Pfd negative Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation Aff case



Download 87.18 Kb.
Date20.04.2016
Size87.18 Kb.
#15823

Beehive Bonanza 2013

PFD Negative



Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation
Aff CASE


Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children [from dying], and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.” President Barack Obama- September 10, 2013
This is why my partner and I affirm today’s resolution Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.
1. First, proliferation provides a justification for preemptive wars and redefines nuclear weapons as conventional weapons insuring their use, ensuring children will die, and through the lens of our president justifies intervention.  

Peter Weiss, Six Reasons Why Nuclear Weapons Are More Dangerous than Ever; 22 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 400 (2006-2007



I am going to give you six reasons why the need to take Article VI  seriously is greater today than ever before.10 Number one, nuclear  weapons have become a justification for preemptive war. In my  view, Congress would never have given the President the authority to  invade Iraq if Congress had not believed at the time that they were  doing it because of Saddam's nuclear weapons program." And that  kind of thinking is now likely to repeat itself. Who knows what  we're going to do about Iran or North Korea or the next country that  says to the world "if the eight countries that have them now think  they need nukes for their security, why not we?" All we know is that  "all options are on the table," including, at least in the case of Iran,  the nuclear option.'2     Number two, there is the effect that nuclear weapons have on civil  rights and civil liberties. The specter of the mushroom cloud over  Manhattan, as alluded to by Condoleezza Rice, has become the  justification for every derogation from long accepted "absolute"  norms, like     the  prohibition  of   torture1"  or  of   warrantless  wiretapping. 14 Number three, nuclear weapons have been redefined as virtually  conventional weapons. For most of the years since the NPT came  into effect, nuclear weapons have been regarded as the very ultimate  weapon to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances.15 If  you read the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, you will see  that nuclear weapons are now part of a triad of deterrent weapons to  be used in any number of situations. And not only the United States  is taking that position but it is spreading now to other countries.  President Chirac made a remarkable statement the other day in which  he said that France would not necessarily refrain from using nuclear  weapons in reply to terrorist attacks.'7 So all options are now on the  table, at the Elysee, as well as at the White House.     The fourth point is that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists  did not exist during the Cold War."8 This is a very real problem. Will  terrorists use nuclear weapons? Who knows? Terrorists do all kinds  of crazy things that they don't consider crazy. Also, President  Ahmadinejad of Iran is on record as saying Israel has to be wiped off  the map and "with the force of God behind it, we shall soon  experience a world without the United States and Zionism."19This is a problem that will not go away as long as the nuclear weapon  states declare their intention to hold on to their nukes forever.     Number five, which is related to number four, is the unwillingness  of the nuclear weapon states to honor their commitments under  Article VI and the "unequivocal undertaking" that they gave in the  2000 NPT Review Conference to abolish their nuclear arsenals, an  undertaking which, despite its unequivocal nature, they refused to  reaffirm at last year's conference.
BUT
Continued U.S. presence through unilateral action creates global peace and prevents nuclear proliferation

Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

The world is safer and more prosperous because of U.S. hegemony. The free world enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity while starvation and poverty continue to decline. Furthermore, the “amicus populi romani,” still call upon the U.S. during times of distress. They require U.S. hegemony for their own self-interests as well as to foster good relations with the world’s superpower. Therefore, the U.S. must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity. What are the alternatives? A Chinese or Russian hegemony would be unlikely to benefit the rest of the world. A multilateral coalition of nations proved to be ineffective and unsustainable. American isolationism would leave the world vulnerable to tyranny. Ultimately, the future of the world depends on American willingness to guarantee the freedom of others. To quote Ronald Reagan: “We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”


And
U.S. hegemony is key to deterrence – the Cold War proves

Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

Furthermore, U.S. defense policy during the Cold War ensured U.S. security through the security of its allies. This policy guaranteed the peace and safety of democratic societies globally. Additionally, this benign U.S. hegemony was “augmented for a time by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them.” U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence, for example, dissuaded any Soviet invasion of Western Europe.


Finally, only unilateral action can save the world, multipolarity will always fail because
Multilateralism weakens the U.S.

Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

The liberal internationalist school of thought is based on the concept of multilateralism, which became popular in the 1990’s due to “an obsession with international legality.” This resulted in the creation of liberal international legality.” This resulted in the creation of liberal international bodies such as the European Union and World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, multilateral principles have become the mainstay of European politics over the last decade in response to U.S. hegemony. History, however, confirms multilateralism to be unsustainable and impractical. The idea of international approval to justify the morality of governmental decisions is mind-boggling. Consider a U.N. Security Council resolution to pose sanctions on another country. The approving nations will probably act in their own interests thereby making suspect any cause for agreement. The U.N. and E.U. were nonetheless founded on this way of thinking. However, these organizations were not Europe’s earliest “utopian” dream of a “transnational economic era” characterized by a lack of borders, state sovereignty, and military power. The first ended abruptly with “the war to end all wars. Yet, liberal internationalists, like Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, insist that a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. disregards U.N. principles concerning the mutual defense of nations and precipitates a “divided” and “insecure” world. Thus, the multilateralist solution is not state sovereignty, but rather the interdependence of states, which consequently weakens the notion of the nation-state. Multilateralists believe that peace and prosperity are achieved through international cooperation and the application of law. They argue that the United States’ “do-it-alone” attitude, regarding multilateral treaties in particular, discounts the rule of international law and isolates the U.S. from the international community



***Extensions***Prolif causes nuclear war

Proliferation provides a justification for preemptive wars and redefines nuclear weapons as conventional weapon insuring their use

 Peter Weiss, Six Reasons Why Nuclear Weapons Are More Dangerous than Ever; 22 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 400 (2006-2007



I am going to give you six reasons why the need to take Article VI  seriously is greater today than ever before.10 Number one, nuclear  weapons have become a justification for preemptive war. In my  view, Congress would never have given the President the authority to  invade Iraq if Congress had not believed at the time that they were  doing it because of Saddam's nuclear weapons program." And that  kind of thinking is now likely to repeat itself. Who knows what  we're going to do about Iran or North Korea or the next country that  says to the world "if the eight countries that have them now think  they need nukes for their security, why not we?" All we know is that  "all options are on the table," including, at least in the case of Iran,  the nuclear option.'2     Number two, there is the effect that nuclear weapons have on civil  rights and civil liberties. The specter of the mushroom cloud over  Manhattan, as alluded to by Condoleezza Rice, has become the  justification for every derogation from long accepted "absolute"  norms, like     the  prohibition  of   torture1"  or  of   warrantless  wiretapping. 14 Number three, nuclear weapons have been redefined as virtually  conventional weapons. For most of the years since the NPT came  into effect, nuclear weapons have been regarded as the very ultimate  weapon to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances.15 If  you read the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, you will see  that nuclear weapons are now part of a triad of deterrent weapons to  be used in any number of situations. And not only the United States  is taking that position but it is spreading now to other countries.  President Chirac made a remarkable statement the other day in which  he said that France would not necessarily refrain from using nuclear  weapons in reply to terrorist attacks.'7 So all options are now on the  table, at the Elysee, as well as at the White House.     The fourth point is that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists  did not exist during the Cold War."8 This is a very real problem. Will  terrorists use nuclear weapons? Who knows? Terrorists do all kinds  of crazy things that they don't consider crazy. Also, President  Ahmadinejad of Iran is on record as saying Israel has to be wiped off  the map and "with the force of God behind it, we shall soon  experience a world without the United States and Zionism."19This is a problem that will not go away as long as the nuclear weapon  states declare their intention to hold on to their nukes forever.     Number five, which is related to number four, is the unwillingness  of the nuclear weapon states to honor their commitments under  Article VI and the "unequivocal undertaking" that they gave in the  2000 NPT Review Conference to abolish their nuclear arsenals, an  undertaking which, despite its unequivocal nature, they refused to  reaffirm at last year's conference.

Heg Good- Economy Ext. (1/2)


U.S. leadership helps the economy- open markets, more jobs

Nau, ’09 (Henry, professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, “Is American Hegemony Bad or Just Better than Alternatives?”, International Studies Review, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01834.x/abstract, LH)

If American leadership has been so deficient, how did the Cold war end without a hot war and how has the world enjoyed unprecedented prosperity since the Cold War ended? The volume seems completely oblivious to the fact that this latest “outburst” of capitalism has raised the standard of living of more people living under the poverty line than ever before. China and India, with most of the world’s poorest population, are growing three or four times faster than Europe, Japan and America, and have been for 20 years or more. Would this have happened under Soviet (if Moscow had won the Cold War), European, Chinese, Indian or Japanese hegemony or consortium? Would these countries have championed freer trade policies for East Asian and now Chinese, Indian and Latin American exporters, or sympathized with the promotion of human rights in places such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, where Russian and Chinese policies currently block international efforts to stop humanitarian atrocities? The criticism of America is not the problem. A dominant power is fair game. But the criticism also ironically takes for granted the benefits of American hegemony-the open markets and global security provided by US foreign policy, the flexibility of America’s middle classes, which have transitioned to better jobs in America so that more jobs could be created in poorer countries, and the light footprint of American imperialism that since 1945 has nurtured not colonies but democratic self-governments in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Admittedly, America’s soft power is under a cloud, but the relevant question is, compared to what. Some, if not much, of the opposition to America has little to do with America. It has to do with authoritarian ideologies in other countries, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, that prefer elitist over middle-class economies and nationalist over liberal political ideologies.
U.S. hegemony provides economic prosperity

Prato, ’09 (M.V., Captain of the United States Marine Corps, “The Need for American Hegemony”, Command and Staff College, 2/20/2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, LH)

The world is safer and more prosperous because of U.S. hegemony. The free world enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity while starvation and poverty continue to decline. Furthermore, the “amicus populi romani,” still call upon the U.S. during times of distress. They require U.S. hegemony for their own self-interests as well as to foster good relations with the world’s superpower. 40 Therefore, the U.S. must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity. What are the alternatives? A Chinese or Russian hegemony would be unlikely to benefit the rest of the world. A multilateral coalition of nations proved to be ineffective and unsustainable. American isolationism would leave the world vulnerable to tyranny. Ultimately, the future of the world depends on American willingness to guarantee the freedom of others. To quote Ronald Reagan: “We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
(2/2)
Global economic collapse leads to war

Lind, ’10 (Michael, policy director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, “Will the great recession lead to World War IV?”, Salon News, http://www.salon.com/news/economics/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/05/11/great_recession_world_war_iv, LH)

If history is any guide, an era of global economic stagnation will help the nationalist and populist right, at the expense of the neoliberal and cosmopolitan/multicultural left. During the Long Depression of the late 19th century, which some historians claim lasted from 1873 to 1896, the nations of the West adopted protectionist measures to promote their industries. Beginning with Bismarck’s Germany, many countries also adopted social reforms like government pensions and health insurance. These reforms were often favored by the nationalist right, as a way of luring the working class away from the temptations of Marxism and left-liberalism. By and large the strategy worked. When World War I broke out, the working classes and farmers in most countries rallied enthusiastically around their respective flags. The Great Depression of the 1930s similarly led to the rise of one or another version of the authoritarian, nationalist right in Europe. Only in a few societies with deeply established liberal traditions, like the English-speaking countries and Scandinavia, did liberals or liberal conservatives hold on. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal Democratic Party, a coalition that included racist Southerners and traditionalist Catholic immigrants, was not particularly liberal by today’s standards. In both eras of depression, great-power rivalry for resources and markets intensified and ultimately led to a world war. Following World War II, the U.S. sought to avert a repetition of that pattern, by creating a global market secured by a global great-power concert in the form of the Security Council. But the project of economic disarmament and security cooperation broke down almost immediately after 1945 and the split between the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans produced the Cold War. The second attempt at a global market that began after the Cold War may be breaking down now, as the most important economic powers pursue their conflicting national interests.

Heg Good- Global Peace


U.S. hegemony key to global peace

Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

American benevolent hegemony indeed benefits the entire world. Robert Kagan, a well-known neoconservative, states “the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world’s population” and that to undermine U.S. hegemony “would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans.” In fact, billions of people worldwide live safe and prosper under the umbrella of U.S. military might and American-influenced global markets Imagine the world without U.S. hegemony. Who would deter nations like North Korea, China, and Iran from attacking their neighbors? For 55 years, an American presence in South Korea has deterred North Korean belligerence. Across the East China Sea, the U.S. 7th Fleet discourages the People’s Republic of China from using military power to force the annexation of the 60-year old democratic de-facto nation of Taiwan. Of course, the American-led Multi-National Force – Iraq continues to ensure freedom and democracy in Iraq while daunting regional Iranian aggression Of course, American benevolence abroad arose from the wastelands of post-World War II Europe and Asia. During the Cold War, the U.S. found itself as the sole guarantor of freedom for numerous Asian and European counties threatened by Soviet aggression. America’s ability to influence the world economy and maintain significant military presences in West Germany and Japan allowed its allies to prosper in relative safety.
U.S. heg key to global peace

Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

The world is safer and more prosperous because of U.S. hegemony. The free world enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity while starvation and poverty continue to decline. Furthermore, the “amicus populi romani,” still call upon the U.S. during times of distress. They require U.S. hegemony for their own self-interests as well as to foster good relations with the world’s superpower. Therefore, the U.S. must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity. What are the alternatives? A Chinese or Russian hegemony would be unlikely to benefit the rest of the world. A multilateral coalition of nations proved to be ineffective and unsustainable. American isolationism would leave the world vulnerable to tyranny. Ultimately, the future of the world depends on American willingness to guarantee the freedom of others. To quote Ronald Reagan: “We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”




Heg Good-Oil


U.S. hegemony influences access and prices of oil

Hurst, ’09 (Steven, senior lecturer in politics at the Manchester Metropolitan University, “The United States and Iraq since 1979: Hegemony, Oil, and War”, Edinburgh University Press, http://books.google.com/books?id=g95cU17LoHcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false, LH)

Oil is a commodity unlike any other in its centrality to modern life and the functioning of the WCS. As a result, it is treated by states as a strategic commodity rather than one whose supply can be left purely to the operation of the market. Governments seek to ensure their ability to influence the international oil system in terms both of access to oil and of prices, and no state is more preoccupied with this effort than the global hegemon. After 1945, just as it did in the wider WCS, the United States sought to secure and maintain the position of hegemonic state in the international oil system. It succeeded in this objective through a combination of deepened ties to the most important oil-producing state of Saudi Arabia, the control of production and marketing of Gulf oil by the major American oil companies, and American military predominance in the Middle East (albeit largely exercised through proxies such as Turkey, Israel, Iran and the UK). Successive administrations maintained this hegemonic role not primarily in order to ensure America’s own oil supplies (until the 1970s its imports from the region represented only a small fraction of its consumption), so much as those of the WCS as a whole: As a superpower and an economic giant possessing both a far-flung system of alliances and a host of trading partners whose economic well-being is critical for US exports, the United States has a vital interest in ensuring the unimpeded supply of petroleum not just to the United states but to world markets as well.
\Oil is key to U.S. economic strength

Shipley, ’07 (Tyler, Ph.D. candidate in the department of political science at York University, “Currency Wars: Oil, Iraq, and the Future of U.S. Hegemony”, Studies in Political Economy, http://spe.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/spe/article/view/5194/2055, LH)

Accepting Beitels characterization of an American hegemony shaken by the emergence of new competitors, this article focuses on the immediate threat posed by the euro to US dollar hegemony and the seigniorage benefits it accrues for the United States, and the important role of oil trading in shaping this threat. Oil has become an essential element of the global economic hegemony of the US dollar and its financial sector, and this hegemony is crucial to maintaining economic strength and stability for a critical and demanding American public.10 This program of economic hegemony is painstakingly analyzed in Peter Gowans The Global Gamble, a critique of the US bid for world domination under the guise of globalization. According to Gowan, the shift to economic hegemony took shape in the early 1970s with the Nixon administrations decision to abandon the gold standard.11 By liberating the international market from the gold standard, Nixon made certain that, while the United States would still remain the economic superpower, it would do so without the rules and constraints placed on it by the Bretton Woods system.12 With currencies floating on the global market, the United States had to do only one thing: ensure that no other currency could take its place as the global reserve.




Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation
NEG CASE

“Without cooperation, states will pursue individually-rational goals which lead to disastrous consequences for all, such as global warming, the rapid spread of conflict, the inadequate containment of infectious diseases, or the deepening and broadening of financial crises.” These words by Dr. Ngaire Woods illustrate why unilateral action is disastrous, and thus my partner and I oppose the resolution Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.


Unilateral action is defined as action which is not inclusive of other countries whether allies or not.

Nuclear proliferation is defined by the spread of nuclear materials generally meant as weapons, but also energy.


Contention 1: Unilateral action by the United States only promotes blowback from al Qaeda and its affiliates. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the movement for a Just World, says that al Qaeda recruitment stems primarily from those who applaud leaders like bin Laden who stand up against US unilateralism. Once the US is not in the position of being aggressive, there is nothing left for potential recruits to applaud for and a majority of the extremist base disappears. Additionally, those who stand up to the US action are concerned with oppression and not brainwashing or social conditions of the country. Mark Sageman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute says that 90% of a sample of extremists came from intact families and 3/4 were from the upper-middle to upper class. Al Shabaab, the Haqqani Network, AQAP, and other organizations are based on al Qaeda ideology and, according to the National Counterterrorism Center, accounted for over 12,000 deaths in 2011 alone. These significant amounts of carnage are why you should prefer the negative.
Contention 2: Nuclear proliferation on a broad level is good to prevent large wars and local conflicts. Muthiah Alagappa, senior fellow at the East-West center, identifies how Pakistan began to exploit the Indian conflict, but “nuclear escalation circumscribes military action... Nuclear weapons take large-scale wars off the table.” If proliferation empirically shows that large wars do not occur, there is only a question of what conflict comes next. General al Sammarai of the former Iraqi dictatorship stated that nuclear deterrence on a broad level is what kept Saddam Hussein from attacking major urban centers like Dubai or New York with Chemical and Biological, or CBW, weapons. Dr. Keith Payne of Georgetown University has said that a local attack on 10 concentric urban areas could kill an order of 20 million American citizens. Because of the significant threat posed by attacks without nuclear proliferation taking millions of lives, nuclear proliferation is good.
Contention 3: Multilateral action is the only way to solve the broad harms outlined by the affirmative case. Songying Fang at the University of Minnesota writes that when it comes to a use of force, a majority of the US public supports engaging with multiple other states actors as opposed to “going it alone.” Terrence Chapman at UT Austin states that states will generally seek to please its population, which means it must engage in behavior that the people agree with, which is multilateral action. This is key to such international agreements as resolutions over ending the war in Syria and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol. When the United States acts in the interests of its people it has a better chance of preventing large problems such as global warming and local conflicts as cooperation works better than attempting to achieve goals where the governments do not agree with the United States interests. When the US works with other countries, only then are international problems closer to a solution.
Because unilateral action has directly and indirectly caused tens of thousands of deaths and nuclear proliferation can save these lives lost in conflict, it is apparent that you must vote in negation of today’s resolution. Thank you.

***Extensions***

Multilateralism enhances democracy
Keohane et al, ‘08 (Robert, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University, Stephen Macedo, director for the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, “Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism”, International Organization, http://www.princeton.edu/~rkeohane/publications/DEMfinal.pdf, LH)

We do so by arguing that participation in multilateral institutions- defined broadly to include international organizations, regimes, and networks governed by formal international agreements- can enhance the quality of domestic democracy. To be sure, some instances of multilateralism have undemocratic implications, but multilateralism can also enhance domestic democracy in a number of important ways. Involvement with multilateral institutions often helps domestic democratic institutions restrict the power of special interest factions, protect individual rights, and improve the quality of democratic deliberation, while also increasing capacities to achieve important public purposes. Under some plausible circumstances international cooperation can thus enhance the quality of democracy even in reasonably well-functioning democratic politics.



Multilateralism key to preventing nuclear war

Dyer, ’04 (Gwynne, military historian and lecturer on international affairs, “The End of War”, Toronto Star, 12/30/2004, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1230-05.htm, LH)

War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population. We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative international system. When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough spare attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the moment is to keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance systems and arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges and solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.


Multilateralism – Environment



Powell, 2003 (Lindsey, Yale Graduate “In Defense of Multilateralism”Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. http://www.yale.edu/gegdialogue/docs/dialogue/oct03/papers/Powell.pdf)

What I hope to have demonstrated in this paper is that multilateralism offers both a short-term utilitarian value insofar as it provides developing states with a greater voice in international matters, enables developed states to synchronize implementation of new environmental and economic policies, and facilitates mutually beneficial trade-offs between developed and developing states. More important than these short-term benefits, however, is the promise of multilateralism to provide the most tempered, egalitarian, and sustainable future. As Forman succinctly states, “in this age of accelerated globalization, multilateralism offers the most effective means to realize common goals and contain common threats.” 24 The issues raised by critics can all be answered. Questions of bureaucracy and global government can be resolved through thoughtful design and careful monitoring of multilateral organizations. The introduction of centralized bodies to international negotiations is not intended to challenge the sovereign power of states, but rather to achieve through cooperation those things that no state can achieve on its own. Multilateral institutions do not need to interfere with market operation, but can rather introduce mechanisms that make that operation better reflect the costs involved and thus make it more efficient. The transboundary nature of current global environmental issues makes them the concern, whether recognized or not, of every single nation on the planet. The contribution of the United States to the creation of such issues is too great for any group of nations to successfully address without US cooperation. We are at a critical point in our dealings with these problems, as, with the implementation of cleaner technology and adjustments in levels and types of consumption, we could likely repair much of the damage already inflicted and prevent much future damage. However, as long as these issues are not effectively addressed, the quality of the air we breathe will continue to deteriorate, fisheries will become depleted, once rich fields will lie barren and salinated, and old growth forests will disappear. Multilateralism not only represents the most efficient, most effective, and most egalitarian approach to addressing global environmental issues, it is quite simply the only approach that brings with it the authority, legitimacy, and resources required to tackle so vast and complex a problem.



Multilateralism curbs proliferation

Roul, 2003 (Aminesh, Executive Director (Research) of the Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, New Delhi “Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): a multilateral Effort towards Preventing WMD Proliferation” Nuclear Articles

http://www.ipcs.org/article/nuclear/proliferation-security-initiative-psi-a-multilateral-effort-towards-preventing-wmd-1120.html

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have become a buzzword after 9/11 and, are arguably posing the most serious threat to international security. By WMD we generally mean nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their delivery systems. While there are some international regulations and norms to curb proliferation of these weapons, a coordinated effort is imperative to check their ‘horizontal’ spread and prevent terrorist groups from acquiring these weapons.


Proliferation solves war

Nuclear weapons make the costs of war unbearable and reduce the benefits of conflict; states can only fight over minor interests, because threats to central interests risk nuclear retaliation – lowers the GAINS from war and prevents crises
AND, more reasons prolif solves war:

  1. Removes need for territorial conquest for security

Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Poly Sci at Berkley, 2003 [“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed”]

Third, the deterrent deployment of nuclear weapons contributes more to a country's security than does conquest of territory. A country with a deterrent strategy does not need territory as much as a country relying on conventional defense. A deterrent strategy makes it unnecessary for a country to fight for the sake of increasing its security, and thus removes a major cause of war. 3




  1. Guarantees moderation in foreign policy

Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Poly Sci at Berkley, 2003 [“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed”]

Second, many fear that states that are radical at home will recklessly use their nuclear weapons in pursuit of revolutionary ends abroad. States that are radical at home, however, may not be radical abroad. Few states have been radical in the conduct of their foreign policy, and fewer have remained so for long. Think of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. States coexist in a competitive arena. The pressures of competition cause them to behave in ways that make the threats they face manageable, in ways that enable them to get along. States can remain radical in foreign policy only if they are overwhelmingly strong—as none of the new nuclear states will be—or if their acts fall short of damaging vital interests of other nuclear powers. States that acquire nuclear weapons will not be regarded with indifference. States that want to be freewheelers have to stay out of the nuclear business. A nuclear Libya, for example, would have to show caution, even in rhetoric, lest it suffer retaliation in response to someone else’s anonymous attack on a third state. That state, ignorant of who attacked, might claim that its intelligence agents had identified Libya as the culprit and take the opportunity to silence it by striking a heavy conventional blow. Nuclear weapons induce caution in any state, especially in weaker ones.




  1. Solves arms race and prevents miscalculated war

Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Poly Sci at Berkley, 2003 [“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed”]

Fifth, certainty about the relative strength of adversaries also makes war less likely. From the late nineteenth century onward, the speed of technological innovation increased the difficulty of estimating relative strengths and predicting the course of campaigns. Since World War II, technological advance has been even faster, but short of a ballistic missile defense breakthrough, this has not mattered. It did not disturb the American-Soviet military equilibrium, because one side's missiles were not made obsolete by improvements in the other side's missiles. In 1906, the British Dreadnought, with the greater range and fire power of its guns, made older battleships obsolete. This does not happen to missiles. As Bernard Brodie put it, "Weapons that do not have to fight their like do not become useless because of the advent of newer and superior types." 5 They may have to survive their like, but that is a much simpler problem to solve. Many wars might have been avoided had their outcomes been foreseen. "To be sure," Georg Simmel wrote, "the most effective presupposition for preventing struggle, the exact knowledge of the comparative strength of the two parties, is very often only to be obtained by the actual fighting out of the conflict." 6 Miscalculation causes wars. One side expects victory at an affordable price, while the other side hopes to avoid defeat. Here the differences between conventional and nuclear worlds are fundamental. In the former, states are too often tempted to act on advantages that are wishfully discerned and narrowly calculated. In 1914, neither Germany nor France tried very hard to avoid a general war. Both hoped for victory even though they believed the opposing coalitions to be quite evenly matched. In 1941, Japan, in attacking the United States, could hope for victory only if a series of events that were possible but unlikely took place. Japan hoped to grab resources sufficient for continuing its war against China and then to dig in to defend a limited perimeter. Meanwhile, the United States and Britain would have to deal with Germany, supposedly having defeated the Soviet Union and therefore reigning supreme in Europe. Japan could then hope to fight a defensive war until America, her purpose weakened, became willing to make a compromise peace in Asia. 7 Countries more readily run the risks of war when defeat, if it comes, is distant and is expected to bring only limited damage. Given such expectations, leaders do not have to be crazy to sound the trumpet and urge their people to be bold and courageous in the pursuit of victory. The outcome of battles and the course of campaigns are hard to foresee because so many things affect them. Predicting the result of conventional wars has proved difficult. Uncertainty about outcomes does not work decisively against the fighting of wars in conventional worlds. Countries armed with conventional weapons go to war knowing that even in defeat their suffering will be limited. Calculations about nuclear war are made differently. A nuclear world calls for a different kind of reasoning. If countries armed with nuclear weapons go to war with each other, they do so knowing that their suffering may be unlimited. Of course, it also may not be, but that is not the kind of uncertainty that encourages anyone to use force. In a conventional world, one is uncertain about winning or losing. In a nuclear world, one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated. If force is used, and not kept within limits, catastrophe will result. That prediction is easy to make because it does not require close estimates of opposing forces. The number of one's cities that can be severely damaged is equal to the number of strategic warheads an adversary can deliver. Variations of number mean little within wide ranges. The expected effect of the deterrent achieves an easy clarity because wide margins of error in estimates of the damage one may suffer do not matter. Do we expect to lose one city or two, two cities or ten? When these are the pertinent questions, we stop thinking about running risks and start worrying about how to avoid them. In a conventional world, deterrent threats are ineffective because the damage threatened is distant, limited, and problematic. Nuclear weapons make military miscalculation difficult and politically pertinent prediction easy.
Empiricism proves our argument

Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Poly Sci at Berkley, 2003 [“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed”]



How can we perpetuate peace without solving the problem of war? This is the question that states with nuclear weapons must constantly answer. Nuclear states continue to compete militarily. With each state tending to its interests as best it can, war is constantly possible. Although the possibility of war remains, nuclear weapons have drastically reduced the probability of its being fought by states having them. Wars that might bring nuclear weapons into play have become extraordinarily hard to start. Over the centuries, great powers have fought more wars and lesser states have fought fewer. The frequency of war has correlated less closely with the attributes of states than with their international standing. Yet, because of a profound change in military technology, waging war has more and more become the privilege of poor and weak states. Nuclear weapons have reversed the fates of strong and weak states. Never in modern history have great powers enjoyed a longer period of peace than we have known since the Second World War. One can scarcely believe that the presence of nuclear weapons does not greatly help to explain this happy condition.
Prolif is stabilizing – induces caution and encourages peaceful dispute settlement – prevents large scale war

Alagappa ‘8 [Muthiah – Distinguished senior fellow at the East-West Center. The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia. Ed. Muthiah Alagappa. p. 484]

The fear of escalation to nuclear war conditions the role of force in major power relations and circumscribes strategic interaction among them. By restraining measures and actions that could lead to conflict escalation, nuclear weapons limit the competitive strategic interaction of major powers to internal and external balancing for deterrence purposes; constrain their resort to coercive diplomacy and compellence; and shift the burden of international competition and adjustment in status and influence to the economic, political, and diplomatic arenas. They also render remote the possibility of a hegemonic war should a power transition occur in the region. More immediately, nuclear weapons enable Russia and China to deter the much stronger United States and mitigate the negative consequences of the imbal- ance in conventional military capability. Nuclear weapons reinforce India's confi- dence in dealing with China. By reducing military vulnerabilities and providing insurance against unexpected contingencies, nuclear weapons enable major powers to take a long view and engage in competition as well as cooperation with poten- tial adversaries. Differences and disputes among them are frozen or settled through negotiations. Though they are not the only or even primary factor driving strate- gic visions and policies, nuclear weapons are an important consideration, especially in the role of force in major power strategic interaction. They prevent the outbreak of large-scale war. Military clashes when they occur tend to be limited.


US Unilateralism (Heg projection) Bad
US heg has become more of a threat than a deterrent, worthless for China and Russia

Roberts 10, Paul Craig Roberts, a frequent contributor to Global Research, and economist, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term, 2010 “The Road to Armageddon: The Insane Drive for American Hegemony Threatens Life on Earth,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17821, Global Research

The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil. 

 This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.

 The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American “superpower.”

 The morons in Washington are pushing the envelop of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.
Even if they prove Heg good, US sustaining heg only by initial loss of power - turn

Mattei, 03. Ugo Mattei, writer, , Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, A Theory of Imperial Law:
A Study on U.S. Hegemony and the Latin Resistance,

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/indiana_journal_of_global_legal_studies/v010/10.1mattei.html


My study of legal imperialism builds on Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony. 15 Gramsci defines hegemony as power reached by a combination of force and consent. Power cannot be reached only by brute force; it needs to be imposed by individuals that voluntarily accept government. Building on this suggestion, Louis Althusser has suggested that force is the province of the repressive apparatuses of the state like the army and the police, while consent is gained by means of what he called the ideological apparatuses of the state like schools, churches, or media. 16 Such ideological apparatuses make hegemony more acceptable and at the same time make ideology a cross-class concept, thus going beyond the narrow Marxist idea of ideology as a class-specific device. 17 Hegemony is therefore reached at least in part by a diffusion of power (needed in order to gain consensus) between a plurality of individuals. Such diffusion of power becomes a key concept in Michel Foucault's refutation of the idea of hegemony as a top-down imposition of power. Through his work, Foucault conceived of power as a relational position inherent in the very posture of every individual in society which, in turn, is determined by the so-called discursive practices. 18

Download 87.18 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page