United States foreign policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict.
Table of Contents
United States foreign policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict. 1
Resolution & Analysis 3
United States foreign policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict. 4
Affirmative Case 5
Contention One: Allowing Women’s Rights to be Violated Reflects Our Identity 8
Contention Two: Valuing Economic Interests Above Women’s Rights is Immoral 12
Affirmative Cards 14
Doesn’t Hurt Women’s Rights 15
Hurts Women’s Rights 16
United States Pledged to Stop Women’s Rights Abuses Globally 17
Women’s Rights Key 20
Negative Case 23
I negate the resolution: United States Foreign Policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict. 24
Observation 1: Framework and Standard 25
C1. Western Feminism is a form of constant cultural oppression in the status quo. 26
C2) Cultural Oppression leads to violence 27
C3) Rejection of the mentality of the resolution is the first of many steps towards opening political discourse that will ultimately allow for difference to flourish and solvency of not only women’s rights but human rights. 29
Reject the Resolution because it has a Western Mindset 33
The resolution is dehumanizing 35
Produced by BFI 2014 Labs
Editor: Kyle Cheesewright
Resolution & Analysis
United States foreign policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict.
This is the second student produced file at the Beehive Forensics Institute. This resolution asks students to argue about the goals of United States foreign policy by proposing a fairly traditional division in focus: between economics, or human rights promotion, focusing specifically on the concept of human rights. Most of the Affirmative arguments revolve around establishing the problems with women’s rights globally, and then discusses the benefits that may arise for economic interests through a focus on women’s rights.
Internationally, the need for increased women’s rights is relatively obvious. Both domestically and internationally, women face a much harder path to be able to pursue their own agendas free from government condoned discrimination. Control over bodies, basic labor standards, and sexually repressive systems all make the struggle for women’s rights particularly important, and each and every one of these focus areas could be a productive route to pursue when discussing the needs for women’s rights. Currently, the affirmative case that was selected out of the lab work makes the argument that we need to focus on women’s rights in order to prevent serious abuses. This case chooses to make most of its harms claims through the work of narrative, meaning that the case is connected with the stories of those who suffer abuses of women’s rights internationally.
On the negative, the case that was selected out of the student lab work proposes that defining women’s rights is one of the primary areas of difficulty for this resolution. The negative case relies on a critique of “women’s rights” discourse drawing from transnational feminist perspectives. What this argument proposes is that the attempt to define women’s rights by the United States results in a colonial expansion of “white feminism” under which the needs and desires of Western Feminists are cast as universal. The case also argues that in casting this culturally specific form of women’s rights as universal, the United States is responsible for propping up problematic foreign policy which is ultimately counterproductive. Consider, for example, the way that women’s rights discourse was used in order to justify intervention in Afghanistan, when the goal was certainly not actually to increase women’s rights, and has, according to many, resulted in the opposite. A crackdown on the rights of women within the society, under the discursive banner of increasing women’s rights.
Overall, this research should provide debaters with a good starting point for research on this topic. In order to be successful during the year, I would strongly encourage debaters to use this evidence as an initial jumping off point, and to research and compose additional arguments where these cases might have weak points, or be missing some of the claims that are necessary to the overarching strategy. Great work at the BFI to all who participated, and we all look forward to seeing how everyone does throughout the year!
Korsgaard 92 (Christine M., Clare’s Hall at Cambridge University, Nov 16,17 pg. 82-86)
Those who think that the human mind is internally luminous and transparent to itself think that the term “self-consciousness” is appropriate because what we get in human consciousness is a direct encounter with the self. Those who think that the human mind has a reflective structure use the term too, but for a different reason. The reflective structure of the mind is a source of “self- consciousness” because it forces us to have a conception of ourselves. As Kant argues, this is a fact about what it is like to be reflectively conscious and it does not prove the existence of a metaphysical self. From a third person point of view, outside of the deliberative standpoint, it may look as if what happens when someone makes a choice is that the strongest of his conflicting desires wins. But that isn’t the way it is for you when you deliberate. When you deliberate, it is as if there were something over and above all of your desires, something that is you, and that chooses which desire to act on. This means that the principle or law by which you determine your actions is one that you regard as being expressive of yourself. To identify with such a principle or law is to be, in St. Paul’s famous phrase, a law to yourself. An agent might think of herself as a Citizen in the Kingdom of Ends. Or she might think of herself as a member of a family or an ethnic group or a nation. She might think of herself as the steward of her own interests, and then she will be an egoist. Or she might think of herself as the slave of her passions, and then she will be a wanton. And how she thinks of herself will determine whether it is the law of the Kingdom of Ends, or the law of some smaller group, or the law of the egoist, or the law of the wanton that is the law that she is to herself. The conception of one’s identity in question here is not a theoretical one, a view about what as a matter of inescapable scientific fact you are. It is better understood as a description under which you value yourself, a description under which you find your life to be worth living and your actions to be worth undertaking. So I will call this a conception of your practical identity. Practical identity is a complex matter and for the average person there will be a jumble of such conceptions. You are a human being, a woman or a man, an adherent of a certain religion, a member of an ethnic group, someone’s friend, and so on. And all of these identities give rise to reasons and obligations. Your reasons express your identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. Our ordinary ways of talking about obligation reflect this connection to identity. A century ago a European could admonish another to civilized behavior by telling him to act like a Christian. It is still true in many quarters that courage is urged on males by the injunction “Be a man!” Duties more obviously connected with social roles are of course enforced in this way. “A psychiatrist doesn’t violate the confidence of her patients.” No “ought” is needed here because the normativity is built right into the role. But it isn’t only in the case of social roles that the idea of obligation invokes the conception of practical identity. Consider the astonishing but familiar “I couldn’t live with myself if I did that.” Clearly there are two selves here, me and the one I must live with and so must not fail. Or consider the protest against obligation ignored : “Just who do you think you are ?” The connection is also present in the concept of integrity. Etymologically, integrity is oneness, integration is what makes something one. To be a thing, one thing, a unity, an entity; to be anything at all: in the metaphysical sense, that is what it means to have integrity. But we use the term for someone who lives up to his own standards. And that is because we think that living up to them is what makes him one, and so what makes him a person at all. It is the conceptions of ourselves that are most important to us that give rise to unconditional obligations. For to violate them is to lose your integrity and so your identity, and no longer to be who you are. That is, it is no longer to be able to think of yourself under the description under which you value yourself and find your life worth living and your actions worth undertaking. That is to be for all practical purposes dead or worse than dead. When an action cannot be performed without loss of some fundamental part of one’s identity, and an agent would rather be dead, then the obligation not to do it is unconditional and complete. If reasons arise from reflective endorsement, then obligation arises from reflective rejection.
Contention One: Allowing Women’s Rights to be Violated Reflects Our Identity
Valuing Economic Interests over women’s rights hurts all human’s rights:
Donald M. Seekins,2005 (author of disorder in order, Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 45, No. 3 (May/June 2005), pp. 437-452,Published by: University of California Press, Burma and U.S. Sanctions: Punishing an Authoritarian Regime):
The purpose of Washington’s Burma sanctions is twofold: to express disapproval of the regime’s objectionable behavior, giving moral support to the democratic opposition (sanctions as symbolic expression); and to force the regime, through negative reinforcements, to change that behavior (sanctions as behavior modification). As a symbolic gesture, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was effective insofar as it helped focus international attention on Burma, at least during summer and fall 2003. It is the “behavior modification” dimension that needs to be examined more closely. Advocates of tough Burma sanctions believe that if enough pain is inflicted, the regime will make the desired concessions. On the evening of May 30, 2003, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and members of her National League for Democracy (NLD), returning from a visit to Kachin State, were attacked by a large gang of men armed with bamboo staves, iron pipes, and slingshots. The incident occurred near the town of Depayin (Tabayin) in Sagaing Division, northwest of Mandalay. The attackers were members of a pro-military-regime group, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). 1 According to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC, the military junta that has run Burma since 1988, known before 1997 as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC), four people died in the violence and 50 were wounded. But other sources, based on eyewitness reports, claim that the actual number was much higher, as many as 70 or 80 killed.
Genital Mutilation is Unacceptable
Dorkeeno 2006, (Efua Ghanian Women’s Rights activist, Female Genital Mutilation pg. 397 published 2006)
Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of the general subjugation of Women, sufficiently extreme and horrifying to make Women and men question the basis of what is done to women, what women have accepted and why, in the name of society and tradition.Health risks and complications depend on the gravity of the mutilation, hygienic conditions, the skill and eyesight of the operator, and the struggles of the child. Whether immediate or long term, they are grave. Death from bleeding is not uncommon, while long-term complications include chronic infections of the uterus and vagina, painful menstruation, severe pain during intercourse, sterility, and complications during childbirth.Many personal accounts and research findings contain repeated references to anxiety prior to the operation, terror and the moment of being seized by an aunt or village matron, unbearable pain, and the subsequent sense of humiliation and of being betrayed by parents.An adult is free to submit her or himself to a ritual or tradition, but a child, having no formed judgment, does not consent but simply undergoes the operation while she is totally vulnerable. The descriptions available of the reactions of children panic and shock from extreme pain, biting through the tongue, convulsions, necessity for six adults to hold down an eight-year-old, and death-indicate a practice comparable to torture.
('My Sleep Is My Break' Exploitation Of Migrant Domestic Workers In Qatar. Amnesty International USA. April 23, 2014.)
'Victoria' had not been particularly unhappy with her job until it came to the December holidays. She had arrived in Qatar in August 2012 from her home in the Philippines to work for an expatriate family in their Doha home, cleaning and looking after their children. Her hours were very long, starting at 05:00 every morning and working until about 20:00 in the evening, sometimes later. But, she told Amnesty International, she had a day off work every Friday, and she always got her monthly salary of 1,000 riyals [US$275] a month. However, in December 2012, Victoria's workload increased to extreme levels. Twelve family relatives from Australia came to visit for the month, and she had to work flat-out to serve the house, with virtually no rest and no days off. Four of the group stayed for a further month and a half. When they left, she asked her employers to increase her wages for this period, to reflect the additional work she had done. Their response, according to Victoria, was to make her working conditions worse. For a month, she was not allowed out of the house, had no days off and was not allowed to speak to her friends. Her salary was docked. "Because I answered back I was punished. They removed 100 riyals [US$27.50] from my monthly salary. Now I am only allowed a day-off twice a month. I have said to her, 'if you don't want me, send me back [home].'... I am supposed to have a holiday after I have worked for one year but I don't know if they will let me yet."
China Forced Abortion Consequences
Tang, 2014 Didi, Associated Press journalist “FORCED ABORTIONS HIGHLIGHT ABUSES IN CHINA POLICY” ( Jan. 10, 2014)
When her mind is clear, Gong Qifeng [A Chinese woman] can recall how she begged for mercy. Several people pinned her head, arms, knees and ankles to a hospital bed before driving a syringe of labor-inducing drugs into her stomach. She was seven months pregnant with what would have been her second boy. The drugs caused her to have a stillborn baby after 35 hours of excruciating pain. She was forced to have the abortion by officials in China's southern province of Hunan in the name of complying with national limits on family size. “It was the pain of my lifetime, worse than the pain of delivering a child. You cannot describe it," Gong, 25, said in a recent interview in Beijing. "And it has become a mental pain. I feel like a walking corpse." Since the abortion more than two years ago, Gong [she] has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. She traveled with her husband to the capital to demand help paying for her treatment, but she ended up being hauled away in her pajamas by police, a detention recorded on video by The Associated Press.[China has] performed an estimated 336 million abortions over the past four decades as part of the family planning policy also performed 196 million sterilizations and has inserted 403 million intrauterine devices, “a normal birth control procedure in the west but one that local officials often force on women in China,” reported the Times.
Wright 2012, (Jessica, counterterrorism analyst DoD, Women Under Siege, Women’s Media Center, (December, 7, 2012)
A silent, gendered war is also being waged against women throughout the country. Women are being raped, strangled, and tortured, their bodies mutilated and discarded in desolate locations, sending a message to Mexican society: Women’s lives are expendable. Their predators will not be punished. Professor Rosa-Linda Fregoso of the Latin American & Latino Studies Department at University of California, Santa Cruz, explained to WMC’s Women Under Siege: “There is a common, grave mentality that wants to lump all the violence within the war on drugs and not to differentiate. Both kinds of violence are interrelated; violence against women flourishes and proliferates in societies where force and violence are seen as a legitimate response to conflict.” Marusia Lopez Cruz, the Mesoamerica Regional Coordinator of the international women’s rights organization, JASS (Just Associates), told us that one Mexican woman is raped every four minutes—amounting to 120,000 rapes per year. Gender-based violence in Mexico is closely associated with Ciudad Juárez, a border town on the Rio Grande River facing El Paso, Texas, shortly following the passage of the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. Trade barriers had been lowered, factories sprung up, and many rural Mexicans who formerly farmed for a living—including a significant number of women—were forced to migrate to border cities in search of work.
To exert power: A 2012 report analyzing the effects of violence on women in Mexico, co-produced by the Nobel Women’s Initiative and JASS, found that government officials and their security forces were often the worst perpetrators of sexualized violence and used it as a tool to “intimidate and subdue” women. The 45,000 troops deployed by President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa in 2007 to fight drug cartels contributed to a growing culture of violence and fear, especially for women, youth, indigenous communities, and migrants who are vulnerable in the face of the corrupt and often misogynist security institutions. Francisco González, a professor of Latin American Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, argues in a 2011 Current History article: “It is not far-fetched to say that the average Mexican citizen lives in fear of both criminals and public authorities.
Megan Stack Narrative
STACK 2007 (MEGAN K., covered the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as the Palestinian intifada. She joined the Times' national desk in 2001 as Houston bureau chief. She graduated from George Washington University in 1998, Author of Every Man in this Village is a Liar, From the archives: In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil, New York Times, June 6th, 2007.)
The hem of my heavy Islamic cloak trailed over floors that glistened like ice. I walked faster, my eyes fixed on a familiar, green icon. I hadn't seen a Starbucks in months, but there it was, tucked into a corner of a fancy shopping mall in the Saudi capital. After all those bitter little cups of sludgy Arabic coffee, here at last was an improbable snippet of home — caffeinated, comforting, American. I wandered into the shop, filling my lungs with the rich wafts of coffee. The man behind the counter gave me a bemused look; his eyes flickered. I asked for a latte. He shrugged, the milk steamer whined, and he handed over the brimming paper cup. I turned my back on his uneasy face. Crossing the cafe, I felt the hard stares of Saudi men. A few of them stopped talking as I walked by and watched me pass. Them, too, I ignored. Finally, coffee in hand, I sank into the sumptuous lap of an overstuffed armchair. "Excuse me," hissed the voice in my ear. "You can't sit here." The man from the counter had appeared at my elbow. He was glaring. "Excuse me?" I blinked a few times. "Emmm," he drew his discomfort into a long syllable, his brows knitted. "You cannot stay here." "What? Uh, why?" Then he said it: "Men only." He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the "family" section. As a woman, that's where I belonged. I had no right to mix with male customers or sit in plain view of passing shoppers. Like the segregated South of a bygone United States, today's Saudi Arabia shunts half the population into separate, inferior and usually invisible spaces.
Contention Two: Valuing Economic Interests Above Women’s Rights is Immoral
Valueing Global Economy Dehuminizes Humanity
Parenti 95 (Michael Parenti, Ph.D. from Yale in poli sci, prolific author and activist. From the book “Against Empire”. This card is from chapter 11, PP. 197-210. OCRed from the original, minor textual errors may exist.)
The "global economy" is another name for imperialism, and imperialism is a transnational form of capitalism. The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead, gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force. But every empire, triumphant in that heartless way, plants the seeds of its own destruction. The more successful its ruling class in devouring the wealth and resources of this and other lands, the more it undermines the base upon which it depends. Like some mythological beast that devours itself, the empire devours the republic, its human labor, and its natural environment. Alas, in this epoch, the self-ravagement is of such a magnitude that when the collapse comes, it may take down the entire ecosphere and all of us with it. The history of imperialism is a history of unspeakable atrocities, mass slaughters, horrors, deceits, treacheries, and merciless oppres- sion. It is enough to make one give up hope for the human race, both for its victims and victimizers. Today, the purveyors of capitalism ring the welkin with victorious pronouncements about a New World Order. Some of their faithful ideologues pontificate about "the end of history," concluding that the age-old struggle between haves and have-nots is being replaced by a monocentric, consensual, economic globalization.
Mexican Officials Harming Women
Wright 2012, (Jessica, counterterrorism analyst DoD, Women Under Siege, Women’s Media Center, (December, 7, 2012)
A silent, gendered war is also being waged against women throughout the country. Women are being raped, strangled, and tortured, their bodies mutilated and discarded in desolate locations, sending a message to Mexican society: Women’s lives are expendable. Their predators will not be punished. Professor Rosa-Linda Fregoso of the Latin American & Latino Studies Department at University of California, Santa Cruz, explained to WMC’s Women Under Siege: “There is a common, grave mentality that wants to lump all the violence within the war on drugs and not to differentiate. Both kinds of violence are interrelated; violence against women flourishes and proliferates in societies where force and violence are seen as a legitimate response to conflict.” Marusia Lopez Cruz, the Mesoamerica Regional Coordinator of the international women’s rights organization, JASS (Just Associates), told us that one Mexican woman is raped every four minutes—amounting to 120,000 rapes per year. Gender-based violence in Mexico is closely associated with Ciudad Juárez, a border town on the Rio Grande River facing El Paso, Texas, shortly following the passage of the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. Trade barriers had been lowered, factories sprung up, and many rural Mexicans who formerly farmed for a living—including a significant number of women—were forced to migrate to border cities in search of work. To exert power: A 2012 report analyzing the effects of violence on women in Mexico, co-produced by the Nobel Women’s Initiative and JASS, found that government officials and their security forces were often the worst perpetrators of sexualized violence and used it as a tool to “intimidate and subdue” women. The 45,000 troops deployed by President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa in 2007 to fight drug cartels contributed to a growing culture of violence and fear, especially for women, youth, indigenous communities, and migrants who are vulnerable in the face of the corrupt and often misogynist security institutions. Francisco González, a professor of Latin American Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, argues in a 2011 Current History article: “It is not far-fetched to say that the average Mexican citizen lives in fear of both criminals and public authorities.
Dehumanization is the Worst Impact
Berube, 1997 (Professor of Communication at South Carolina) 97 (David, Ph.D. in Communications, “Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side”, NanoTechnology Magazine, June/July 1997, p. 1-6, URL: http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm) (PDCL1393)
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.