Militarism Neg Framework

Download 232.64 Kb.
Size232.64 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7



The lease on the US military base is about to expire- resettlement inevitable

Ybarra, Washington Post Pentagon Correspondent, 14

(Maggie, April 9, Washington Post, “Navy base on the line as Mauritius tries to pit U.S., U.K. in island’s sovereignty bid” , Accessed: July 13, 2014, KS)

The island nation of  HYPERLINK "" Mauritius is trying to wedge itself between Washington and London in a diplomatic drive for control of a group of British-ruled islands — one of which has been leased to the  HYPERLINK "" U.S. military for nearly 50 years.

The lease for the Pentagon’s ship and air support facilities on  HYPERLINK "" Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory, must be extended by the end of this year for the Navy to remain there until 2036. Otherwise, the 50-year lease will end December 2016.

The UK will return the Chagossians to their home- lawsuits over US “black sites” forces British action

Norton-Taylor, The Guardian Defence and Security editor, 12

[Richard, May 30, The Guardian, “David Cameron to discuss Chagos Islands sovereignty with Mauritius” ,, Accessed: July 13, 2014, KS]

The future of Diego Garcia, the British-controlled territory in the Indian Ocean used by the CIA for secret  HYPERLINK "" \o "More from the Guardian on Rendition" rendition flights, will be discussed during an unprecedented meeting next week between David Cameron and Navinchandra Ramgoolam, the prime minister of  HYPERLINK "" \o "More from the Guardian on Mauritius" Mauritius, the Guardian has learned.

The meeting comes at a time when Britain, faced with a string of lawsuits, is under increasingly heavy pressure to return Diego Garcia and the other 54 islands in the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius. Ramgoolam will be in London for the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations.

Diego Garcia was used by the US to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan and for CIA rendition flights, including one putting a Libyan dissident into the hands of Muammar Gaddafi's secret police in an operation involving MI6.

The island is almost certainly used by the US for long-range bombers and would act as a military communications hub in any attack on Iran. That prospect is causing deep anxiety among British military chiefs, fearful of the consequences for UK forces in Afghanistan and the Gulf.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Milan Meetarbhan, the Mauritian ambassador to the UN and one of his government's top officials, spoke of a "reassertion of [Mauritian] sovereignty over the HYPERLINK "" \o "More from the Guardian on Chagos Islands" Chagos islands". That, he said, "can be done now".

The agreement setting up the American base, signed by the US and UK in 1966, expires in 2016. Though it includes a 20-year optional extension, both parties must agree to extend, modify, or end it by December 2014.

The ocean is a force for peace—empirically proven by popular protests which halted nuclear testing

Wittner, SUNY Albany History Professor Emeritus, 2014

[Lawrence, 4/8/14, Huffington Post, “America’s Peace Ship,”, 7/14/14, IC]

Is there an emotional connection between the oceans and the pursuit of peace? For whatever reason, peace ships have been increasing in number over the past century.

Probably the first of these maritime vessels was the notorious Ford Peace Ship of 1915, which stirred up more ridicule than peace during World War I.

Almost forty years later, another peace ship appeared ― the Lucky Dragon, a Japanese fishing boat showered with radioactive fallout from an enormous U.S. H-bomb explosion, on March 1, 1954, in the Marshall Islands. By the time the stricken vessel reached its home port in Japan, the 23 crew members were in advanced stages of radiation poisoning. One of them died. This "Lucky Dragon incident" set off a vast wave of popular revulsion at nuclear weapons testing, and mass nuclear disarmament organizations were established in Japan and, later, around the world. Thus, the Lucky Dragon became a peace ship, and today is exhibited as such in Tokyo in a Lucky Dragon Museum, built and maintained by Japanese peace activists.

Later voyages forged an even closer link between ocean-going vessels and peace. In 1971, Canadian activists, departing from Vancouver, sailed a rusting fishing trawler, the Phyllis Cormack, toward the Aleutians in an effort to disrupt plans for a U.S. nuclear weapons explosion on Amchitka Island. Although arrested by the U.S. coast guard before they could reach the test site, the crew members not only mobilized thousands of supporters, but laid the basis for a new organization, Greenpeace. Authorized by Greenpeace, another Canadian, David McTaggart, sailed his yacht, the Vega, into the French nuclear testing zone in the Pacific, where the French navy deliberately rammed and crippled this peace ship. In 1973, when McTaggart and theVega returned with a new crew, French sailors, dispatched by their government, stormed aboard and beat them savagely with truncheons.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, peace ships multiplied. At major ports in New Zealand and Australia, peace squadrons of sailboats and other small craft blocked the entry of U.S. nuclear warships into the harbors. Also, Greenpeace used the Rainbow Warrior to spark resistance to nuclear testing throughout the Pacific. Even after 1985, when French secret service agents attached underwater mines to this Greenpeace flagship as it lay in the harbor of Auckland, New Zealand, blowing it up and murdering a Greenpeace photographer in the process, the peace ships kept coming.

Much of this this maritime assault upon nuclear testing and nuclear war was inspired by an American peace ship, the Golden Rule.

The remarkable story of the Golden Rule began with Albert Bigelow, a retired World War II U.S. naval commander. Appalled by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, he became a Quaker and, in 1955, working with the American Friends Service Committee, sought to deliver a petition against nuclear testing to the White House. Rebuffed by government officials, Bigelow and other pacifists organized a small group, Non-Violent Action Against Nuclear Weapons, to employ nonviolent resistance in the struggle against the Bomb. After the U.S. government announced plans to set off nuclear bomb blasts near Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands ― an island chain governed by the United States as a "trust territory" for the native people ― Bigelow and other pacifists decided to sail a 30-foot protest vessel, the Golden Rule, into the nuclear testing zone. Explaining their decision, Bigelow declared: "All nuclear explosions are monstrous, evil, unworthy of human beings."

In January 1958, Bigelow and three other crew members wrote to President Dwight Eisenhower, announcing their plans. As might be expected, the U.S. government was quite displeased, and top officials from the State Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. Navy conferred anxiously on how to cope with the pacifist menace. Eventually, the administration decided to ban entry into the test zone.

Thus, after Bigelow and his crew sailed the Golden Rule from the West Coast to Honolulu, a U.S. federal court issued an injunction barring the continuation of its journey to Eniwetok. Despite the legal ramifications, the pacifists set sail. Arrested on the high seas, they were brought back to Honolulu, tried, convicted, and placed on probation. Then, intrepid as ever, they set out once more for the bomb test zone and were arrested, tried, and -- this time ― sentenced to prison terms.

Meanwhile, their dramatic voyage inspired an outpouring of popular protest. Antinuclear demonstrations broke out across the United States. The newly-formed National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy went on the offensive. Moreover, an American anthropologist, Earle Reynolds, along with his wife Barbara and their two children, continued the mission of the Golden Rule on board their sailboat, the Phoenix. In July 1958, they entered the nuclear testing zone. That August, facing a storm of hostile public opinion, President Eisenhower announced that the United States was halting its nuclear tests while preparing to negotiate a test ban with the Soviet Union.

Pedagogy Turn

The educational sphere is just another tool for the furthering of militarism—turns case

Conversi, University of the Basque Country and Ikerbasque Contemporary History Research Professor, 2008

[Daniele, 9/10/08, “’We are all equals!’ Militarism, homogenization and ‘egalitarianism’ in nationalist state-building (1789-1945),” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31:7, p. 1299, 7/12/14, IC]

Michel Foucault’s (1979, 1994) philosophy offers a standpoint from which to observe the wider homogenizing implications of the military—educational linkage. For him, mass conscription and compulsory education became constitutive parts of the same modern system. Along with hospitals and prisons, they formed those ‘disciplinary institutions’ (institutions disciplinaires), which, taken together, became the four pillars of the disciplinary state, all parts of an integrated system of control and production. These direct forms of ‘governmentality’ led to an abject state of ‘subjectification’ via the incorporation of shared set of values by the individual, particularly during the secondary education process (Jardine 2005). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault indeed adumbrates the correlation between schooling and militarism: both are incorporated into an analysis concerning the homogenizing pedagogy of the army—state complex via simultaneous mass education and militarization. Foucault describes the ways military education disciplined the individual body through loud, snapping drill commands and other orders inducing automatism. The goal was to reshape the wider social order through equalized individuals and regimented bodies marching together like automatons. Foucault’s description can easily be corroborated by historical evidence: for instance, Prussian armies were remarkably gifted in performing the drill (Exerzieren), the memorization of specific move ments and actions through hammering repetition. In Foucauldian terms, these actions became so instinctive to the soldiers as to reshape their bodies according to the commands of the disciplinary state. The soldiers thought and acted as a collectivity, so that their behaviour became routinely predictable and homogenized. In fact, their increasingly inter-class origin revealed that they were not ‘born equal’ to one another, neither were they homogenously similar: they were taught to be so through harsh discipline. Education, not mere training, was hence the key to military life and its main goal was to instill obedience and uniformity, which in turn would grant efficacy, reliability and success against foes and enemies. A new man with his new body was being created and he had to perform according to a new choreography.

Narratives Turn

Homogenizing narratives of the Chagossian story fail in legal institutions

Jeffery, Ph.D, Lecturer; ESRC Research Fellow, 7

(Laura, Social Anthropology School of Social and Political Science University of Edinburgh, December 2007, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 951-968 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, “How a Plantation became Paradise: Changing Representations of the Homeland among Displaced Chagos Islanders”, Accessed: 7/3/14) //AMM

Whilst standardized mythico-historical narratives have successfully elicited support for the Chagossian cause and provided a focus for community identification, however, they have also come to pose major problems for the Chagossians' legal struggle for com- pensation and the right to return because of the more positivistic understanding of history imposed by formal concepts of legal evidence. In 2002, the Chagos Refugees Group formed a coalition of Chagossian organizations with the Diego Garcia Island Council and the Seychelles Chagossian Committee and launched a preliminary hearing against the UK government to determine whether any Chagossians might be eligible for further compensation. The Chagossian coalition and its legal team collected written witness statements from all of the claimants, and selected witnesses to give oral evi- dence in the High Court in London. All of the fourteen witnesses selected were Cha- gossian community leaders and active members of the Chagos Refugees Group, the Diego Garcia Island Council, or the Seychelles Chagossian Committee.

Over the past three decades of organized Chagossian struggle in Mauritius, many of these community representatives have become accustomed to recounting the commu- nity's collective experiences at meetings and interviews with lawyers, with the press, and with government officials. Several do not exclusively describe their own individual experiences; rather, in describing life in the Chagos Archipelago, the displacement, or the Chagossian struggle in exile, they recount a generalized description of how 'we' lived in Chagos, what happened to 'us', and how 'we* have suffered and struggled, which conveys a shared Chagossian experience of displacement and suffering in exile. There is a high degree of concurrence that the crucial facts of the Chagossian story are experi- ences of the displacement and the stark contrast between life in the Chagos Archipelago and life in Mauritius. Moreover, descriptions have become standardized to the extent that Chagossian community representatives have reproduced the same mythico- historical narratives almost verbatim in interviews with journalists, in interviews and conversations with me, and in written witness statements and oral testimony produced for the court.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Ouseley ruled against the Chagossians (Chagos Islanders v Her Majesty's BIOT Commissioner [2003]), and three appeal court judges concurred with his decision (Chagos Islanders v Her Majesty's BIOT Commissioner I2004]). He ruled against each of the Chagossian coalition's causes of action, but was particularly critical of the witness evidence given by Chagossian witnesses, noting that 'evidence was ... given, as if at first hand, about events which the witness could not have seen or heard' (Chagos Islanders 2003: para. 161). He dismissed several Chagossian witnesses as unre- liable and inconsistent because they initially presented as first-hand eyewitness evi- dence stories that later appeared to have been based not on individual experience but rather on 'collective memory' (Chagos Islanders I2003]: para. 161). For instance, witness statements recounted aspects of the displacement in the first person as if the individual had been an eyewitness, but subsequent oral testimony-in-chief and cross-examination had revealed that these were episodes that they had not witnessed personally but rather had heard about from others (Chagos Islanders [2003]: appendix paras 332-405).

One example taken from the written statements is the surprisingly large number who claimed to have been on the final voyage from Diego Garcia to Seychelles on the Nordvaer in 1971. In September 1971, the BIOT administration requested that all of the horses on Diego Garcia be rounded up and accommodated in horseboxes on the Nordvaer for the journey to Mahe in Seychelles. Passenger lists indicated that there had been only thirty Chagossians on this particular voyage. Whilst collecting evidence for the court case, members of the Chagossian coalition's own legal team were surprised by the number of Chagossian claimants who told the legal team that they had left the Chagos Archipelago on the Nordvaer with the horses when according to chronology they could not have been. Mr Justice Ouseley, too, noted inconsistent evidence as to whether claimants had left Chagos on the Nordvaer or on other ships (see, e.g., Chagos Islanders [2003]: appendix para. 400). Elsewhere (Jeffery 2006a) I critique the legal team's production of the Chagossian evidence or the judge's interpretation of the laws of evidence. Here it is sufficient to note that the wholesale transposition of standardized accounts of the Chagossian experience into the court as witness evidence had a demon- strably detrimental effect on their case because this collective mythico-historical nar- rative style was at odds with the more formal individual eyewitness evidence expected and sought by the judge.

Negative narratives are key to truly understanding the history of the Chagossians

Jeffery, Ph.D, Lecturer; ESRC Research Fellow, 7

(Laura, Social Anthropology School of Social and Political Science University of Edinburgh, December 2007, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 951-968 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, “How a Plantation became Paradise: Changing Representations of the Homeland among Displaced Chagos Islanders”, Accessed: 7/3/14) //AMM

Isolated voices within the Chagossian community, however, have been critical of such romanticized portrayals of their homeland. A Chagossian man in his early fifties, whose more public utterances are consistent with the standardized idealization of Chagos as paradise, told me privately that while most Chagossians say that Chagos was paradise because they lived in nature, in fact:

Chagossians conceal information ... there are Chagossians who say Chagos is paradise, but (hat's not true... for a true history you have to tell (he bad as well as the good: we were dominated by the colonial power; when you cut coconuts you have to be careful |bccausc it's dangerous]; we didn't have the right to do lots of things, and if you didn't work, you didn't eat... There was a lot of voodoo, which is a serious matter and is kept secret, and there were struggles for leadership amongst islanders, in which those who were weak had to stay quiet because they had no power, whereas those who were dominant could lake others' women.

Nuclear Testing

Nuclear testing has ended—computer simulations resolves their necessity

Arms Control Association, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of arms control policy, 2011

[11/2/11, “Science Replaces Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Association, 2:14, 7/14/14, IC]

A front-page story in today’s Washington Post(“ HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Supercomputers Offer Tools for Nuclear Testing--and Solving Nuclear Mysteries”) illustrates how far the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program has come since nuclear explosive tests ended in 1992. Scientists at the three U.S. national laboratories now have a deeper understanding of nuclear weapons than ever before.

“We have a more fundamental understanding of how these weapons work today than we ever imagined when we were blowing them up,” Bruce T. Goodwin, principal associate director for weapons at Livermore National Laboratory, told the Post. Goodwin is in agreement with National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) administrator Thomas D'Agostino, who in 2008 said, "We know more about the complex issues of nuclear weapons performance today than we ever did during the period of nuclear testing."

Focusing on nuclear violence done onto indigenous peoples prevents larger anti-nuclear struggles

Truman, Downwinders Founder and Director, 1998

[J, Ratical, 5/30/1998, “Thinking about the Unthinkable: Nuclear War in South Asia,”, 7/14/14, IC]

Here in this country, the "Environmentalists" insist on playing the same "indigenous peoples card", instead of dealing with the awful reality that fallout from nuclear testing is color and ethnic -blind -- it is an equal opportunity victimizer and kills whoever and wherever it goes!

Why is this the real problem? Simply because fallout worldwide from testing killed likely on the order of tens of millions to date, and millions more injured who are not yet dead from it. Wholesale mass murder is what it is, and the public "needs" to know that right now! Especially when they "ALL" no matter who they are, where they live, how they live, or what color they are, Are already its victims. Only by realizing that and all that goes with it, is there "any" hope the public here, or worldwide will stand up to their governments and say no before those governments blow them up at the worst, or use this as a "wonderful" excuse to get back to nuclear weapons development business as usual!

Likewise the activist community has got to stop playing organizational politics, and stop playing the race card. The movement can no longer play the indigenous peoples game simply because it is more "PC" and most specifically because it is "more fundable". To say nuclear testing's victims have always been indigenous peoples is not only incorrect, but is a sign of total stupidity on the issue, as the only indigenous people victimized by the testing was -- and are -- the human race! And the human race better get that point real soon and come to terms with the fact that on that one level at least we all share one thing in common on this planet. We all carry a little bit of the Nevada Test Site, the Semipalatinsk Test Site, The Lop Nor Test Site, the British and French Test Sites and soon perhaps the Indian and Pakistan Test Sites inside all our bodies.

This does not mean that what happened to people forced from their homes -- first for the factories, then for the testing sites, or the reasons why testing sites were put where they were -- are not important, or are insignificant, or to excuse examples of environmental and atomic racism. They are all too clear examples of the utter sickness present in the minds of those responsible. Pick on those least able to defend themselves first and then slowly and steadily expand the circle to those you don't really give a damn about! Just like Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Jim Crow, or George Armstrong Custer!

Those stories and those histories and those facts must be exposed and justice demanded right along with ALL the rest of the terrible legacy of nuclear testing. All it means is that to stop the nuclear arms race the truth has to come out, the full truth, the complete truth, and not a truth focused to look better organizationally or politically. Because if it is, it only plays into the hands of those responsible for the testing in the first place, and is a "god-send" to them in helping to minimize the open public exposure of the full extent of the horrors they unleased.

No group of victims is better, more worthy, less worthy, or better to focus and raise funds on. We are all one race -- the human race -- and we are all testing's victims. That is the one truth that when our race knows it, we will truly be free and no more, never ever again, will those damned tall mushrooms and their deadly spores carried on the winds to sicken, kill and mame, be allowed to grow anywhere on this planet we all share as home!

Totalistic anti-nuclear criticism destroys coalitions and the possibility of progressive social change

Krishna, University of Hawaii at Manoa Political Science Professor, 93

[Sankaran, Summer 1993, “The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations Theory,” Alternatives, 18, p. 400-401, 7/14/14, IC]

The dichotomous choice presented in this excerpt is straightforward: one either indulges in total critique, delegitimizing all sovereign truths, or one is committed to "nostalgic," essentialist unities that have become obsolete and have been the grounds for all our oppressions.

In offering this dichotomous choice, Der Derian replicates a move made by Chaloupka in his equally dismissive critique of the more mainstream nuclear opposition, the Nuclear Freeze movement of the early 1980s, that, according to him, was operating along obsolete lines, emphasizing "facts" and "realities," while a "postmodern" President Reagan easily outflanked them through an illusory Star Wars program (See KN: chapter 4)

Chaloupka centers this difference between his own supposedly total critique of all sovereign truths (which he describes as nuclear criticism in an echo of literary criticism) and the more partial (and issue based) criticism of what he calls "nuclear opposition" or "antinuclearists" at the very outset of his book. (Kn: xvi) Once again, the unhappy choice forced upon the reader is to join Chaloupka in his total critique of all sovereign truths or be trapped in obsolete essentialisms.

This leads to a disastrous politics pitting groups that have the most in common (and need to unite on some basis to be effective) against each other. Both Chaloupka and Der Derian thus reserve their most trenchant critique for political groups that should, in any analysis, be regarded as the closest to them in terms of an oppositional politics and their desired futures. Instead of finding ways to live with these differences and to (if fleetingly) coalesce against the New Right, this fratricidal critique is politically suicidal. It obliterates the space for a political activism based on provisional and contingent coalitions, for uniting behind a common cause even as one recognizes that the coalition is comprised of groups that have very differing (and possibly unresolvable) views of reality. Moreover, it fails to consider the possibility that there may have been other, more compelling reasons for the "failure" of the Nuclear Freeze movement or anti Gulf War movement. Like many a worthwhile cause in our times, they failed to garner sufficient support to influence state policy. The response to that need not be a totalizing critique that delegitimizes all narratives.

The blackmail inherent in the choice offered by Der Derian and Chaloupka, between total critique and "ineffective" partial critique, ought to be transparent. Among other things, it effectively militates against the construction of provisional on strategic essentialisms our attempts to create space for activist politics. In the next section, I focus more widely on the genre of critical international theory and its impact on such an activist politics.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page