7/29/2019 OU 1NC

1/21

OU 1NC

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

2/21

Off

A. Violation. The Affirmative violates the term United States

This is because the definition of IN is:The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (The Unabridged Edition) 1983.

prep: 1.a. Within the confines of; inside.

The affirmative increases incentives for use of renewable energy in Indian Country which

is not within the confines of the federation of states forming the nation of the United States.

Native American Tribes are tantamount to foreign nations.

American Indian Policy Center 2005 http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.htmlAmerican Indian tribal powers originate with the history of tribes managing their own affairs. Caselaw has established that tribes reserve the rights they had never given away.1American Indian TribesPossess a "Nation-within-a-Nation" Status. Treaties formalize a nation-to-nation relationship

between the federal government and the tribes.Trust Responsibility In treaties, Indians reliquishedcertain rights in exchange for promises from the federal government. Trust responsibility is thegovernment's obligation to honor the trust inherent to these promises and to represent the best interests ofthe tribes and their members. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinctgovernments. It authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with "foreign nations, among theseveral states, and with the Indian tribes."2

B. FOCUSING ON THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES IS IMPORTANT1. IT PREVENTS ABUSIVE AFFIRMATIVES

If the affirmative could increase incentives for people outside of the United States--

they could pick any of the 200 plus countries in the world claiming advantages from

increasing alternative fuels. The negative could never prepare adequately.

2. IT GIVES MEANING TO "IN THE UNITED STATES"Focusing on those not within the confines of the federation of the United States

obscures the meaning of the United States and confuses it with other places.

3. Infinitely Regressive no brightline to what constitutes domestic

production justifies any place US has presence and allows Puerto Rico

affs.This is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

3/21

Off

Text: The fifty states and all relevant United States territories should remove

restrictions on tribal authority to trade tax credits and should authorize American

Indian eligibility for Production Tax credits.

States have successfully provided energy tax credits to natives

American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University ofMichigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX

CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267.The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocatingrenewable energy development on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes72and theWestern Governors' Association has supported it.73In Oregon, the state's Business Energy TaxCredits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the Oregon term) staterenewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes orpublic entities that partner with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability.74

CP doesnt link- Results in the plan when politically feasible

Aulisi 2007 (Andrew Aulisi, director of the Markets and Enterprise Program, John Larsen, researchanalyst, and Jonathan Pershing, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources

Institute, Paul Posner, director of the Public Administration Program at George Mason University, 2007,

CLIMATE POLICY IN THE STATE LABORATORY: How States Influence Federal Regulation and the

Implications for Climate Change Policy in the United States, World Resources Institute,

http://pdf.wri.org/climate_policy_in_the_state_laboratory.pdf)

Even though federal policymakers may work on issues concurrently with state policymakers, political gridlock, the dominance of

a certain political ideology, and other macropolitical circumstances at the national level may preventthe federal governments adoption of state policies.Such circumstances increase the importance of

state laboratories, as they can serve not only as a source of new policy ideas but also as holding tanks for policies

that may not yet be politically feasible at the federal level. Indeed, it has been argued that states function as a policybalance wheel, with the states acting as an outlet for positive policy ini- tiative during periods when the national government is either mired

in gridlock or, with regard to particular issues, limited by the presence of an ideological policy regime. In these cases, the nation

itself retains the capacity for policy action through the federal system even when it cannot muster

the requisite consensus or resolve problems at the national level (Nathan 2005). In the event that the

political winds change, whether owing to a change of the party in power, a natural disaster, a national emergency, or some other

exogenous event, the resulting policy windows can offer a rapid diffusion of policies that may have

been active for years at the state level (Kingdon 1995).

https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n72https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n72https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n72https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n73https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n73https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n73https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n74https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n74https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n74https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n74https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n73https://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=f7db1238f00f3564b0baee73a6626c92&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVk&_md5=d29f627b0f45ab2e71a72d9943d6fd0b#n72

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

4/21

Off

Obama will win by a narrow margin

Enten, 9-20Harry Enten, political science writer for the Guardian, 9-20-2012, Post-convention polling gives

definitive view: Obama has consolidated his lead,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-

leadAny individual national poll is confusing, but the aggregate is a fairly clear Obama edge . Nine pollsters have conducted asurvey with a median field date at least a week after the Democratic National Convention. President Obama has led in all of their surveys

except for Rasmussen's. National polls, 2012The median result is Obama ahead by 4 percentage points. You mightnote that the Gallup and YouGov results are among registered voters. Even when we shave 2.5 points off of Obama's margin for a"likely voter" adjustment, the medianresultis still Obama, by 3 percentage points. For those who don't like doingthe math, a 3-point lead is actually larger than the 1.5-point lead Obama had going into the conventions. The fact that I'm looking only at data

one week (or later, for the RNC) after the conventions suggests to me that Obama didn't receive merely a momentary

bump but may have gotten the campaign equivalent of a shot of cortisone that will last the rest of thecampaign.The factors underlying this campaign have also not shifted in Romney's direction, butrather in Obama's. In May, I wrote that "the 2012 race comes down to Obama's approvals v Romney's favorables". Take a look at thischart of Romney's favorability ratings since 1 June. Favorables 2012 What you see is steadiness or even a slight dip in favorables since the

conventions. The absolute numbers are skewed because of different sample populations (likely voters v registered voters v adults), yet the

trend is undeniable. Mitt Romney's main electoral failing has been a lack of favorability, and the conventions did nothing to change this factor.

Meanwhile, President Obama's achilles heel had been his low job approval rating. A chart ofhis approvalssince the conventions shows a positive trend.Approvals 2012 For the first time in almost a year and a half, Obama'sapproval is reater than his disapproval in the HuffPollster approval chart. Remember that Obama managed to lead this race when his approval

still trailed his disapproval in the HuffPollster chart. As you might expect, his lead has increased, given the rise in his approvals. The state level

data is less clear, but we still ca make some keen observations. The baseline electoral college estimate looks like this: Electoral map 2012

There isn't an analyst in the world who thinks that Barack Obama isn't leading in Ohio right now. Itis also fairly clear that Obama's Ohio lead is wider than his national margin. The weighted HuffPollster aggregate, whichaccounts for house effects and weights state level to regional and national estimates, has Obama running 1.3 points ahead of his national

percentage in Ohio. Romney's own political directoradmits that it's not an "easy state". If Obama wins Ohio, he's at 255electoral votes. A win in Florida puts him in the White House for a second term. Let's, for argument's sake, give Romney Florida, even though he

trails there. We'll also afford him North Carolina, where he does hold a small advantage. Romney then must take Colorado andIowa. Both are states where he seems to be running at least equal to his national numbers, if not somewhat ahead. Still, he is probablylosing to Obama in both. Even after giving Romney all these states where he isn't ahead, he is still only at 250 electoral votes. Hisdeficit in Virginiais almost certainlygreater than hisnationwide hole. A loss in Virginia means he's got to takeNew Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The issue here is that there hasn't been a poll with Romney ahead in Nevadain the last year and a half. Likewise, Wisconsinalsoseems to be slippingfrom Romney's grip, with two pollsout Wednesday pegging him down by at least 6 points. Only New Hampshire may be trending towards Romney.The bottom line isthatthe state level isn't any better than the national picture for Romney. In fact,you can argue thatit is considerably worse.Some Romney supporters might argue that this election is still about theeconomy and the economy stinks bad for the incumbent. The truth is that while the economy may not bebooming, it is almost certainly good enough to get an incumbent re-elected. Econometric modelsprojecting the election have a 50:50 split. That should give Romney hope for a comeback, but it definitely doesn't guarantee

one. John Sides makes a powerful argument that the economy, in fact, favors Obama. That's probably why you've seen Obama catching up toRomney on the question of who can best manage the economy. But what about a game-changing event? Gaffes likeRomney's 47% remarks have shown no ability to move the polls. Debates, as John Sides points out, havehistorically almost never made a difference. A foreign policy fiasco would almost certainly result in a rally around the leadereffect, a la Carter in 1980, before the incumbent gets blamed. There isn't enough time for the "blame" part of the equation to occur before the

election.That's why polls a few weeks after the conventions are usually quite accurate in predictingthe result.The economy is usually factored in by voters at this time, and there isn't a campaignevent that can alter the playing field fast enough.Simply put,there hasn't been a single candidate tocome back after trailing by 3 points this late in the campaign in the past 60 years. When I look thecurrent polling data and put it into this historical context, I just don't see a Romney victory. It's not that it can't happen; it's just

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-leadhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-leadhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-leadhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-lead

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

5/21

that 3 points is a good lead in a race that has hasn't shifted easily. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised ifObama's 3-point lead eventually shrank back to the pre-convention numbers that were so stable for so long.That would fit a historical pattern of tightening before an election.Butthis race is no toss-up: itnow leans pretty hard in Obama's direction .

And, Reid will avoid all budget debates now

Taylor 3-17 [Andrew, BusinessWeek, GOP preps for budget battle with Democrats,Obama;http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TIDUO80.htm]

The annual budget debate is conducted under arcane rules. The main budget document, called a budget resolution, is a

nonbinding measure that sets the parameters for follow-up legislation on spending and taxes . Even

though its broader goals usually are not put into place, it is viewed as a statement of party principles. Democrats

controlling the Senate do not want a budget debate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he

will instead rely on language he inserted in a budget pact last year that allows for floor action on the annual spending

bills without a budget resolution. By avoiding a budget debate, Reid protects several vulnerable

incumbent Democrats from politically dangerous votes.

Plan circumvents this processundermines Obamas do nothing Congress message

key to reelectionDrucker 2-23 [Jacob, Harvard Political Review, A $1.3 Trillion Hole, http://hpronline.org/united-states/a-1-3-trillion-hole/]

Geithner further admitted that Obamas budget, while stabilizing the debt to GDP ratio over the next 10 years, will

actually cause the ratio to double within the ensuing 50 years, to the point where the debt equals

over 200% of GDP. Aside from being insanely fiscally irresponsible, the budget was proposed for purely political

purposes. Obama needs to paint the GOP as obstructionist in order to win reelection Harry Truman-styleby

running against a do-nothing congress. And he can only do so if no budget passes, an event virtually guaranteed

as the Democratic Senate will never approve a GOP-written House budget. (Obama has not signed a regular

budget in over 1000 days.) For a president who seemed so eager to stay above the political fray, Obama has had no compunction

playing politics with the nations budget.

Romney win causes China-bashing causes a trade war

Gerstein 11(Josh, writer @ Politico, The GOP's China syndrome, 11/22/12,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68952.html)

Mitt Romney says America is at war with China a trade war over its undervalued currency. Theyre

stealing our jobs. And were gonnastand up to China, the former Massachusetts governor declared in a recent Republican presidential

debate, arguing that the United States should threaten to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. When Romney steps

on stage tonight for another debate, this one devoted to foreign policy, that kind of China-bashing is likely to be a favorite

theme . With a moribund economy and relatively little traction for other international issues, the threat posed by cheap Chinese importsand Chinese purchases of U.S. debt is an irresistible target. The problem, China experts are quick to point out, is that those attacks often fly in

the face of the business interests Republicans have traditionally represented, not to mention the record many of the candidates have either

supporting trade with China or actively soliciting it. Just last year, for example, Romney slammed President Barack Obama for growth-killing

protectionism after he put a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires because of a surge of cheap imports. And, Romney wrote in his book, No

Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Protectionism stifles productivity. And though Texas Gov. Rick Perry predicted a t a debate this

month that the Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues, a picture posted on the

Internet shows a smiling Perry on a trade mission to Shanghai and Beijing posing with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi after presenting him

with a pair of cowboy boots. Nor has Perry been shy about encouraging Chinese investments in Texas: In October 2010, he appeared at the

announcement of a new U.S. headquarters for Huawei Technologies to be located in Plano, Texas, despite lingering concerns among U.S.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TIDUO80.htmhttp://hpronline.org/united-states/a-1-3-trillion-hole/http://hpronline.org/united-states/a-1-3-trillion-hole/http://hpronline.org/united-states/a-1-3-trillion-hole/http://hpronline.org/united-states/a-1-3-trillion-hole/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TIDUO80.htm

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

6/21

security officials that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government.

Theres a certain pandering going on, said Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who adds that

the GOP rhetoric is squarely at odds with the views of the U.S. establishment, which believes a

showdown with China over the trade issue will make things worse, not better. Not all of the 2012 GOPpresidential hopefuls have taken to publicly pummeling Beijing. The only bona fide China expert in the group, former Ambassador to China Jon

Huntsman, has criticized Romney for being cavalier and simplistic in his talk of tariffs. You can give applause lines, and you can kind of pander

here and there. You start a trade war if you start slapping tariffs randomly on Chinese products based on currency manipulation, Huntsman

said at a recent debate. That doesnt work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum also rejected the idea of slapping tariffs on Beijing if it wont buckle on

the currency issue. That just taxes you. I dontwant to tax you, Santorum said. Newt Gingrich says he wants to bring a world of

hurt down on Beijingfor alleged Chinese cyberattacks on the U.S. and theft of intellectual property, though hes vague about how.

Were going to have to find ways to dramatically raise the pain level for the Chinese cheating, theformer house speaker declares. And Herman Cain talks of a threat from China, but says the answer is to promote growth in the U.S. Chinas

economic dominance would represent a national security threat to the USA, and possibly to the rest of the world, Cain wrote in May in the

Daily Caller. We can outgrow China because the USA is not a loser nation. We just need a winner in the White House. Romneys

rhetoric has been particularly harsh. Its predatory pricing, its killing jobs in America, he declared at the CNBC debate earlier

this month, promising to make a formal complaint to the W orld T rade O rganization about Chinas currency

manipulation. I would apply, if necessary, tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play at a level playing field. TheRomney campaign insists those tariffs are entirely distinguishable from the tire duties Obama imposed in 2009. The distinction between

Obamas tire action and what Gov. Romney is proposing is simple, said a Romney aide who did not want to be named. President Obama isnot getting tough with Chinaor pushing them unilaterally, he is handing out political favors to union allies. *Romneys+ policyfocuses on fostering competition by keeping markets open and the playing field level. Romney, who helped set up investment bank Bain

Capital, has long been a favorite of Wall Street, so his stridency on the China trade issue has taken some traditional conservatives for whom

free trade is a fundamental tenet by surprise. National Review said Romneys move risk*ed+ a trade war with China

and was a remarkably bad idea.In fact, many business leaders give Obama good marks for his China

policy.What the Obama administration has done in not labeling China as a currency manipulator is

correct, said one U.S. business lobbyist who closely follows U.S. -China trade issues and asked not to be named. Were very leery of a tit -for-tat situation, he added, while acknowledging that the anti-China rhetoric is good politics.

That goes nuclear

Taaffe 5(Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, China, A New

Superpower?, Socialist Alternative.org, Nov 1, 2005, pg.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30)

While this conflict is unresolved, the shadow of a trade war looms. Some commentators, like Henry C.K. Liu in the Asia Times, go further and

warn that " trade wars can lead to shooting wars ." China is not the Japan of the 21st century. Japan in the 1980s

relied on the U.S. military and particularly its nuclear umbrella against China, and was therefore subject to the pressureand blackmail of the U.S. ruling class. The fear of the U.S., and the capitalists of the "first world" as a whole, is that China may in time "out-

compete" the advanced nations for hi-tech jobs while holding on to the stranglehold it now seems to have in labor-intensive industries. As the

OECD commented recently: "In the five-year period to 2003, the number of students joining higher education courses has risen by three and a

half times, with a strong emphasis on technical subjects." The number of patents and engineers produced by China has also significantly grown.

At the same time, an increasingly capitalist China - most wealth is now produced in the private sector but the majority of the urban labor force

is still in state industries - and the urgency for greater energy resources in particular to maintain its spectacular growth rate has brought it into

collision on a world scale with other imperialist powers, particularly the U.S. In a new worldwide version of the "Great

Game" - the clash for control of central Asia's resources in the nineteenth century - the U.S. and China have increasingly

come up against and buffeted one another. Up to now, the U.S. has held sway worldwide due to its economic dominancebuttressed by a colossal war machine accounting for 47% of total world arms spending. But Iraq has dramatically shown the limits of this: "A

country that cannot control Iraq can hardly remake the globe on its own." (Financial Times) But no privileged group disappears from the scene

of history without a struggle. Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. defense secretary, has stated: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: why

this growing [arms] investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" China could ask the same question of the U.S. In

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

7/21

order to maintain its position, the U.S. keeps six nuclear battle fleets permanently at sea, supported by an unparallelednetwork of bases. As Will Hutton in The Observer has commented, this is not because of "irrational chauvinism or the needs of the military-

industrial complex, but because of the pressure they place on upstart countries like China." In turn, the Chinese elite

has responded in kind. For instance, in the continuing clash over Taiwan, a major-general in the People's Liberation

Army baldly stated that if China was attacked "by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan... I think we

would have to respond with nuclear weapons." He added: "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of

the cities east of Xian. Of course, theAmericans would have to be prepared that hundreds... of cities would bedestroyed by the Chinese." Thisbellicose nuclear arms rattling shows thecontempt of the so-called great

powers for the ordinary working-class and peasant peoples of China and the people of the U.S. when their interests are at stake.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

8/21

Off

A. Uniqueness - The political winds in America are changing. A revolution is emerging.Reject this revolution at your peril.

Farrell 10/4marketwatch, the burning platform (A new Lost Decade is leading to revolution.http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=22549

Unfortunately, the new one gets worse: Why? The coming Lost Decade is a backdrop for a wave of class warfare

destined to trigger a historic revolution in American politics, bigger than the 29 Crash and Great Depression. Initiallyinspired by the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street is a virus spreading rapidly as Occupy Everything, a reform movement that will overshadow the

GOP/Tea Party as the voice of the people, leading to an Occupy America. Investors, listen closely: First, well summarize fiv e major signs of

Americas new Lost Decade 2011-2021. Then, we summarize seven diverse examples of rebellions across the world adding fuel to Americas

accelerating Occupy Wall Street revolution. Why is this crucial for investors? Because these class wars are guaranteed to

deepen Americas market and economic problems during the coming Lost Decade.So listen closely

investors: 1. Decade of debt stagnation till 2021 Barrons Gene Epstein warns that Obamas latest is Too Little,

Too Late. Even if the president gets everything he asked for in his new proposals, it wont reduce

our growing public debt. And he wont get it all. So Americas debt will remain around 80% of GDP for a

decade, levels not seen since the 1940s. Thats right, debt will remain dangerously high at least through 2021. And it wont matter who is

president. Class warfare will accelerate this job-killing debt cycle. 2. Investors lose faith, bailing out Over at the Wall Street Journal

Tom Lauricella warns Investors lose faith in stocks in a historic retreat, investors world-wide during the three months

through August pulled some $92 billion out of stock funds in the developed markets, more than reversing

the total put into those funds since stocks bottomed in 2009. Worse, theres a widening belief t hat the mess left behind by the

housing bubble and financial crisis will be a morass to contend with for years. Yes, many years. 3. Fed

surrenders, cannot fix economy In a Cleveland speech last week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that with 45%

of the unemployed out more than six months, long-term unemployment is now a national crisis the Fed

cannot fix. Unheard of this has never happened in the post-war period. Theyre losing the skills they had, they are losing their

connections, their attachment to the labor force. But a job-killing Congress wont act. 4. Wall Street still doesnt get it In a recentForeign Policy article, William Cohan, a former J. P. Morgan Chase managing director and author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs

Came to Rule the World, warns Wall Street not only learned nothing after the 2008 meltdown, theyre

aggressively lobbying to kill all reforms that might break this dangerous cycle in which bankers and traders getvery rich while the rest of us suffer from their mistakes. Wall Street is deaf, blind and myopic, wants no limits on all manner of bets on the

market, even at the risk of a U.S. recession. Only a catastrophe will wake Wall Street. 5. Yes, Americas second

Lost Decade just beganIn a Money interview, Are We the Next Japan? Nomura Research economist Richard Koo sees striking

similarities between our current malaise and Japans Lost Decade. Their stimulus did work, but thenthe Japanese made a

horrendous mistake in 1997. The IMF told Japan youre running a huge fiscal deficit with an aging population

reduce your deficit. So Japan cut spending and raised taxes and the whole economy came

crashing down. Sure sounds familiar. Wall Street protest spread. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York, some

100 people gathered Sunday outside the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago to protest inequities in the nations financial system. Warning: to

Wall Street CEOs, the Super Rich, the top 1%who think they own our government the partys over. No matter who getselected in 2012 and 2016, the new Lost Decade 2011-2021 will make life miserable for the president and Congress, as with Japan

earlier. Worse, this Lost Decade will make life miserable for everybody: corporations, investors, consumers, workers, smallbusinesses and all our families, with the kind of economic suffering experienced in the painfully long Great Depression era. Yes, big shock dead

ahead. The class wars like Arab Spring are accelerating across America. Occupy Wall Street is going viral, spreadingthrough Occupy Together, expanding in dozens of cities across America and the world, growing bigger in commitment, in mission, in

boldness a resistance movement waging war against our democracy-killing Super Rich. Next, expect many more class wars, regional

rebellions, uprisings against the wealthy yes, this is the second American Revolution.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=22549http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=22549

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

9/21

Link - Modern forms of development ignore traditional ways of life and force NativeAmericans to assimilate into the western Capitalist system, leading down a road to cultural

ruin.

Duffy and Stubben, 98 (Diane, assistant professor of political science at Iowa State University, andJerry, adjunct associate professor in the Professional Studies Department at ISU, former chair of theAmerican Indian Studies Program at ISU, Studies in Comparative International Development, v32, issue

4, Winter)

As with other theories of underdevelopment,the assumptions of the Neoclassical Counter Revolution do notstand up: competitive markets do not always exist; consumers are rarely sovereign; and markets are usuallyfragmented and often nonmonetized. To people who live on reservations--indeed, to people who live in rural

settings in general--the fallacy of these assumptions are immediately apparent, as is the Western industrial

bias. Further, this approach ignores culture and existing societal and institutional structures that supporta different, more communal way of living. As Pommersheim (1984) rightly points out,developmentdiscourse inevitably involves the presumption that economic growth and increased income arevaluable because they lead to increased purchasing power and the ability to acquire material things.

But, he argues, "It is this very presumption that disturbs many people in Indian country because itseems to mean a further walk down that non-Indian road that leads to assimilation and 'civilisation.' Inother words, to many Indians it is to cultural ruin" (213). Specifically, the Western concept ofeconomic transfer restricts/constricts the Indian sense of "exchange" and strips it of its psychological,social, and spiritual dimensions.

B. Impact - Globalization makes extinction inevitable- social and environmentalfactors build positive feedbacks that create a cascade of destruction - only massive

social reorganization of society can produce sustainable change and save the

planet

Ehrenfeld 5, (David, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources @ Rutgers University, TheEnvironmental Limits to Globalization, Conservation Biology Vol. 19 No. 2 April 2005)

The known effects of globalization on the environment are numerous and highly significant. Manyothers are undoubtedly unknown. Given these circumstances, the first question that suggests itself is:

Will globalization, as we see it now, remain a permanent state of affairs (Rees 2002; Ehrenfeld 2003a)?

The principal environmental side effects of globalizationclimate change, resource exhaustion (particularly cheap energy),

damage to agroecosystems, and the spread of exotic species, including pathogens (plant, animal, and human)are

sufficient to make this economic system unstable and short-lived.The socioeconomic consequences of

globalizationare likely to do the same. In my book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981), I claimed that our ability to manage global

systems, which depends on our being able to predict the results of the things we do, or even to understand the

systems we have created, has been greatly exaggerated. Much of our alleged control is science fiction; it doesn't work

because of theoretical limits that we ignore at our peril. We live in a dream world in which reality testing is something wemust never, never do, lest we awake. In 1984 Charles Perrow explored the reasons why we have trouble predicting what so many of our own

created systems will do, and why they surprise us so unpleasantly while we think we are managing them. In his book Normal Accidents, which

does not concern globalization, he listed the critical characteristics of some oftoday's complex systems. They are highlyinterlinked, so a change in one part can affect many others, even those that seem quite distant. Results of some

processes feed back on themselves in unexpected ways. The controls of the system often interact with each other unpredictably.We have only indirect ways of finding out what is happening inside the system. And we have an incomplete understanding of some of the

system's processes. His example of such a system is a nuclear power plant, and this, he explained, is why system-wide accidents in nuclear

plants cannot be predicted or eliminated by system design. I would argue that globalization is a similar system, also subject to

catastrophic accidents, many of them environmentalevents that we cannot define until after they

have occurred, and perhaps not even then. The comparatively few commentators who have predicted the collapse of globalization have

generally given social reasons to support their arguments. These deserve some consideration here, if only because the environmental

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

10/21

and social consequences of globalization interact so strongly with each other. In 1998, the British political economistJohn Gray, giving scant attention to environmental factors, nevertheless came to the conclusion that globalization is unstable and will be short-

lived. He said, There is nothing in today's global market that buffers it against the social strains arising

from highly uneven economic developmentwithin and between the world's diverse societies. The result, Gray states, is

that The combination of [an] unceasing stream of new technologies, unfettered market competition

and weak or fractured social institutions has weakened both sovereign states and multinational

corporations in their ability to control important events. Note that Gray claims that not only nations but alsomultinational corporations, which are widely touted as controlling the world, are being weakened by globalization. This idea may come as a

surprise, considering the growth of multinationals in the past few decades, but I believe it is true. Neither governments nor giant

corporations are even remotely capable of controlling the environmental or social forces released by

globalization, without first controlling globalization itself. Two of the social critics of globalization with the most dire predictions about itsdoom are themselves masters of the process. The late Sir James Goldsmith, billionaire financier, wrote in 1994, It must surely be a mistake to

adopt an economic policy which makes you rich if you eliminate your national workforce and transfer production abroad, and which bankrupts

you if you continue to employ your own people. It is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries. This will

have a serious impact on the social cohesion of nations. Another free-trade billionaire, George Soros, said much the same thing in 1995: The

collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences. Yet I find it easier to imagine than the

continuation of the present regime. How much more powerful these statements are if we factor in the environment! As globalization

collapses, what will happen to people, biodiversity, and ecosystems? With respect to people, the gift of prophecy is not required to answer

this question. What will happen depends on where you are and how you live. Many citizens of the Third World are still

comparatively self-sufficient; an unknown number of these will survive the breakdown of globalization and its attendant chaos. Inthe developed world, there are also people with resources of self-sufficiency and a growing understanding of the nature of our social and

environmental problems, which may help them bridge the years of crisis. Some species are adaptable; some are not. For the nonhuman

residents of Earth, not all news will be bad. Who would have predicted that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), one of the wiliest and most

evasive of woodland birds, extinct in New Jersey 50 years ago, would now be found in every county of this the most densely populated state,

and even, occasionally, in adjacent Manhattan? Who would have predicted that black bears (Ursus americanus), also virtually extinct in the

state in the mid-twentieth century, would now number in the thousands (Ehrenfeld 2001)? Of course these recoveries are unusualrare bright

spots in a darker landscape. Finally, a few ecological systems may survive in a comparatively undamaged state;

most will be stressed to the breaking point, directly or indirectly, by many environmental and social factors

interacting unpredictably. Lady Luck, as always, will have much to say. In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies, the

archaeologist Joseph Tainter (1988) notes that collapse, which has happened to all past empires, inevitably results in human

systems of lower complexity and less specialization, less centralized control, lower economic activity, less informationflow, lower population levels, less trade, and less redistribution of resources. All of these changes are inimical to globalization. This less-

complex, less-globalized condition is probably what human societies will be like when the dust settles. I do not think, however, that we canmake such specific predictions about the ultimate state of the environment after globalization, because we have never experienced

anything like this exceptionally rapid, global environmental damage before. History and science have little to tell us in

this situation. The end of the current economic system and the transition to a postglobalized state is and will be

accompanied by a desperate last raid on resources and a chaotic flurry of environmental destructionwhose results cannot possibly be told in advance. All one can say is that the surviving species, ecosystems, and resources will be greatly

impoverished compared with what we have now, and our descendants will not thank us for having adopted, however briefly, an economic

system that consumed their inheritance and damaged their planet so wantonly. Environment is a true bottom lineconcern for its

condition must trump all purely economic growth strategies if both the developed and developing

nations are to survive and prosper. Awareness of the environmental limits that globalized industrial society denies or ignores shouldnot, however, bring us to an extreme position of environmental determinism. Those whose preoccupations with modern civilization's very real

social problems cause them to reject or minimize the environmental constraints discussed here (Hollander 2003) are guilty of seeing only half

the picture. Environmental scientists sometimes fall into the same error. It is tempting to see the salvation of civilization

and environment solely in terms oftechnological improvementsin efficiency of energy extraction anduse, control of pollution, conservation of water, and regulation of environmentally harmful activities.

But such needed developments will not be sufficientor may not even occurwithout corresponding social

change, including an end to human population growth and the glorification of consumption, along

with the elimination of economic mechanisms that increase the gap between rich and poor. The

environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelatedany

attempt to treat them as separate entities is unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a

postglobalized world. Integrated change that combines environmental awareness, technological

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

11/21

innovation, and an altered world view is the only answer to the life-threatening problems

exacerbated by globalization (Ehrenfeld 2003b). If such integrated change occurs in time, it will likely happen partly by our owndesign and partly as an unplanned response to the constraints imposed by social unrest, disease, and the economics of scarcity. With respect to

the planned component of change, we are facing, as eloquently described by Rees (2002), the ultimate challenge to human

intelligence and self-awareness, those vital qualities we humans claim as uniquely our own. Homo sapiens will

eitherbecome fully human or wink out ignominiously, a guttering candle in a violent storm of our

own making. If change does not come quickly, our global civilization willjoin Tainter's (1988) list as thelatest and most dramatic example of collapsed complex societies. Is there anything that could slow globalization quickly,

before it collapses disastrously of its own environmental and social weight? It is still not too late to curtail the use of energy,

reinvigorate local and regional communities while restoring a culture of concern for each other,

reduce nonessential global trade and especially global finance (Daly & Cobb 1989), do more to control

introductions of exotic species (including pathogens), and accelerate the growth of sustainable agriculture.Many of the needed technologies are already in place. It is true that some of the damage to our environmentspecies extinctions, loss of crop

and domestic animal varieties, many exotic species introductions, and some climatic changewill be beyond repair. Nevertheless, the

opportunity to help our society move past globalization in an orderly way, while there is time, is worth our most creative and passionate

efforts. The citizens of the United States and other nations have to understand that our global economic system has placed

both our environment and our society in peril, a peril as great as that posed by any war of the twentieth

century. This understanding, and the actions that follow, must come not only from enlightened leadership, but also from

grassroots consciousness raising. It is still possible to reclaim the planet from a self-destructiveeconomic system that is bringing us all down together, and this can be a task that bridges the divide between

conservatives and liberals. The crisis is here, now. What we have to do has become obvious. Globalization can be scaled back to

manageable proportions only in the context of an altered world view that rejects materialism even as

it restores a sense of communal obligation. In this way, alone, can we achieve real homeland security, not just in the UnitedStates, but also in other nations, whose fates have become so thoroughly entwined with ours within the global environment we share.

C. Alternative - The alternative is to do nothing this solves the inevitability of

capitalism

Zizek 08Senior Research @ Institute for Social Studies-Ljubljana [Slavoj, Violence, p. 207-217 While the parallel holds, the concluding characterisation seems to fall short: the unsettling message of Seeing is not so much the

indissolubility of both people and government as much the compulsive nature of democratic rituals offreedom. What happens is that by abstaining from voting, people effectively dissolve the government-not

only in the limited sense of overthrowing the existing government, but more radically. Why is the

government thrown into such a panic by the voters' abstention? It is compelled to confront the fact

that it exists, that it exerts power, only insofar as it is accepted as such by its subjects-accepted even

in the mode of rejection. The voters' abstention goes further than the intra-political negation, the vote of

no confidence: it rejects the very frame of decision. In psychoanalytic terms, the voters' abstention is something like thepsychotic Verwerfung (foreclosure, rejection/repudiation), which is a more radical move than repression (Verdrangung). According to Freud,

the repressed is intellectually accepted by the subject, since it is named, and at the same time is

negated because the subject refuses to recognise it, refuses to recognise him or herself in it. In contrast tothis, foreclosure rejects the term from the symbolic tout court. To circumscribe the contours of this radical rejection, one is tempted to evoke

Badiou's provocative thesis: "It is better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that

which Empire already recognizes as existent.''6 Better to do nothing than to engage in localised acts the ultimate function of which is to makethe system run more smoothly (acts such as providing space for the multitude of new subjectivities).

The threat today is not passivity, but pseudoactivity, the urge to "be active," to "participate," to mask

the nothingness of what goes on. People intervene all the time, "do something"; academics participate in

meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw. Those in power often prefer even a

"critical" participation, a dialogue, to silence-just to engage us in "dialogue," to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters'

abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today's

democracies.If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

12/21

tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that

they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

13/21

Framing

Interpretation: You should evaluate the soundness of the policy based on the

consequences of the plan.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

14/21

First, Objections to the personal practice of Utilitarianism are irrelevant. Utilitarianism

is public policy which requires that leaders take the action which is in the best interest

of their people.*****

William H. Shaw. PhD. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. P. 171-2. 1999Utilitarianism ties right and wrong to the promotion of well-being, but it is not only a personalethic or a guide to individual conduct. It is also a "public philosophy"' - that is, a normative basis forpublic policy and the structuring of our social, legal, and political institutions. Indeed, it was just this aspect of utilitarianism that

primarily engaged Bentham, John Stuart Mill, his father James, and their friends and votaries. For them utilitarianism

was, first and foremost, a social and political philosophy and only secondarily a private or

personal moral code. In particular, they saw utilitarianism as providing the yardstick by which to

measure, assess, and, where necessary, reform government social and economic policy and the

judicial institutions of their day. In the public realm, utilitarianism is especially compelling.Because of its

consequentialist character, a utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their

actions, procedures, and programs on the most accurate and detailed understanding they can

obtain of the circumstances in which they are operating and the likely results of the alternatives

open to them. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks of a utilitarian orientation, not

customary practice, unverified abstractions, or wishful thinking. Promotion of the well-being of

all seems to be the appropriate, indeed the only sensible, touchstone for assessing public

policies and institutions, and the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality

carry little or no weight against it when viewed as a public philosophy.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

15/21

(2) Moral absolutism results in paralysis and tragedy. Only Utilitarianism can resolve

these moral conflicts.

Gerard Elfstrom. Ethics for a Shrinking World 1990. p. 21-22.But if utilitarianism and rights-based theories are similar, why choose the utilitarian?Utilitarianism has a bad name,

and rights theories have strong rhetorical advantages. In recent history the language of rights has continuallybeen used to press the claims of the oppressed and needy. Following the horrors of the Second World War, it was natural for

the United Nations to formulate its highest goals and values in terms of rights. It has long been recognized that those who wish

to press their claims in the strongest possible fashion will cloak them in the language of rights.There are, nonetheless,

several good reasons for returning to embattled yet perennial utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism

has parsimony on its side for one thing . It need not rely on difficult ideas of autonomy, personhood, or humandignity. It can get essentially the same results without them. A related advantage is that utilitarian theories do not drift off on

ideas like autonomy, freedom, or democracy without asking why anyone should care about them.It is useful for

demythologizing obscure ideas. Does `freedom' mean, for example, anything more than the ability to choose and act

on one's choices? If not, why should anyone worry about it?Anotherabstract and obscure concept important

for rights theorists is that of autonomy. They construct various arguments founded on claims

that people are autonomous and that autonomy should be respected. The difficulty is thatpeople display varying levels of autonomy, and it is stretching things to claim that some people

in some situations are autonomous at all. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by the common soldier in the heat ofbattle and the experienced physician is totally different. The physician has expertise, is used to making judgments and acting

upon them, can gain some detachment from his or her situation, and enjoys the respect and deference of others. The physician

comes close to exemplifying what philosophers have in mind when they talk about autonomous being. The common soldier

enjoys none of these qualities. Most people are arranged between the physician and the soldier in their possession of them.

When analyzing moral responsibility, it is unrealistic at best to argue blandly that human beings

are autonomous and to proceed from there. Moral responsibility is better served if it is asked in

concrete terms what people can be expected to do and what kinds of institutions can he

constructed to support a sense of responsibility. Utilitarianism is more amenable to bringing

moral concepts down to earth and giving them concrete meaning than are rights theories. The

other practical advantages of utilitarianism are more widely appreciated.It is very difficult for rights-based

theories to explain what must be done when rights conflict or must be overridden. There is no

room for compromise or negotiation when rights are at stake. Rights theorists are prone to think of this

inflexibility as a benefit, a safeguard against the loss of rights. In real-world conflicts where opposing claims are

at stake, however, conflict can easily harden into protracted, bitter struggle if there is common

insistence on rights. Where opposing parties are convinced they have immutable rights, they

are unlikely to compromise and likely to insist on their due to the bitter end. Utilitarian theories

can accommodate these conflicts in ways very difficult for rights theories to match.

(3) There is no plausible alternative to Utilitarianism that does not result in mass

murder.****Wasserman and Strudler 2003 Philosophy and Public Affairs 31.1

We have argued thatthere is not yet an adequate nonconsequentialist account of the abiding

conviction that it is wrong to save the lesser rather than the greater number.Such an account

must not only explain the core intuition that the numbers count, but it must also plausibly ac-

commodate, or explain why one should reject, another robust intuition about numbers: That

failing to save the larger group is a greater wrong the larger the disparity in numbers; that it is

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

16/21

a greater wrong to save one person rather than a thousand than to save one person rather

than two. A consequentialist offers an easy explanation of this intuition in terms of the greater waste of lives in the formercase, but the intuition is less easily explained by an account that faults the rescuer for failing to adopt a decision procedure

that respects the equality of the imperiled lives. On such an account, the rescuer who chooses an inappropriate procedure,

such as a coin toss or a proportional lottery, commits a single moral er- ror. Although his erroneous choice may wrong more

or fewer people, de- pending on the number of people in the larger group (or the total num- ber of imperiled people), it is not

obvious why that choice is worse if it wrongs more people; the coin-tossing rescuer is not like a recidivist who commits serialwrongs. Moreover, even ifhischoice were regarded as morally worse the greater the number of

people it wronged, this would not explain the intuition that the wrongfulness of his choice

depends on the disparity in numbers between the two sides. It is only if, per Kavka, the rescuer is seen asdisregarding the lives of the excess members of the larger group that the wrong can be seen as greater the larger the ex-

cess. But we have argued that that account is vulnerable to the same criticism as consequentialist accounts, in treating

the failure to save the greater number as tantamount to wasting or neglecting lives. It may be

that a nonconsequentialist account will have to plausibly reject the intuition that links the

disparity in numbers with the magnitude of the wrong if it is to overcome the stubborn appeal

of consequentialism in forced choices among lives.

(4) We dont have to win that there alternative system of ethics is bad. Utilitarianismdoes not require one to forsake all other moral codes. *****

William H. Shaw. PhD. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. P. 170. 1999.Although the principle of utility remains the final standard for assessing actions, it is a self-

limiting principle.First, the utilitarian principle determines whether, when, and to what degree praise or blame isappropriate. In particular, it will often be wrong on utilitarian grounds to criticize someone for failing to maximize well-being.

Second, utilitarians will want to encourage in themselves and in others commitments,

motivations, dispositions, and character traits that, while generally conducive to the good,

occasionally or even frequently lead one to act in ways that do not maximize happiness.There are good utilitarian

reasons for one to be, or try to become, the kind of person who cares about things other than

maximizing general utility.Third, and related, utilitarians will seek to teach, promote, andinternalize in themselves dispositions to act in accord with certain moral rules and principles,

general adherence to which will be utility maximizing. The benefits that flow from people

being committed to such principles and knowing that others are, too, is of the greatest

importance, but people's accepting these moral principles precludes, in all but the most

unusual circumstances, their putting them aside in an effort to boost utility.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

17/21

Self Determination

Self- Determination isnt modeled- Governments are empirically unwilling to negotiate

with secessionist groups

Walter, 2003.(Barbara F., Associate Professor Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies atUniversity of California, San Diego, December, REPUTATION AND WAR: Explaining the Intractability of

Territorial Conflict, International Studies Review. Vol. 5, no. 4.,http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdf)The most intractable civil wars in the last half of the twentieth century were not ethnic civil wars or ideological

civil wars. The most intractable conflicts were those fought over territory. Between 1940 and 1996,

combatants fighting territorial civil wars were 70 percent less likely to initiate peace negotiations

than combatants fighting any other type of civil war.1 And once begun, these negotiations rarely

brought peace. In only 17 percent of the cases where a government faced rebels who sought

independence or greater regional autonomy did the government agree to accommodate the

rebels in any way. This pattern was confirmed in studies of inter-state disputes. Luard (1986), Holsti (1991),Goertz and Diehl (1992), and Vasquez(1993) each found that territorial issues are one of the most frequent

sources of war, and that competing governments are less likely to resolve disagreements overterritory than any other issue. And Hensel (1996) found that territorial disputes are more likely to

escalate, to produce a greater number of fatalities, and be more conflictual than non-territorial

confrontations. Unlike most other issues, governments show a surprising unwillingness to negotiate

over land in order to avoid or end otherwise costly conflicts.Why do governments so often refuse tonegotiate over territory, and under what conditions will they agree to negotiate and make some accommodation

for greater autonomy or independence?

Self-Determination cannot be attained via the state- it must be created by the Native

Americans themselves

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst. October 24, 1997*American Indian Sovereignty: Now you see it, Now you dont,

http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html]Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is at issue in "indigenous sovereignty"struggles. To know that "sovereignty" is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these strugglesas spiritual projects, involving questions about who "we" are as beings among beings, peoples among

peoples. Sovereignty arises from within a people as their unique expression of themselves as apeople. It is not produced by court decrees or government grants, but by the actual ability of apeople to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination. Self-determination ofindigenous peoples will be attained "through means other than those provided by a conqueror's ruleof law and its discourses of conquest."[Williams, 327.] The "anachronistic premises" [Id.] of thecurrent system of international law -- "discovery" and "state sovereignty" -- must be discarded inorder to understand self-determination clearly and see a way to manifest it. This is the real struggleof indigenous peoples: "to redefine radically the conceptions of their rights and status.... to

articulat[e] and defin[e] [their] own vision within the global community." [328.] On the plus side forall of us, this struggle has the "potential for broadening perspectives on our human condition." [Id.] AsPhillip Deere said, "It is a mistake to talk about an American Indian way of life. We are talking about ahuman being way of life." [Deere.]

The international community is currently blocking independence aspirations of the Kurds

of northern Iraq

Bose, May 22.(Sumantra, Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdfhttp://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdfhttp://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdfhttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#williamshttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#williamshttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#williamshttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#deerehttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#deerehttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#deerehttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#deerehttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html#williamshttp://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdf

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

18/21

Economics and Political Science, Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma, 2008.http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy)

This status-quo proclivity of the international system is not surprising. The most influential member-

states of the international system have an obvious interest in not rocking the boat, and this is

reflected in the behaviour of international institutions. The international system is apprehensive of

encouraging, or seeming to encourage, instability and fractiousness. It is alive to the sensitivities andclout of major states, such as India or China, that contain groups seeking self-determination. It isacutely conscious of the risk of regional destabilisation - the blocked independence aspirations

of the Kurds of northern Iraq are a case in point. And it is reluctant to admit new members to theclub of sovereign states except in instances of a fait accompli on the ground - such as Bangladesh,Eritrea in the early 1990s, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the "velvet divorce" of the Czechs andSlovaks.

U.S. support for self-determination destroys U.S.-Turkey relations

Newsweek, 1/28/2002Turkey's nightmare is not that an invasion of Iraq will produce an independent Kurdish state on its southernborder. "That's not an option," a senior source close to the military explained. The nightmare is that the Armywould be forced to preclude that option by occupying northern Iraq. (With 12 percent of its population

Kurdish and having battled a terrorist movement for decades, Turkey believes that Kurdish self-determination even across the border would mean the end of the nation's unitary existence.) Thereare already contingency plans for such an operation in Ankara. "If there is an American intervention," thissource told me, "we would have to watch and see whether the Kurds began rising up in northern Iraq--andthey likely will. We would be forced to make sure that once the war ends we are in a military position toaffect the political settlement that follows. It's a last resort, but we have to be masters of our own fate."

Washington has told Ankara that it supports the principle that Iraq should remain one nation.ManyTurkish generals don't believe it. They think that once the war begins, all bets are off.The IraqiKurds have been the chief opposition to Saddam Hussein for a decade. Were they to declareindependence, the United States would not crush them. We're for self-determination, remember? As a result,

Turkey wants assurances that no Afghan-style operation--bombing plus reliance on local forces--will be attempted. (In such a scenario, the Kurds would play the role of the Northern Alliance and thus

would become the victors.) A senior military officer observed that if 500,000 American troops were requiredto evict Saddam from Kuwait, then surely the much larger task of occupying Iraq would require at least asmany American troops.

Kurds will turn partial self-determination into a bid for their own statenow is the key

time for the US to stabilize the crisis

Martin Chulov, November 6, 2006 *Middle East correspondent for The Austrailian* (LexisNexis)In Baghdad, the dream of national unity appears to be slipping away, with little that the new Shia-ledGovernment can do to stop it. The Shi'ites have willing benefactors across the border in Iran. And theKurds will not take a lot of convincing to turn their partial self-determination into an outright bid for astate of their own. Iraq is now at its most delicate phase since Saddam fell. Baghdad and Washingtonneed his sentence to build confidence in a deeply fragmented society, but they know peace requires

more than the slaying of a monster. TURKEY'S current military offensive inside northern Iraq hastouched off a crisis - one to which several other players in the region have contributed. Although theultimate responsibility for ending this crisis falls on Turkey, all of the others, including the UnitedStates, must do their part to prevent a larger regional conflagration. Turkey's ostensible reason forsending 10,000 troops into the mountainous north of Iraq is to punish the separatist guerrilla groupknown as the PKK for its terrorist operations and attacks on Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. However,the Kurdish Regional Government in the north of Iraq has charged that Turkey has an ulterior motive:to destabilize that relatively peaceful and prosperous area.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

19/21

Western oriented Turkey is key to check Russian imperialism

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Professor of American Foreign Policy at John Hopkins University, 1997, TheGrand Chessboard, p. 149-150

In this region, America shares a common interest not only with a stable, pro-Western Turkey but alsowith Iran and China. A gradual improvement in American-Iranian relations would greatly increaseglobal access to the region and, more specifically, reduce the more immediate threat to Azerbaijanssurvival. Chinas growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the areasindependence are also congruent with Americas interests. Chinas backing of Pakistans efforts inAfghanistan is also a positive factor, for closer Pakistani-Afghan relations would make internationalaccess to Turkmenistan more feasible, thereby helping to reinforce both that state and Uzbekistan (inthe event that Kazakstan were to falter). Turkeys evolution and orientation are likely to be especiallydecisive for the future of the Caucasian states. If Turkey sustains its path to Europeand if Europedoes not close its doors to Turkeythe states of the Caucasus are also likely to gravitate into theEuropean orbit, a prospect they fervently desire. But if Turkeys Europeanization grinds to a halt, foreither internal or external reasons, then Georgia and Armenia will have no choice but to adapt toRussias inclinations. Their future will then become a function of Russias own evolving relationshipwith the expanding Europe, for good or ill.

Russian nationalism leads to global war

Ariel Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1/25/1996, Heritage Foundation ReportsMuch is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doomRussia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone hascost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, ithas extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restorethe Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace,world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, theseconflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios includingunauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstitutedRussian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout theworld. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe andthe Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the PersianGulf. Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea,and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, haveresurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds inestablishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan willincrease. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined bypressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services,in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to staveoff Islamic militancy more difficult.

Deterrence prevents India/Pakistan conflictTepperman 2009 (Jonathan Tepperman, Deputy Editor at Newsweek Magazine and former DeputyManaging Editor of Foreign Affairs, September 14, 2009, Newsweek, September 14, 2009, Lexis

Academic)

The record since then shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear-armed enemies slide toward war, then pull back,always for the same reasons. The best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after

independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't

do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

20/21

weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations(like Pakistani-basedterrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were

careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and

coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on both sides, officials' thinking was strikingly

similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with

a nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.

7/29/2019 OU 1NC

21/21

Native American Econ

No impact to this advantage literally no nuclear waste has been dumped on Indian

reservations USFG asked them to do it in the 80s but declined.

The aff cant solve poverty- colonialism has undermined attempts to modernize and

develop.

Anders, 81 (Gary C., professor of economics and Native studies, University of Alaska, The AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 40, Number 3, July, Page Lexis)

In many ways the present underdevelopment of other Native Americans is a direct result of their

experiences with White colonialism and the structures of dominance and dependence it imposes. The

reason for this is that "by its very nature colonialism produces a fundamental transformation of the

colonial society, its institutions, and its entire social fabric" (20). The impact of the political, legal, and

economic aspects of colonialism undermined tribal structures, and in the Cherokee case lead to what

Frank calls "the development of underdevelopment" (21). Historical data show that the Cherokees once

possessed the ability to innovate new technologies and adopt them as a means of bringing about their

social and economic development. Once the Cherokees had their own government, schools, courts, and

other public institutions. The Cherokees demonstrated a remarkable capacity to modernize dramatically,

but by government fiat the Cherokee Nation (as were other Indian Nations) was abolished so that

Whites could take their lands and establish their own State. Consider the data in Table 1.

Native American poverty is rooted in history and continues to hamper any attempts at

development.

Anders, 81 (Gary C., professor of economics and Native studies, University of Alaska, The AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 40, Number 3, July, Page Lexis)

THE PURPOSE of this discussion has been to examine, through a representative case study, the

connections between Native American underdevelopment and historical factors that influenced their

potential development. My basic argument can be summarized as follows: Native American poverty and

underdevelopment are direct products of historical consequences, and the adverse effects of the

Indians' trust relationship with the Federal Government will continue to be felt in ways that condition,

inhibit and handicap their potential for future economic development.