3: Put Away Your Kritiks
Our interpretation is that the negative must defend a competitive policy option or the status quo versus a topical affirmative to be evaluated on the basis of the consequences of adoption. It is critical that the negative initiates a framework debate in the 1NC. Leaving questions of fiat for the block encourages sandbagging which kills education because the best arguments would be left for the last speeches. Additionally there is unique 1AR time skew which is a unique voting issue for fairness.
Our framework is best for a few reasons.
First is ground – the negative will always win that the principles of their advocacy are good in the abstract – we can only debate the merits of their framework if they defend the specific consequences of political implementation.
[Michael, Carr professor of human rights at Harvard, 2004 Lesser Evils p. 18-19]
Michael Ignatieff, Carr professor of human rights at Harvard, 2004 “Lesser Evils” Pages 20-21.
As for moral perfectionism, ….to betray another.
Second is Limits – the fairness of the negative’s advocacy must precede consideration of its merits or else all contestation is meaningless
Shively 2K
[Ruth Lessl, Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M, Political Theory and Partisan Politics, p. 181-2]
To sum up the argument thus far, …. these judgements.
Third is Topical Education – By manipulating the topic to access their criticism they skirt debate about the implementation of policies by the government. Their education is distrusting of institutional study and pragmatic reform. Even if their intentions are noble, their message results in fascist totalitarianism
|
