[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Southeast Asia Topic

I've been doing some thinking about Mancuso's idea regarding the interplay
of limiting the countries in the topic and limiting the type of action the
aff may take.  I find particularly appealing the idea to require the aff
to advocate linkage of aid and/or trade with some form of behavioral
change.  I'd like to make a couple of points.

First, I think that we should be clear that the changed behavior we want
to induce be that of the target governments.  Using US policy to attempt
to change private actors is far different and much less controversial, as
when the government helps to sell US goods and services abroad.

Second, if the topic were to be limited in this way, I would tend to favor
relaxing other potential limits.  For example, I am not sure that it would
be necessary to limit the goals of the aff policy to human rights, etc.
In fact, I have seen some very interesting literature in such areas as sex
tourism, protection of endangered species, preservation of ancient
cultures, public health and family planning, etc.  If the aff is to be
limited to achieving its goals through linkage, I am tending to think that
we can give them the choice of any goal.  Also, I guess I think that they
might be given a broader choice of topical target countries.

Third, I have increasing reservations about letting the aff create whole
new avenues of aid/trade to then make conditional.  I know the neg can
counterplan with the same aid, but unconditionally.  However, that seems
to me to be frought with some conceptual and practical difficulties.  Some
kinds of aid, perhaps most kinds, are necessarily conditional, as when it
is required that projects be completed, etc--it would be nearly impossible
to do them without any conditions, so the counterplan would not really
work.  Additionally, all trade is somewhat conditional, as it is required
that all parties abide by the laws of the WTO, etc.  Given this, the aff
could undertake to create some new kind of aid or trade and place upon it
only the most minimal of conditions or linkages, claiming most of its
advantage from the aid, not the linkage.  The "unconditional counterplan"
is not really workable, and anyway the aff only imposes the same linkages
that are imposed on all other aid and trade, so there is really no unique
disad.  What would be lost by requiring the aff to advocate
conditions/linkage for EXISTING aid or trade?

With all of this in mind, I would like to propose the following tentative
topic wording:

RESOLVED:  THAT THE USFG INCREASE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS ON EXISTING AID
AND/OR TRADE TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF BEHAVIOR BY
ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENTS:  (a list of countries follows)

or

Resolved:  That the United States should increase restrictive conditions
on its aid to and/or trade with one or more of the hereinafter listed
countries to induce the government of said country or countries to improve
their compliance
with international norms of behavior.  (then the list of countries)

International norms of behavior is very broad, but not totally unlimited.
It would include non-aggression, peaceful dispute resolution, compliance
with international arms control agreements, compliance with all treaties,
etc.  Human rights would clearly be topical.  Some the horror story cases
from the Mexico and East Asia trade topics might not be about compliance
with international norms.  Perhaps a slightly more limited term might be
found, but I am not enthusiastic about huge limitations in this regard.

That's all for now, but by the way, did you catch that front page article
in the NYT today, calling Hong Kong the "financial capital of Southeast
Asia?"  Maybe Sparky was right after all.

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