Southeast Asia resolutions

[RACE --- <race@midusa.net>]

seems that most of the discussions concerning Southeast Asia and ground
are completely ignoring the nature of the resolutions proposed with the
SE Asia paper.  Early on i suggested the possibility of a broad "change
foreign policy" topic towards a list of nations to one of the authors
and she was shocked at the breadth that would be involved.  

It is unclear whether the topic committee will choose to use the
specific resolutions proposed in that paper.  There has been little
discussion about the notion of wording or potential resolutional scope
in the blistering SE Asia discussions.  It might be worth looking back
at those and recognizing that the predictability and limits are focused
and narrowed both by the list of countries or nations (i don't know that
either word should be used) AND further focused and narrowed by the TYPE
of foreign policy action which will be legitimate resolutional action.

it seems that ground discussions at the point of topic area concern the
complexity and depth of the controversy on a subject matter.  the ground
discussions then turn towards equitable distribution in the phrasing of
the specific resolutions.

earlier in discussing civil rights, someone (i believe it might have
been Dallas Perkins) suggested that the topic committee ought not
provide a general wording on the ballot for whichever topic area is
selected.  i would echo this sentiment.  it seems to me that, often
(despite our professed interests in predictability and limits), the
broad all-encompassing resolution is an easy way out.  It seems that it
is a way of avoiding any choice-making at all NOW ... and then
continually regretting the breadth of the ACTUAL choice-making come
springtime.  The Southeast Asia resolutions, as i recall, force choice
making concerning ground, predictability and limits.  

This does not mean that Southeast Asia is superior to Domestic Terrorism
or Space or any of the other topic areas which have been discussed more
extensively on the L.  It merely means that the Committee COULD frame
equitable resolutions and the Community COULD CHOOSE to vote for
particular resolutions.  Again hear i believe my phrasing and
capitalization echoes Pf. Perkins.  

Tangentially, it seems odd to me, that the discussion of the civil
rights topic area has been so incredibly demanding concerning
discussions of ground and the possibility of specific viable
resolutions, while some topic areas have escaped discussion altogether.

david rhaesa
salina kansas

---

Follow-Ups:

• Sean Lemoine in Eugene?
• From: Jeff Shaw <shaw@lclark.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: moral high ground notions
• Next by Date: Sean Lemoine in Eugene?
• Prev by thread: moral high ground notions
• Next by thread: Sean Lemoine in Eugene?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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