Luke, Virginia Tech Political Science Department Chair, 1995
[Timothy W.m Autumn 1995, “On Environmentality: Geo-power and Eco-Knowledge in the Discourses of Contemporary Environmentalism,” Cultural Critique, 31, p. 69-70, 7/12/14, IC]
The script of environmentality embedded in new notions like "the environment" is rarely made articulate in scientific and technical discourses. Yet, there are politics in these scripts. The advocates of deep ecology and social ecology dimly perceive this in their frustrations with "reform environmentalism," which weaves itslogics of geo-power in and out of the resource managerialismthat has defined the mainstream of contemporary environmental protection thinking and traditional natural resource conservationism (Luke, "Green Consumerism"). Resource managerialism can be read as the eco-knowledge of modern governmentality. While voices in favor of conservation can be found in Europe early in the nineteenth century, the real establishment of this stance comes in the United States with the Second Industrial Revolution from the 1880s through the 1920s and the closing of the Western Frontier in the 1890s (Noble). Whether one looks at John Muir's preservationist programs or Gifford Pinchot's conservationist codes, an awareness of modern industry's power to deplete natural resources, and hence the need for systems of conservation, is well established by the early 1900s (Nash, Wilderness). President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, organized the Governor's Conference in 1907 to address this concern, inviting the participants to recognize that the natural endowments upon which "the welfare of this nation rests are becoming depleted, and in not a few cases, are already exhausted" (Jarrett 51).
[Githathevi, May 2003, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, “Consilience of Knowledge for Sustained Positive Peace”, http://berghof-handbook.net/images/uploads/kanisin_handbook_resp.pdf, p. 11-12, 7/14/14, IC]
In this section, I point out how conflict transformation theorists seek to distinguish conflict transformation from conflict resolution. Miall says at the start of Article 1 that conflict transformation best considered as a re-conceptualisationof the field (2001:1). But what is the need for the re- conceptualisation of conflict transformation as a distinct approach from conflict resolution? In Miall’s view, the need is two-fold, (I) the nature of contemporary conflicts, and (II) the simplicity of core theories of conflict resolution (2001:1).
Advocates of conflict transformation argue that conflict resolution is ill-advised to the reality of protracted violent conflicts which ‘require more than reframing of positions and identification of win-outcomes’ (Miall, 2001:3). It is better to think in terms of transforming the ‘relationships, interests, discourses and if necessary the very constitution of society that supports the continuation of violent conflicts’ (Miall, 2001:3). The goal of conflict transformation is therefore not about resolving any particular conflict but transforming the way people deal with their conflict, i.e. that people may approach conflicts in a positive way (Miall, 2001:3).
There is a danger to the transformative zeal, where resolution is regarded as antithesis and transformation, as the synthesis.A conflict transformation view which considers the reaching of agreement as secondary ‘to addressing the overall conflictprocess’(Rupensinghe, 1995:76)may retard attempts to resolve the political aspirations of the different groups in the conflict. Political agreement in itself may act as a catalyst for crucial changes to occur in other dimensions of the conflict.
Discursive rejection fails—political action is necessary
Gay, University of North Carolina Charlotte Philosophy Professor, 2004
[William C., 2004, Putting Peace into Practice: Evaluating Policy on Global and Local Levels, Edited by Nancy Nyquist, “Public Policy Discourse on Peace,” p. 9, 7/14/14, IC]
The elimination of the language of war may do little to advance the cause of peace. For example, a government and its media may cease referring to a particular nation as “the enemy” or “the devil,” but private and even public attitudes may continue to foster the same,though now unspoken, prejudice. Just as legal or social sanctions against hate speech may be needed to stop linguistic attacks in the public arena in order to stop current armed conflict, there may be a need for an official peace treaty and a cessation in hostile name calling directed against an adversary of the state. Just as arms that have been laid down can readily be taken up again, even so those who bit their tongues to comply with the demands of political correctness are often ready to lash out vitriolic epithets when these constraints are removed. In the language of negative peace, the absence of verbal assaults about “the enemy” merely mask the lull in reliance on warist discourse.
Activism isn’t enough to solve
Hauss, George Mason Department of Public and International Affairs Professor, 90
[Charles, July 1990, “The End of the Cold War?” Peace & Change, 15:3, EBSCO, 7/14/14, IC]
Unfortunately, few are able to translate their understanding of the importance of their participation into concrete steps they find worth taking. Research on three Northeastern campuses suggests that in today's times, hope for a better future is more effective than fear of a nuclear holocaust in attracting students to participate." But neither the hopeful nor the fearful messages convinced more than a handful of students to do something as simple as attend a single meeting or sign a petition. This would entail more than just providing them with information about those options. On a number of campuses around the country, physical education requirements are being changed to emphasize life-long activities that can contribute to a person's health long after his or her days as a football or basketball player are over. In much the same way, we need to learn how to plant seeds for a lifetime of involvement, so that student gain, whatever their ideological predispositions-will see that they must be prepared for the long haul.
The UK controls Diego Garcia as a Marine Protected Area—US can’t solve
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 10
(NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sector of the US Dept. of Commerce, April 2010, “The Chagos Islands - The World's Largest Marine Protected Area” HYPERLINK "http://www.coris.noaa.gov/exchanges/chagos/" http://www.coris.noaa.gov/exchanges/chagos/ Accessed: July 13, 2014, KS)
The United Kingdom's (UK) Chagos Archipelago, located in the middle of the Indian Ocean, is the world's largest coral atoll. It is often compared to the Galapagos or Australia's Great Barrier Reef in terms of its importance as a hotspot of biodiversity. As one of the most pristine and resilient tropical marine environments on Earth, the Chagos Archipelago is home to 17 species of breeding seabirds, about 1,000 species of fishes, 220 species of corals, and two species of endangered sea turtles. Leading scientists from around the world support the UK designation of this immense area as a no-take marine protected area. Opposition, however, has come from the native islanders (Chagossians) who were evicted between 1967 and 1971 to make way for a US military facility on the largest island of the archipelago, Diego Garcia. The Chagossians have been battling the British government in the UK courts for the right to return to the islands.
UK wants further regulations on US use of Diego Garcia Base- UK has the final word
Milmo, The Independent chief reporter, 14
(Cahal, The Independent chief reporter is the and has been with the paper since 2000, June 19, 2014, “Government told to renegotiate with US over use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights” HYPERLINK "http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-told-to-renegotiate-with-us-over-use-of-diego-garcia-for-rendition-flights-9546855.html" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-told-to-renegotiate-with-us-over-use-of-diego-garcia-for-rendition-flights-9546855.html Accessed: July 13, 2014, KS)
Britain must renegotiate the deal which allows a key American military base on Diego Garcia to demand that any use of the Indian Ocean island for “extraordinary rendition” can only take place with London’s prior approval, MPs warn today.
A report by the influential House of Commons foreign affairs select committee said the revelation in 2008 that the US airbase had been used for two flights carrying detainees in 2002 - contradicting previous denials from London - had “dented public confidence” in Britain’s ability to oversee its sovereign territory.
The investigation found that despite an Anglo-American deal signed in 1966 laying out the rules for use of Diego Garcia, part of the British-controlled Chagos Islands, there was no “clear requirement” on Washington to seek UK permission for highly sensitive activity including rendition or combat operations and the arrangements in place are “entirely informal”.
MPs now want the Government to use a two-year window before the 1966 lease agreement is due to be extended in 2016 for another 20 years to revise the text to include a new clause requiring express permission from London for any “extraordinary use” of the base.
Sir Richard Ottaway, the committee’s Conservative chairman, said: “This is about building confidence. The Government relied on US assurances on its use of Diego Garcia, and in 2008 these proved to be inaccurate. That severely damaged credibility. The British public is entitled to know that the UK is able to exercise control over its sovereign territory and what happens there.”
London ceded use of Diego Garcia, the largest island in the British Indian Ocean Territory, to Washington 48 years ago and in 1973 ordered the archipelago to be cleared of its civilian population. The Chagossians have been fighting ever since to be allowed to return and right what campaigners say is one of the most egregious wrongs of British colonial rule.
Whilst Foreign Secretary in 2006, Jack Straw insisted that Diego Garcia had never been used for “extraordinary rendition”, the post-9/11 practice of transporting terrorism suspects between different countries, in some cases to regimes where torture is legal.
But his successor David Miliband apologised to MPs in 2008 after it emerged that two US flights, each carrying a single detainee, had refuelled in Diego Garcia in 2002.
The committee said its investigation had found that despite clear provisions in the 1966 agreement and subsequent revisions for issues from customs duties to the conservation of plants, there were no unequivocal requirements for the US to seek British permission to use Diego Garcia for combat operations or rendition.
The MPs said: “This seems to us to be an unsatisfactory gap in the UK’s formal oversight of the use of Diego Garcia by the US for defence purposes.”
The Foreign Office has said it expects to being “substantive discussions” with Washington on the extension of the lease on the island later this year. But it is unclear whether diplomats intend to raise the issue of safeguards on rendition.
The MPs also referred to reports earlier this year that a US Senate investigation had found the British Government offered “full cooperation” to the CIA in its desire to set up a so-called “black jail” on the Indian Ocean territory after 2001.
The committee said “we would expect to revisit this issue” if the US authorities decide to declassify part of their investigation into CIA activities and the reports are substantiated.
An FCO spokeswoman said: “The US understands and respect our position on their use of Diego Garcia. Following the disclosures of 2008, we tightened up procedures both for oversight on island of US operations, as well as seeking regular political reassurance from the US Government. “
even if the base were removed, the US military would simply shift to another island
Vine, American University Anthropology Associate Professor, and Jeffrey, University of Edinburgh Lecturer and ESRC Research Fellow, 2009
[David & Laura, 2009, Trans National Institute, edited by Catherine Lutz, “”Give Us Back Diego Garcia”: Unity and Division among Activists in the Indian Ocean,” in The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts, p.211, 7/13/14, IC]
“It’s the single most important military facility we’ve got,” military expert John Pike told the ﬁrst author in a telephone interview. Pike, who runs the military analysis website GlobalSecurity.org, explained, “It’s the base from which we control half of Africa and the southern side of Asia, the southern side of Eurasia.” Diego Garcia is “the facility that at the end of the day gives us some say-so in the Persian Gulf region. If it didn’t exist, it would have to be invented.” The military’s goal, Pike said, is that “we’ll be able to run the planet from Guam and Diego Garcia by 2015, even if the entire Eastern Hemisphere has drop-kicked us” from bases on their territory. In the words of the Bush administration, “Diego Garcia is a vital and indispensable platform for global military operations” (Regina (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofﬁ ce (2006) EWHC 1038 Admin. 4093, para. 96).