RE: Ans Varda Security Assistance, South Asia, Literature Problems, etc.

["Lisa C. Kanak" <LCKanak@ibm.net>]

Varda writes:  Even if security assistance is based upon the United States 
Government's
perception of what the strategic importance to the United States Government
of a certain country is, (unfortunately, this is probably the case) why is
the DUTY of debaters to mirror the actions of a government who ignores the
plight of countries who, by your own accord ("these countries have little
strategic importance"), cannot further the goals of "our" "national 
security
interests?"

Kanak answers:
First, my post was explaining why individuals were having difficulty 
finding authors who ADVOCATED U.S. action via Security Assistance to this 
region.  It is not the duty of the debaters to "mirror" the actions of our 
government, however, it becomes difficult for debaters who are looking for 
solvency evidence calling for security assistance when the literature 
focuses on development assistance.  There is tremendous cross-over between 
the two types of assistance - ex:  development assistance can include 
de-mining - which will lead to messy topicality debates about whether the 
affirmative is Security Assistance or Development Assistance.

	Example:  Aff runs de-mining in Cambodia.  The evidence calls for U.S. 
Development Assistance (of course, the Neg brings this up), paring this 
with "T" cards saying Dev. Asst. is distinct from Sec. Assistance leaves 
the aff trying to say they aren't really distinct.  They can be the same, 
etc.

Varda Writes:

Security Assistance was originally intended to bolster collective 
security--the idea that everyone being safe inevitably was a safer world 
for the U.S.--not the U.S. Government.  Why is it the duty of debaters to 
ignore
things like Landmines in Cambodia, Civil War in Cambodia, a faltering 
economy in Laos, an arms race in the region, a military dictatorship in 
Burma, the exploitation of East Timor by Indonesia, Brunei's claims in the 
south china sea, the fear of a regional co-op excluding the U.S., 
exploitation of the masses every in the region, etc... just to mirror the 
actions of a government more interested with re-election than just 
governing.  The problem isn't that debaters don't debate the real world, 
the problem is that debaters try to debate how the world should be, and 
that's not even close to the "real world."


Fostering collective security is indeed on of the main tenets of Security 
Assistance - however this "collective security" wasn't being directed at 
the entire world, rather directed at specific regions and countries the 
U.S. was either allies with, or had security interests in.  Aff's are going 
to be in difficult straits finding authors advocating U.S. collective 
security with Cambodia or Laos.  They may find some evidence for sending 
"peace keepers" to Cambodia - or Burma.  But the vast majority of possible 
cases are going to run into the Development Assistance topicality problems. 
 The saving grace for Security Assistance in the Middle East is that we 
actually had people calling for Security Assistance (ESF funding for 
development, etc) in the region.  The fundamental problem here is that the 
literature, in general, does NOT call for Security Assistance, but rather 
Development Assistance.  These two programs have similarities, but again 
are NOT the same.

As far as not "debating how the world should be" goes - the problem is 
again definitions.  If we allow debaters to determine what the definition 
of Security Assistance "should be" then Security Assistance has absolutely 
no limiting function.  I'm not talking about the people who want to use 
IMET to assist the training of military leaders, I'm talking about the 
people who want to use IMET to train police - which according to the USG is 
NOT Security Assistance.  Debaters argue that since they use IMET, they're 
topical - regardless of the fact that training police under IMET is 
specifically EXCLUDED from IMET programs.  Of course, without the "t" cards 
on this one, the negative will lose this argument every time.

The long and short of this is, squads should prepare for lengthy, intricate 
topicality debates between Security Assistance and Development Assistance. 
 Affirmatives should be especially prepared to defend the use of Security 
Assistance funds as opposed to Development Assistance funds for their plan. 

-----Original Message-----
From:	Bnhds@aol.com [SMTP:Bnhds@aol.com]
Sent:	Monday, August 04, 1997 2:32 PM
To:	LCKanak@ibm.net
Subject:	Re: Security Assistance, South Asia, Literature Problems, etc.

In a message dated 97-08-04 09:49:42 EDT, LCKanak@IBM.NET (Lisa C. Kanak)
writes:

> The basic problem with SA and this region is this:  SA
>money is doled out to countries NOT based on their perceived security
>needs, but based primarily our perception of their strategic importance to
>the U.S.  The majority of these countries have little, if any, strategic
>importance in the current National Strategy and therefore receive little,
>if any, Security Assistance money, AND have few people calling for the
>increase of SA money to these countries.

Even if security assistance is based upon the United States Government's
perception of what the strategic importance to the United States Government
of a certain country is, (unfortunately, this is probably the case) why is
the DUTY of debaters to mirror the actions of a government who ignores the
plight of countries who, by your own accord ("these countries have little
strategic importance"), cannot further the goals of "our" "national 
security
interests?"
Security Assistance was originally intended to bolster collective
security--the idea that everyone being safe inevitably was a safer world 
for
the U.S.--not the U.S. Government.  Why is it the duty of debaters to 
ignore
things like Landmines in Cambodia, Civil War in Cambodia, a faltering 
economy
in Laos, an arms race in the region, a military dictatorship in Burma, the
exploitation of East Timor by Indonesia, Brunei's claims in the south china
sea, the fear of a regional co-op excluding the U.S., exploitation of the
masses every in the region, etc... just to mirror the actions of a 
government
more interested with re-election than just governing.  The problem isn't 
that
debaters don't debate the real world, the problem is that debaters try to
debate how the world should be, and that's not even close to the "real
world."

 This is the real-life context of
SA - but, as debaters ignored the definitional grounds of SA programs
before (changing the government definitions of SA as they willed and seeing
absolutely no problem with it), they will ignore these and the
solvency/advocacy problems as well.  Debate on this topic will go on and
will have very little basis in the reality of U.S. Security Assistance
programs/policies and procedures.

 But maybe i'm just coockoo for cocopuffs

varda


"The divine image is present in every man.  It shines forth in the 
communion
of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among
themselves."
The quote is the Catechism, but the emphasis, they are of Joe.

---

• Prev by Date: RE: Security Assistance, South Asia, Literature Problems, etc.
• Next by Date: If you're not Tara Tate....
• Prev by thread: Re: Topic literature
• Next by thread: If you're not Tara Tate....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page