98
Planet Debate Global/Local K Global/Local Kritik Index Global/Local Kritik Index 1 _____________ 2 **Kritik Aff 1NC 2 Surrender Your Agency 1NC 1/3..................................3 Surrender Your Agency 1NC 2/3..................................4 Surrender Your Agency 1NC 3/3..................................5 _____________ 6 **Policy Aff 1NC 6 The Empire 1NC 1/3 7 The Empire 1NC 2/3 8 The Empire 1NC 3/3 9 __________ 10 **Overviews 10 The Empire 2NC Overview 11 2NC Overview Cards 12 2NR Overview 13 ______ 14 **Links 14 Link—Emancipation/Pomo 15 Link—Advantage Scenario 16 Link—Incentives 17 Link—Environment 18 Link—Regulation 18 Link—Environment 19 Link—Cap and Trade 20 Link—Displacing Blame 21 Link—Environmental Legislation................................22 Link—Pollution 23 Link—Vehicles 24 Link – Discourse 25 Link – Relieving Oppression 26 Link – Welfare 27 Link – Utopia / Safe World 28 Link – Security 29 Link – Leadership 30 ___________ 31 **Link Blocks 31 - 1 –

Global Local Kritik

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K

Global/Local Kritik Index

Global/Local Kritik Index 1_____________ 2**Kritik Aff 1NC 2Surrender Your Agency 1NC 1/3 3Surrender Your Agency 1NC 2/3 4Surrender Your Agency 1NC 3/3 5_____________ 6**Policy Aff 1NC 6The Empire 1NC 1/3 7The Empire 1NC 2/3 8The Empire 1NC 3/3 9__________ 10**Overviews 10The Empire 2NC Overview 112NC Overview Cards 122NR Overview 13______ 14**Links 14Link—Emancipation/Pomo 15Link—Advantage Scenario 16Link—Incentives 17Link—Environment 18Link—Regulation 18Link—Environment 19Link—Cap and Trade 20Link—Displacing Blame 21Link—Environmental Legislation 22Link—Pollution 23Link—Vehicles 24Link – Discourse 25Link – Relieving Oppression 26Link – Welfare 27Link – Utopia / Safe World 28Link – Security 29Link – Leadership 30___________ 31**Link Blocks 312NC Link Wall 32AT: Corporations are to Blame 33AT: Link Turns / We’re Helpful 34AT: Our Intent is Good 35______________ 36**Nuclear Freeze 36Link—Nuclear Freeze 37Link—Nuclear Freeze 38

- 1 –

Page 2: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KImpact—Nuclear Freeze 39Impact—Nuclear Freeze 40________ 41**Impacts 41Turns Case 42Turns Case 43Turns Case 44Impact – Invisible Violence 45Impact—Agency 46_____________ 47**Impact Blocks 47AT: We Solve Violence 48AT: We Solve Violence 49___________ 50**Alternatives 502NC Alternative Extension 51Alternative—Emancipation 52Alternative—Emancipation 53________________ 54**Alternative Blocks 54AT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local” 55AT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local” 56AT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local” 57AT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local” 58AT: Permutation Generic 59AT: Alt Hurts Democracy 60AT: Must Act / Alternative 61AT: Vague Alternative 62___________ 63**Framework 63AT: Frameworks Not Competitive 64AT: Fiat Good 65AT: Fiat Good 66AT: Policy Focus Good for Activism 67AT: Don’t Evaluate Discourse 68

- 2 –

Page 3: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K_____________

**Kritik Aff 1NC

- 3 –

Page 4: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KSurrender Your Agency 1NC 1/3

A. Surrender Your Agency- The conceptualization of problems and their solutions as ‘global’ within the game of debate, requiring the suspension of reality known as ‘fiat’ through which we are empowered to ‘solve’ global problems, reinforces the notion that we as individuals are powerless to affect reality. Playing ‘let’s pretend’ in debate reinforces the notion that the ‘I’ is powerless, ultimately eliminating the possibility of agency and making real transformation impossible.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnWe are today bombarded by images of our "one world." We speak of the world as "shrinking" into a "global village." We are not all fooled by the implicit benign-ness of this image of "time-space" contracted--so we also speak of "global pillage." This astuteness of our perceptions, however, does not prevent us from our delusion of the "global;" the image of the "global" world persists even for many activists amongst us who struggle to "change" the world.

This is recent delusion. It is a delusion which anesthetizes us from the only world which we can ever locate ourselves in and know--the worlds of "I"-in relationships.

The "I" is seldom present in "emancipatory" projects to change the world. This is because the "relational I"-world and the "global"-world are negations of one another; the former negates the concept of the latter whilst the latter negates the life of the former. And concepts are more amenable to scrutiny than life.

The advance in technologies of image-ing enables a distanciation of scrutiny, from the "I"-world of relationships to the "global"-world of abstractions. As we become fixated with the distant, as we consume the images of "world" as other than here and now, as we project ourselves through technological time-space into worlds apart from our here and now, as we become "global," we are relieved of the gravity of our present . We, thus, cease the activism of self (being) and take on the mantle of the "activist" (doing). This is a significant displacement.

That there is suffering all over the world has indeed been made more visible by the technologies of image-ing. Yet for all its consequent fostering of "networks," images of "global" suffering have also served to disempower. By this, we mean not merely that we are filled with the sense that the forces against which the struggle for emancipations from injustice and exploitation are waged are pervasive and, therefore, often impenetrable, but , more importantly, that it diverts our gaze away from the only true power that is in our disposal--the power of self-change in relationships of solidarities.

- 4 –

Page 5: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KSurrender Your Agency 1NC 2/3

B. Killing In The Name Of- This same false conceptualization of reality by agents of global change provides the philosophical underpinning for colonizing practices – it causes the assimilation and genocide of anything considered the “other” into this new global order. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln [*606] Distinguishing these two meanings of "order" provides us with radically opposed directions of analysis and orientations for future imagings of social relations. Although the rhetoric of world-order would focus on visions of some projected "world" that provides the aspiration for collective endeavors, "order" does not come to be without necessary "ordering;" the "world" of "world-order" has not come to be without the necessary ordering of many worlds. The ordering and the ordered, the world of order and the ordered world, all are inextricable parts of the past and the present of "civil-ization."

Despite the vision of world-order founded on a notion of a universal society of humankind aspiring toward a universal common good, (first given meaning within a conceptual political-legal framework through the birth of the so-called "Westphalian" state system n14 ), the materialities of "ordering" were of a different complexion altogether. Contrary to the disembodied rhetoric of world-order as bloodless evolution, the new images of the world and languages of "globality" did not evolve out of a sense of "hospitality" n15 to the "other," the "stranger." Rather, the history of the creation of the post-Westphalian "world" as one world, can be seen to be most intimately connected with the rise of an expansionist and colonizing world-view and practice. Voyages of "discovery" provided the necessary reconnaissance to image this "new world." Bit by bit, piece by piece, the jigsaw of the globe was completed. With the advance of the "discoverer," the "colonizer," the "invader," the "new" territories were given meaning within the hermeneutic construct that was the new "world."

[*607] The significance of this evolution of the world does not, however, lie merely in its acquiring meaning. It is not simply the "idea" of the world that was brought to prominence through acts of colonization. The construction of the "stage" of the world has also occurred, albeit amid the performance of a violent drama upon it. The idea of a single world in need of order was followed by a succession of chained and brutalized bodies of the "other." The embodied world that has been in creation from the "colonial" times to the present could not, and does not, accommodate plurality. The very idea of "one world" contains the necessary impetus for the absorption, assimilation, if not destruction, of existing worlds and the genocide of existing socialities. This violence of "order-ing" within the historical epoch of colonialism is now plainly visible

This brief remembering of colonialism as an historic process, provides us with the most explicit lessons on the violence of the "ordering" of "worlds." From its history we see that an important feature of ordering prevails. The world of those who "order" is the destruction of the "worlds" of those ordered. So many ideologies of negation and (re)creation served to justify this "beginning"--terra nullius, the "savage" native, the "civilizing mission." n17 The [*608] "world," after all, had to be created out of all this "unworldly" miasma, all for the common good of the universal society of humankind. 

- 5 –

Page 6: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KSurrender Your Agency 1NC 3/3

C. Alternative: Power to the People- The only way to break the cycle of otherization is to reject the aff’s conceptualization of problems as ‘global’ and focus instead on how we as individuals can engage in local transformative practices. Recapturing our individual ‘I’ is the only hope for initiating a project of true liberation and is a necessary prerequisite to transforming oppressive structures. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln

The "world," as we perceive it today, did not exist in times past. It does not exist today. There is no such thing as the global "one world." The world can only exist in the locations and experiences revealed through and in human relationships.

It is often that we think that to change the world it is necessary to change the way power is exercised in the world; so we go about the business of exposing and denouncing the many power configurations that dominate. Power indeed does lie at the core of human misery, yet we blind ourselves if we regard this power as the power out there. Power, when all the complex networks of its reach are untangled, is personal; power does not exist out there, [*630] it only exists in relationship. To say the word, power, is to describe relationship, to acknowledge power, is to acknowledge our subservience in that relationship. There can exist no power if the subservient relationship is refused--then power can only achieve its ambitions through its naked form, as violence.

Changing the world therefore is a misnomer for in truth it is relationships that are to be changed. And the only relationships that we can change for sure are our own. And the constant in our relationships is ourselves--the "I" of all of us. And so, to change our relationships, we must change the "I" that is each of us. Transformations of "structures" will soon follow. This is, perhaps, the beginning of all emancipations. This is, perhaps, the essential message of Mahatmas. 

- 6 –

Page 7: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K_____________

**Policy Aff 1NC

- 7 –

Page 8: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KThe Empire 1NC 1/3

A) Death Star Cometh- The Affirmative speech act invokes an imagined ordering of the world. Their proposal of a reconfigured globe has no significance except as a rhetorical artifact. Speaking order onto the globe conditions new waves of civilizing colonialism.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnIt has become a convenience, even an imperative, it seems, to speak in terms of a "global," world. The proliferation of world-order rhetoric is a noticeable feature of contemporary politico-legal, economic and socio-cultural discourse. In politico-legal terms, languages of the "harmonization" and "integration" of polities have gained prominence since the early [*603] experimentations of the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations. Gradually, it seems, we have moved from a world organized through the isolationism of "coexisting" states, to one co-ordinated by the UN-led interactions of "co-operating" states which have seen the emergence of "internationalism" and "regionalism." Most recently we see a world characterized by a shift, slowly but surely, toward ever greater "interdependence," as reflected through the contemporary mantra of "global governance." In economic and socio-cultural terms, imaginations of a "global village (market-place)" or a "Global Neighborhood," n4 encapsulate this evolution, the final stage toward realizing the aspiration of a "We the Peoples," as contained in the UN Charter, n5 ostensibly to be "connected" through the "world-wide web" of the internet through its many "dot-coms." n6 Driving this movement toward ever greater globality are the new realities of economic and social exchange in human relationships. There appears to be no escaping the bombardment of "globalization-speak." All this, we are told, is in the name of "inclusion" into "one world." n7 Ultimately, what we are witnessing is a nascent " global culture" emerging as an historic movement . The coming together of the peoples of the world is the great challenge of the twenty-first century civilizational project. n8 [*604] Indeed, much of what provides the descriptive content of world-order narratives appears to be happening. Increased interaction at the global, let alone international, level is taking place. Leisurely meanderings through the streets of any major city, or even minor town, anywhere, provide ample sensory evidence of a globalization-led rise in homogeneity of social experience and aspiration. From advertising hoardings to cinema posters, restaurants to cyber-cafes, shopping malls to banks, hotels to discotheques, muzak to top-tens, fashion of the chic to that of the executive, monocultures prevail. Everywhere, local flavors provide an exotic touch of difference to the otherwise comfortable familiarity of the global. Of course, such leisurely meanderings are limited to those who have the resources by which to make such a comparative study, to those with the mobility to "be anywhere "-- the professional, the corporate player, the "global activist," the footloose academic. For these, narratives of a "global world" find appeal . Thus, a "globalized" world-order has come to fit snugly within the common parlance of these "global citizens" (politicians, lawyers, corporate actors, professional NGOists, academics), and world-order possibilities have infused their imaginations. The struggle ahead, from such vantage points, lies in determining what the image of order might be, what the structures of a global order might look like. The rush to capture the symbolic and futuristic landscape of world-order provides us with the rich exhortations of " new beginnings," open to the intellectual expertise of both "right" and "left" politico-economic orientations . These range from the "ordering" inclinations of U.S. State officials asserting the right of "benign imperialism ," n9 to the "reordering" demands of progressive internationalists calling for "humane governance" n10 and "neighborhood" perspectives. n11 Regardless of political and ideological orientations, the underlying message of the rhetoric of world-order, however conceptualized, is one of increased human welfare, freed now [*605] from the ideological constraints of an outdated, geo-politically based state system . A new order for these exciting times is the order of the day.Setting aside these divergent articulations of the vision of world-order, let us locate the rhetoric of world-order within the realm of social experience. The point of our concern is not simply about "world-order-talk," after all, but rather, about the real or potential impacts of world-orders, real or imagined. I suggest we begin this exploration into an alternative narrative on world-order by stepping off the bandwagon of world-order narratives to reflect on the connotations of its very terminology. What is this "world" that we have in mind when we speak of world-order ? What is the nature of "order" that characterizes this world that has come to be the template for our new world-order? What has been the fate and fortune of other "We the Peoples"? n12 Should we seek them out, within this order that has come to be created? Our first challenge, I suggest, is in distinguishing between the imaginations of world-order and the materialities of "world (mis)order(ings).Order as Evolutionary Structure: The potency of the term "world-order" to mobilize human imagination lies in its appeal to something almost divine: the civilizational project that is the natural path of human evolution, our common destiny, inherently good, bound by the "cords of the heart ." n13 In this respect, " order" is presented as standing in opposition to the undesired condition of "disorder ." Therefore, to construct an order out of this condition which, at best, is one of nothingness, and at worst, one of chaos and anarchy, stands as a task of historic human responsibility. Being of the "order of things," so to speak, we may regard the project of creating order, of "ordering," as inherent and intrinsic to human history in its movement toward ever greater levels of evolutionary unfolding. This assumption of order gives rise to a Cartesian conception of the organization of human relationships, wherein the progressive evolution of human civilization entails the mechanical, "neutral" and necessary process of amalgamating diversity ("disorder") into an efficient and unitary total structure of world-order.

- 8 –

Page 9: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KThe Empire 1NC 2/3

B) Empire Strikes - The new peaceful ordering of the world is a colonizing practice – it causes the assimilation and genocide of anything considered the “other” into this new global order. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln [*606] Distinguishing these two meanings of "order" provides us with radically opposed directions of analysis and orientations for future imagings of social relations. Although the rhetoric of world-order would focus on visions of some projected "world" that provides the aspiration for collective endeavors, "order" does not come to be without necessary "ordering;" the "world" of "world-order" has not come to be without the necessary ordering of many worlds. The ordering and the ordered, the world of order and the ordered world, all are inextricable parts of the past and the present of "civil-ization."Despite the vision of world-order founded on a notion of a universal society of humankind aspiring toward a universal common good, (first given meaning within a conceptual political-legal framework through the birth of the so-called "Westphalian" state system n14 ), the materialities of "ordering" were of a different complexion altogether. Contrary to the disembodied rhetoric of world-order as bloodless evolution, the new images of the world and languages of "globality" did not evolve out of a sense of "hospitality" n15 to the "other," the "stranger." Rather, the history of the creation of the post-Westphalian "world" as one world, can be seen to be most intimately connected with the rise of an expansionist and colonizing world-view and practice. Voyages of "discovery" provided the necessary reconnaissance to image this "new world." Bit by bit, piece by piece, the jigsaw of the globe was completed. With the advance of the "discoverer," the "colonizer," the "invader," the "new" territories were given meaning within the hermeneutic construct that was the new "world." [*607] The significance of this evolution of the world does not, however, lie merely in its acquiring meaning. It is not simply the "idea" of the world that was brought to prominence through acts of colonization. The construction of the "stage" of the world has also occurred, albeit amid the performance of a violent drama upon it. The idea of a single world in need of order was followed by a succession of chained and brutalized bodies of the "other." The embodied world that has been in creation from the "colonial" times to the present could not, and does not, accommodate plurality. The very idea of "one world" contains the necessary impetus for the absorption, assimilation, if not destruction, of existing worlds and the genocide of existing socialities. This violence of "order-ing" within the historical epoch of colonialism is now plainly visibleThis brief remembering of colonialism as an historic process, provides us with the most explicit lessons on the violence of the "ordering" of "worlds." From its history we see that an important feature of ordering prevails. The world of those who "order" is the destruction of the "worlds" of those ordered. So many ideologies of negation and (re)creation served to justify this "beginning"--terra nullius, the "savage" native, the "civilizing mission." n17 The [*608] "world," after all, had to be created out of all this "unworldly" miasma, all for the common good of the universal society of humankind.

- 9 –

Page 10: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KThe Empire 1NC 3/3

C) A New Hope- Text: Vote negative to betray the affirmatives vision of the new global world order.

When we politicize our personal relations to the way the world is ordered, it allows us to recognize our position as global civilizers, which is the first step towards critical emancipation. Evaluating the violence in here and now is a necessary precondition to dealing with violence out there. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnSo, back to the question: to what extent, for this, "our world," do we contemplate change when "we" imagine transformed "world-orders?" In addition to the familiar culprits of violent orderings, such as government, financial institutions, transnational corporations, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO (as significant culprits they indeed are), do we, in our contemplations of violent orders, vision our locations within corporate "educational" institutions as "professional academics" and "researchers," our locations within corporate NGOs as "professional activists," our locations within "think-tanks" and "research organizations" as "professional policy-formulators," and whatever other locations of elite "expertise" we have been "trained" to possess, as ordered sites, complicit and parasitic, within a violent "world-order"? Do we see in our critiques of world-orderings, out there, the orderings we find, right here, in our bodies, minds, relationships, expectations, fears and hopes? Would we be willing to see "our (ordered) world" dismantled in order that other worlds, wherein our "privileges" become extinguished, may flourish? These concerns are, then, I believe, the real complexities of judgment and action. Consideration should be given, not only to those of the political-structural, so often honed in on, but also to the [*628] issue of the political-personal, which ultimately is the "unit" of "worlds" and of "orders." If "globalization," as a recent obsession of intellectual minds, has contributed anything to an understanding of the ways of the "world," I suggest, it is that we cannot escape "our" implication within the violence of "world (mis)orders."IV. A WORLD FOR TRANSFORMATION: TWO POEMSDespite the fixation of the beneficiaries of ordered worlds, even the ordered "critic," with the prescribed languages, visions and possibilities of human socialities, other realities of humanity nevertheless persist. Notwithstanding the globalization of social concern and the transnationalization of professionalized critique and reformatory action, struggles against violence remain energized, persistent and located. They are waged through the bodies of lives lived in experiential locations against real instruments of terror, functioning within embodied sites of violence. Non-information and non-representation of the existence of such struggles, and non-learning of the wisdoms thus generated do not negate their truths or the vibrancy of their socialities. n51"We" are participants in ordered worlds, not merely observers. The choice is whether we wish to recognize our own locations of ordered violence and participate in the struggle to resist their orderings, or whether we wish merely to observe violence in far-off worlds in order that our interventionary participation "out there" never destabilizes the ground upon which we stand. I suggest that we betray the spirit of transformatory struggle, despite all our expressions of support and even actions of professionalized expertise, if our own locations, within which are ordered and from which we ourselves order, remain unscrutinized.

- 10 –

Page 11: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K__________

**Overviews

- 11 –

Page 12: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KThe Empire 2NC Overview

The 1ac speaks a world into being. This act of ordering the world to maximize security and solve scenarios for war creates a vision of a “new and improved globe”. Their speech act invokes disastrous politics. Whether or not the case is good is irrelevant. Our criticism is a disad to the way you decide to decide. The aff creates an ordering of the world. Because we’re saying that proposing a new world-order is bad, it is irrelevant if there is peace and stability within their simulation. They have to justify ordering before they get a case impact. A couple of implications-

First- Speaking of a new world order causes genocide and colonialism by necessitating the erasure of conflicting orders of the world. It becomes a moral obligation to enforce this world order and exterminate those who fall short. Their ________ evidence proves this.

Second- Their world ordering doesn’t actually do anything. Their speech of reconfiguration will not change _________________. The only risk of an impact is that it sidelines focus on ourselves and our personal interactions with violence in here. Our being in the world is the biggest impact.

The alternative is to turn away from their framing of the world. Debate is a game of competing activisms. The negative’s stance is to turn away from the aff game of proposing new orders. Only rejecting their new world order allows us to engage in a critical distance from global discourse in order to evaluate ways in which we are complicit with and related to the violent practices of colonialism in world which is here and now. When we do this we can begin to change the only world in which we live - the world of here and now, of our own ways of being.

- 12 –

Page 13: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K2NC Overview Cards

Ordering a more peaceful world is violent colonialism. We should reconceptualize our relationships to the existing structure of power to avoid this trap of imaginingJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln The following article is divided into three sections, each with a distinct focus. The first section is directed to an analysis of world (mis)order(ings). n2 [*602] My focus here is to confront world-order narratives rather than to narrate world-order . This section would fit most comfortably within conventional presentations of critique, both substantively and stylistically. In it, I consider world-order narratives as a perpetuation of ideologies of colonization, and "world-order-ing" projects as colonizing violence . The second section is directed toward making explicit the implications, and "implicated-ness," of being "ordered." Here I seek to invite a collective process of reflection which seeks to relocate "our" n3 endeavors of transformatory imaginations within the social realm of "ordered" experience. Central to this process of reflection is a perspective on what I term "technologies of ordering ," namely that the very locations from which we seek to project imaginations of transformed world-orders are in themselves ordered sites subject to critique . The final section is my own introspective and personal assessment of world-ordering. I seek here to bring the previous discussions into the context of my voice--the voice of an ordered, resisting subject of constraints and aspirations. And the purpose of this meandering, "disorderly" journey? I hope to suggest that our ultimate visionary challenge is one that is much humbler that we might wish to imagine. Rather than undertaking the historic responsibility of renegotiating a global socio-political space that may be a reframed world-order, our challenge is to come to grips with the existing struggles for "orders-in-relationships" within the many located worlds we inhabit and work against the totalizing world-order forces of disintegration and dehumanization.

Benign world–ordering is violent and colonialist. Their speaking of new zones of security and danger is symbolic violence.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThe discussion above was intended to provide a perspective of world-order as an historical process of ordering which, contrary to the benign symbolism of universalism evoked by notions such as "one world" and "global village," is constructed out of the violent destruction of diverse socialities. World-order, when re-viewed, therefore, may be understood as follows: As a concept that seeks to articulate the civilizational project of humanity, it is at best nonsense, and at worst a fraudulent ideology of legitimization for the perpetuation of colonizing violence --"world-order" as symbolic violence . As a material reality of violent social relations, it is a conscious and systematized design for the control of resources through the disciplining of minds and bodies--"world-order" as embodied violence.

- 13 –

Page 14: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K2NR Overview

There is too much conceded to even think about voting affirmative.

They have conceded that their speech act invokes disastrous politics and that our criticism is a disad to they way they decide to decide which means before they get a case impact they have to justify their ordering. This goes uncontested; speaking of a new world order causes genocide and colonialism by necessitating the erasure of conflicting orders of the world. It becomes a moral obligation to exterminate those who fall short from our worldview. Even if you grant them their permutation solvency this will still act as a disad to their plan that the perm doesn’t solve.

They also conceded that political means of achieving the impacts relieves us from the gravity of the present. This releases us from our guilty consciences, displacing blame and focus away from ourselves, which leads to a system of countless environmental destruction, which turns case. That’s our Bobertz evidence. This means our alternative solves any environmental claims better than you do because we solve the disease while you battle the symptoms.

They've conceded that our alternative solves their case. Our walker evidence explains that they only solve the symptom while spreading the disease; we should reject the relationships that make their harms possible.

Additionally they conceded that the ballot is just like a story, just imagining change, voting aff because talking is good, our argument is that each instance of global order anesthetizes local relationships, cooption, affirmative advocacy prevents new solutions from forming.

We'll win the debate on this starred evidence - The only attempts to resist nuclearism were successful when they resisted the global order.

- 14 –

Page 15: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K______

**Links

- 15 –

Page 16: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Emancipation/Pomo

We cannot fully understand or achieve emancipation from a global perspective Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln You see, I do feel wonder. I wonder at the immense industry of intellectuals and at their incredible capacity for knowledge. Yet I wonder. I wonder whether for all this accumulated knowledge contained in the uniform currency of the intellectual business enterprise, any step closer is made toward the realization of a less violent reality. It is not that my wonderment and my wondering are not connected in any way. For in so much of the recent works of intellectual theorizations the grounded work of emancipatory politics is emphasized. No longer, it seems, are the promises of far-away tomorrows legitimate, the search now is for peoples everyday and localized commonsense. I wonder at the theoretical elegance of these new proposals. But something, however, does not feel quite right. Despite its many qualities something feels so totally lacking. I feel this something is touch; for all their intellectual appeal, there is no joy, nor pain, no living, which touches me in these attempts to theorize emancipation. Am I wrong to wonder in this way? Is it wrong that I wonder who it is that these "epistemic transitions"--the intellectual version of what can simply be described as a change in our understanding of the world--are said to affect? Who is the "audience" to whom this call for an emancipatory common sense is directed? The intellectual merit of what is being done cannot be faulted; intellectually, there is much to praise about the challenges that have been identified in order that a less violent reality may be worked for. But I wonder if all this is a little too convenient. I wonder if these theorizations, when the jargon and the complexities of language are removed, say much more than [*631] what has already been said in so many different tongues, as the articulation of common sense. Returning to this question of a change in our understanding of the world, I wonder if here lies the issue: what change to whose understanding of the world?

- 16 –

Page 17: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Advantage Scenario

Their multi-step advantage claims are a link – linking larger ecological problems to one distant source decontextualizes environmental issues and hides our participation in their causesBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 Given its basis in the seemingly objective world of science, the reporting of environmental issues would seem to present an exception to the rule. Scholars of environmental journalism have, if anything, found the opposite to be true. n40 Typically, news about environmental issues is decontextualized and presented as a series of discrete events that are [*720] fraught with drama, rather than as ongoing problems or predictable malfunctionings of complex technologies. n41 Environmental problems (particularly those of a catastrophic nature) are reported as aberrations from a norm of health and safety.

- 17 –

Page 18: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Incentives

Economic incentives are not as effective as changes in our personal behavior. Losing our connection to our own agency is the greatest cause for environmental inaction- our alternative is important because it reconnects us with our own agency.Lenzen, Prof. of applied physics at the University of Sydney, ‘97(Manfred, Individual responsibility and climate change, The University of Melbourne)Firstly, in industrialised countries, concerns about climate change bear little relation to personal greenhouse gas emissions. This paradox was, for example, one of the results of a survey of households in Melbourne, Australia, undertaken in order to determine people's understanding of, and attitude towards climate change as well as their actions in response to their concerns.32 It was found that people who had a clear understanding of the greenhouse effect produced as much CO2 in their households as others. Furthermore, respondents who regarded climate change as a serious issue caused only slightly lower CO2 household emissions (associated with lower electricity use) than those who did not share this concern. A significant reduction in CO2 emissions was only observed in conjunction with lifestyle changes such as the reduction of car using our and household heating. Another example is an Australian study on initiatives to promote sustainable consumption, which revealed that information and education as well as economic incentives exhibited only a low level of success in initiating changes in consumption patterns. However, the analysis of obligatory and coercive initiatives (especially those where avoidance was difficult) showed that consumers complied with the initiative program where they had no choice to act but in an environmentally responsible way.33 These findings suggest that the provision of information to the general public alone does not motivate behavioural changes. It seems that only under certain circumstances is the mere desire for an intact environment turned into corresponding action. One prerequisite for voluntary individual action was found to be the individual belief in the efficacy of pro-environmental behaviour.34 Moreover, it is argued that a sense of confusion and uncertainty arising from conflicting information from different sources35 as well as a publicly perceived mistrust in the governmental institutions providing this information36 are key obstacles for consistent action. In summary, it appears that feelings of lack of agency as well as political disaffection are the most significant inhibitors of environmentally conscious behaviour.37

- 18 –

Page 19: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Environment

Link—Regulation

Legislating away environmental problems creates scapegoats to absolve us of individual guilt for our participation in environmental ruinBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 A routine pattern in environmental lawmaking is a tendency to blame environmental problems on easily identifiable objects or entities rather than on the social and economic practices that actually produce them. n17 Once identified as the culprit of an environmental problem, this blame-holder comes to symbolize and embody the problem itself . Lawmaking then begins to resemble a re-enactment of a scapegoat ritual , in which the community's misfortunes are symbolically transferred to an entity that is then banished or slain in order to cleanse the community of its collective wrongdoing and remove the source of its adversity. The topic of scapegoating is commonly encountered in studies of racism, n18 family psychology, n19 and mass sociology, n20 but is not often associated with law and legal scholarship. Nevertheless, parallels appear to exist between the general scapegoat phenomenon and environmental lawmaking.

Environmental legislation solidifies prevailing notions of responsibility and problem solving, preventing interrogation of our individual contributions to environmental problemsBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 The passage of environmental laws, as with the creation of any legal regime of social reform, establishes new expectations and incentives and results in new patterns of behavior. Unavoidably, laws rely on and institutionalize the regnant assumptions of their period. When the engines of lawmaking produce the kind of massive legal system epitomized by environmental law, that system (with its then-prevailing wisdom) solidifies over time into a set of expectations around which subsequent legal and technological developments must adapt. The fact that regulated businesses desire consistency in the application of the law only hastens the fossilization of assumptions buried within the system's original framework. Although any number of assumptions about the nature of environmental problems could be extracted from a study of environmental law, one in particular has driven the system from the beginning: the idea that "pollution" -- the stuff billowing from the top of the smokestack -- is itself the problem on which the legislative eye should focus. Pollution is not viewed as the result of other problems; it defines -- or is -- the problem itself. Deeply ingrained in our vocabulary and world view, this idea has clearly molded American "pollution control" laws and their emphasis on treatment and disposal at the end of the pipe (that is, the point at which pollution itself becomes manifest). In turn, this emphasis reinforces the cultural view that pollution itself , rather than its deeper roots , is the evil to be eliminated by acts of legislation.

- 19 –

Page 20: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Environment

Governmental environmental control conveys the notion that corporations are solely to blame for environmental problems, creating the notion that individuals are not to blame for their degrading actions Michael P. Vandenbergh, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School, 200120 Va. Envtl. L.J. 191 "The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge." n1 The first generation of command and control environmental laws of the 1970s and 1980s achieved substantial improvements in environmental quality by focusing on the relatively small number of large, industrial polluters. Much of the low-hanging fruit among these large point sources has been picked, however, and attempts to extend command and control approaches to the sources of the remaining problems have provoked significant resistance. These remaining "second generation" sources are often not large point sources, but numerous, small, diffuse non-point sources, such as the many contributors to urban and agricultural runoff into waterbodies.Second generation sources will present a significant challenge to environmental policymakers over the next twenty years, and these sources may require radically different prescriptions from the first [*192] generation command and control requirements. The challenge will be particularly great because the American public believes a number of environmental myths that incorrectly attribute the causes of many remaining environmental problems to industrial point sources, rather than to individual behavior. n2 Although much has been written about the impact on environmental law of the mismatch between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the magnitude of risks to the environment, these myths suggest that an equally important mismatch may occur between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the sources of these risks.This essay draws on the new social norms literature to examine one of the possible reasons for the public misperceptions about the sources of the remaining environmental problems. n3 The essay suggests that one of the insights of the social norms literature, the influence of social meaning on social norms, may shed light on these misperceptions and may enrich our understanding of the difficulties encountered by efforts to control second generation sources. In particular, this essay examines two principal social meanings that appear to have been conveyed by the command and control system. The first social meaning is the conventional notion that pollution is bad. n4 This social meaning may have been conveyed directly through the prescriptions of the command and control statutes, and it may have promoted the development of social norms against pollution. These norms may in turn have facilitated the development of the command and control system. In fact, fear that this social meaning will be undermined underlies much of the criticism of emissions trading systems. n5Ironically, the command and control system also may have conveyed [*193] a second, more subtle, social meaning: "individuals" or "citizens" are distinct from "polluters ," and the former are not the source of environmental problems. Although this indirect social meaning may have further facilitated the development and implementation of the command and control system, it also may have reinforced public myths about the sources of environmental problems. As a result, this indirect meaning may have discouraged the development of social norms concerning individual responsibility, and it may be one of the factors contributing to sharp public resistance to controls on second generation sources.

- 20 –

Page 21: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Cap and Trade

Cap and Trade programs convey the message to the public that emissions are just another commodity.Michael P. Vandenbergh, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School, 200120 Va. Envtl. L.J. 191 These two approaches to the expressive function of law have been explored in the environmental area by Professor Cass Sunstein. Sunstein has noted that a principal criticism of emissions trading programs is that by commodifying environmental emissions these trading programs express the view that environmental amenities are ordinary goods. 61 Critics of emissions trading who take the more expansive, non-consequentialist approach have maintained that the expression of this view of the environment is intrinsically problematic. Critics who support the more limited approach have maintained that the commodification of environmental emissions is problematic not because of intrinsic concerns, but because the commodification will undermine social norms regarding environmental protection that exist against the backdrop of the current command and control system. 62 The more expansive views of the expressive role of law have been [*202] criticized in the recent literature, 63 but this essay does not assert an expansive, non-consequentialist role for the expressive function of the command and control system. Instead, this essay focuses on the more limited, consequentialist notion that the public can receive a message conveyed by law, whether intended or unintended, and that this message can have an impact on perceptions about the sources of a problem and on the social norms that develop in response to those perceptions. The message conveyed in this way is what I refer to as the social meaning of the command and control system.

- 21 –

Page 22: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Displacing Blame

Environmental regulation conveys the message that corporations are responsible for environmental problems, displacing blame and guilt from individuals and turning the case.Michael P. Vandenbergh, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School, 200120 Va. Envtl. L.J. 191 In sum, the structure and implementation of the command and control system may have not only condemned pollution but conveyed a second social meaning: Industrial polluters are the sources of environmental problems, and individuals are part of the solution, not part of the problem . This focus on industrial polluters may well have been the most appropriate choice from the perspective of trying to achieve the greatest initial gains in environmental protection at the least cost. The focus also may have facilitated the enactment of environmental laws by providing politicians with a politically palatable alternative and by enabling individuals to avoid cognitive dissonance. This focus also may buttress current public support for the command and control requirements that have produced substantial, measurable [*212] gains in environmental quality. As discussed below, the indirect social meaning conveyed by the command and control system also may have had an unintended consequence: It may have strengthened the barriers to achieving further improvements in environmental quality. n109B. Perceptions, Norms and Second Generation Sources Even without the expression of any social meaning by the command and control system, substantial barriers exist to regulating individual behavior. Identification and quantification of the impacts of particular second-generation sources on the environment can be extremely difficult. n110 Tailoring requirements to these multiple, diffuse sources and designing efficient enforcement programs also can be difficult. To the extent legislative and executive responses to environmental problems are facilitated by major eco-disasters with easily-identifiable villains, these responses may not occur if the problems are accretive rather than sudden and catastrophic, and the villains are millions of individuals or small businesses. If a "republican moment" was triggered by the public's response to the environmental disasters of the late 1960s and early 1970s, will the slow, largely villain-less degradation caused by second-generation sources trigger a similar moment? n111The indirect social meaning conveyed by the command and control system may have strengthened the barriers to governmental responses to second-generation problems in several ways. Although certainly not the only factor, this social meaning provided much of the context [*213] for the public myths about the causes of environmental problems. The NEETF surveys suggest that individuals believe that their behavior does not have significant environmental impacts. The indirect social meaning of the command and control system may have reinforced this perception, and the media may have perpetuated it by reporting on the toxic emissions of and major enforcement actions against industrial polluters.The indirect social meaning also may have inhibited the development of social norms against individual behaviors that contribute to environmental problems. Not surprisingly, with the possible exception of a small handful of hardcore environmentalists, social norms that reflect the role individuals play in causing second-generation problems and that stigmatize relevant behaviors are not prevalent in most communities. At this point, it is not possible to establish a causal relationship among the social meanings conveyed by the command and control system, the public misperceptions about the sources of second generation environmental problems and the absence of norms regarding individual environmental responsibility. At the same time, it is not hard to envision that the public misperceptions and the dearth of norms might not exist today if the social meaning conveyed by the first generation of environmental laws had been one of individual responsibility. In short, the indirect social meaning conveyed by the command and control system may have facilitated public myths about the role of second generation sources . This social meaning and the perceptions it facilitated in turn may have impeded the development of norms regarding individual responsibility for environmental problems. n112

- 22 –

Page 23: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Environmental Legislation

Endorsing environmental regulations allows individuals to avoid the cognitive dissonance that forces them to confront the way in which they contribute to the destruction of the environment. Michael P. Vandenbergh, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School, 200120 Va. Envtl. L.J. 191 Volumes have been written about the reasons for the enactment of the first generation of environmental laws, with some authors focused on the "politician's dilemma" faced by President Nixon and Senator Muskie, and others focused on rational choice, "republican moment" and other explanations for their enactment. n78 I cannot hope to add to that scholarship in this essay, but I do want to explore one aspect that has received insufficient attention: the selection of the targets of the environmental command and control system. Many potential targets were available to Congress when these statutes were enacted. Among the sources of contamination were large industries, small businesses, individuals, farmers, and various federal, state and local government entities. All contributed in some significant way to the environmental degradation that was the subject of these laws, yet almost no requirements were imposed on individuals, and the requirements imposed on small businesses and some government entities were minimal in many cases. n79 Instead, industrial point sources bore the [*206] brunt of the requirements imposed by the command and control laws. n80 As a result, the administrative regulations promulgated by the EPA and the state environmental agencies were almost exclusively targeted to industrial polluters. We have become so comfortable with the notion of the command and control system regulating large, industrial point sources that it is almost hard to conceive of an environmental system with a substantial focus on other sources.CONTINUES…The prescriptions of the command and control system also may have been directed principally toward industrial polluters for reasons that may be less explainable from an instrumental perspective. One potential reason is the avoidance of cognitive dissonance. n92 Cognitive dissonance is the inability to hold contradictory views of oneself at the same time. n93 For environmental law, the important aspect of this phenomenon is the difficulty for an individual to believe both "I support protection of the environment" and "I am a polluter."The second, indirect social meaning conveyed by the command and control system may have provided a means of avoiding this cognitive dissonance: industrial polluters are the source of environmental problems, and individual citizens are enforcers allied with the government to stop them. n94 Indeed, despite the role of second generation sources in producing the remaining environmental problems, many descriptions even today speak only in terms of "industrial pollution." n95 The command and control system thus allowed individuals to support environmental protection by focusing both economic costs and moral opprobrium on industrial polluters. Simply put, individuals could now say "I support protection of the environment" and "they are polluters."This second social meaning may have been conveyed indirectly by several aspects of the command and control system, including the choice of targets for regulation, the choice of targets for data collection, and the legal mechanisms provided for enforcement. Social meaning was expressed indirectly through the identification of the sources of the problem and the selection of the entities that must change their behavior. When the sources of a problem and the targets are clear, the notion that the selection of targets can convey a public meaning is an unremarkable proposition. Thus, when the law [*209] sanctions bank robbers for robbing banks, the identification of the bank robbers as the targets of its sanctions in and of itself conveys only limited social meaning. But when there are a variety of potential sources and targets, this selection of targets can convey a strong, indirect (and unintended) social meaning. The social meaning can then affect public perceptions about the sources of the problems and the social norms that influence behaviors associated with those problems.

- 23 –

Page 24: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Pollution

Focus on pollution alone prevents discussion of the way our consumer driven society requires technologies that produce waste in the first placeBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 A preoccupation with pollution qua pollution is not the only -- or most desirable -- means for achieving the aims of environmental law. Within the past decade, a devoted group of regulators, environmentalists, and businesses have championed the idea of "pollution prevention" as a new approach to environmental protection. n206 The idea behind pollution prevention is simple. Instead of concentrating on end-of-the-pipe solutions to pollution abatement, society should concentrate its energies on developing cleaner ways of producing waste-generating products . n207 In other words, environmental problems are viewed from the front end, before pollution is generated, instead of from behind, when adequate treatment may be too late, too costly, or simply impossible . n208 [*750] Despite the seeming obviousness of this idea, pollution prevention was hailed as the novel innovation in environmental policy in the late 1980s. In its twentieth annual report, the Council on Environmental Quality wrote that "the term 'pollution prevention' may well become the hallmark of environmental quality in the 1990s and beyond," n209 and similar claims were made by the Environmental Protection Agency. n210 Yet, despite its intuitive, practical, and economic attractiveness, pollution prevention remains on the outskirts of environmental law. Congress gave a brief nod to the idea in 1990 in a short and mainly hortatory measure shoehorned into that year's omnibus budget reconciliation act. n211 The EPA has also acted to implement some preventive approaches, n212 but the magnitude of its efforts pale before the agency's rhetorical devotion to the idea. n213

- 24 –

Page 25: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Vehicles

Focusing on the vehicles and their tailpipes as the origin of pollution ignores the consumptive habits that are the real cause of pollution.Bradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 Other environmental laws reveal their own manifestations of the scapegoat complex. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, Congress imposed a punishing regime of permits and effluent controls on "point sources" of pollution, but almost entirely ignored so-called "nonpoint" sources. Point sources -- pipes, ditches, and the like -- are specifically defined in the Act. 150 They are regulated by a comprehensive permit system and an ever-growing regime of technology-forcing discharge limitations. 151 Nonpoint sources are everything else that pollutes water, such as run-off from farms and city streets. 152 Although we lack the ability for precise measurement, there is general agreement that nonpoint sources currently present a greater threat, both quantitatively and toxicologically, to the nation's waters than do point sources. 153 In other words, the [*738] larger share of water pollution is ignored while the smaller share is regulated with vehemence. This is so not only because "pipe[s], ditch[es], and channel[s]" 154 presented easy targets for regulation (as the conventional wisdom holds), 155 but also because the image of pipes spewing pollution into rivers had been ingrained into our collective synapses by documentaries like Who Killed Lake Erie 156 and television footage of untreated sewage pouring into lakes. Polluting discharge pipes came to define what the public and lawmakers understood to be the main problem at hand because images of polluting pipes presented a clear picture of environmental wrongdoing. The less visible problem of nonpoint source pollution lacked the focus characteristic of point sources. By legislating only the clearly visible sources of water pollution, Congress may have satisfied a societal need to expel the perceived evils of water pollution, but lawmakers left a significant component of the total problem for another day -- one still yet to come. The Clean Air Act contains its own evidence of the scapegoating pattern. Although the Act is often cited as a prime example of regulation based on heath-related environmental conditions, 157 experience has demonstrated both a preoccupation with the entities that produce air pollution and a blind eye for the patterns of social and personal behavior that support these entities. We blame tailpipes, not transportation practices; factories, not the demand for their products. 158 In other words, the Act emphasizes the thing that pollutes -- the scapegoat entity -- over the reasons why such a thing exists in the first place . Even the much-heralded air toxics program of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, with [*739] its blacklist of nearly 200 chemicals, relies on the stubborn concept that the application of technological retrofits on exisitng entities will eventually lead us to universal, nontoxic air. 159

- 25 –

Page 26: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Discourse

The first speech of the affirmative establishes a regulation of the truth of the properly ordered and civilized world. We criticize the discursive economy produced by the text of the 1AC.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThis regulation of truth, (despite the rhetoric of "reason," that truth exists as an eternal, open to those who are simply willing and able to "discover" it), cannot be achieved without processes of coercive ordering. Humanity requires constant reminding of its asserted truthfulness. So, human sociality is [*622] repeatedly defined and confined, faithfuls rewarded and deviants punished. All aspects of humanity, therefore, become subjects for the domination of ordered truths, reached and checked through the many technologies of truth-propagation. The institutions of "vision" and "information" and their "(re)presentation" of truths, n41 institutions of "learning" and their "teaching" of truths, n42 institutions of "doing" and their "acting" upon truths, n43 all recreate the desired "order" of civil-ization. Within and through these institutions is "spoken" and "heard" what is deemed to be the "truth." Outside them, so it would be claimed, exists "untruth," superstition and propaganda.

- 26 –

Page 27: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Relieving Oppression

Ordering the NEW post-colonial world is a justification for FREEING the other, continuing violent practices of civilizationJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnAlthough historical colonialism as a formal structure of politico-legal ordering of humanity has come and gone, the violence of colonization is very much a persistent reality. A striking feature of historical world-orderings was the confidence with which the "new world" was projected upon human imagination. Colonialism was not a tentative process. The "right" of colonization, both as a right of the colonizer and as a right thing to do by the colonizer, was passionately believed and confidently asserted. Thus, for the most part, this "right" was uncontested, this confidence unchallenged. "World-order" today is similarly asserted with confidence and rectitude.Contemporary world-orderings, consistent with those of the past, are implemented using a range of civilizational legitimization. With the advent of an ideology of "humanity," a "post-colonial" concession to human dignity demanded by the previously colonized, new languages of the civilizational project had to be conceived of and projected. "Freed" from the brutalities of the order of historical colonialism, the "ordered" now are subjected to the colonizing force of the "post-colonial," and increasingly, globalization-inspired ideologies of development and security. Visible, still, is the legitimization of "order" as coercive command through the rhetoric of "order" as evolutionary structure.

The act of relieving the suffering of the third world is a narcissistic mission undertaken by the west in order to continue conquering. Future action and safety obscure past and present failures of integreationJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThe promise of "new beginnings" has been a constant feature in the rhetoric of post-colonial world-orders, for, after all, new beginnings have a certain captivating allure. "Liberation" from the old has found utterance in a myriad of slogans -- independence, peace, security, nation-building, democracy, development, prosperity -- made during Party Annual General Meetings, with launches of National Development Plans, or at the lavish settings of the United Nations and international Conferences. With the passing of the blemished age of colonialism, the powerful--national governments, the UN, the World Bank and IMF, and even those countries who individually and severally brutalized and pillaged the formerly "uncivilized"--are now willing, it would seem, to get into the act of creating the "new age" of welfare for all . New beginnings, and more new beginnings, the (once) new United Nations, n18 the (now dead) New International Economic [*609] Order, the (still-born) new "sustainable development," the (old) New World-Order, each grand promise of tomorrow ushered in, tired and haggard, but accompanied with much frenzied trumpeting.Since the demise of the colonial legitimization of the "civilizing" mission, "development" has come to express the contemporary challenge of bringing the benefits of "civilization" and human progress to the populations of the world. It is, it appears, the primary purpose of human endeavor to be collectively undertaken by all and sundry within the context of a humanity-embracing, "new," post-colonial, "world-order" -- another "new beginning ." Through many ups and downs, through many failures and too few successes, the spirit of development as a great human cause has been kept alive. Now we must do everything we can to turn that spirit into practical, visible progress for people in Africa, and people everywhere. Development is everyone's job. No more fundamental cause exists today. I believe that we stand at the start of a time of unique achievement. n19 CONTINUESAll this expression of angst and hope is, of course, nothing new. Like a social ritual played out with consistent regularity, we have become familiar with these gatherings of "developmentalists," at which they administer healthy measures of both admonishments for past failures and [*610] encouragements for future hope. And like in all rituals, processes of "remembering," which are the public face of proceedings, are accompanied by the equally important processes of "forgetting." Repeated and remembered are the "failures," the commitments to "humanity," the conditions of suffering that are deemed "intolerable," and the articulations of hope in future "action." Ignored and forgotten are the violence of the failures, the fraudulence of the commitments, the processes of inflicted suffering deemed necessary, and the articulations of despair about past actions. Still, the ritual performs a regenerative purpose. It recasts anew the project of development with all its civilizational importance and reassures its practitioners of their historic mission to "order" society.

- 27 –

Page 28: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Welfare

Provision of welfare and humanity to the suffering savage are colonizing acts undertaken in the cause of the new world orderJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThe settler's town is a strongly-built town, all made of stone and steel. It is a brightly-lit town; the streets are covered with asphalt, and the garbage cans swallow all the leavings, unseen, unknown and hardly thought about. The settler's feet are never visible, except perhaps in the sea; but there you're never close enough to see them. His feet are protected by strong shoes although the streets of his town are clean and even, with no holes or stones. The settler's town is a well-fed town, an easy-going town; its belly is always full of good things. . . . The town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town, . . . is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute. They are born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters not where, nor how. [*612] It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native town is a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing in the mire. It is a town of niggers and dirty arabs. The look that the native turns on the settler's town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreams of possession--all manner of possession: to sit at the settler's table, to sleep in the settler's bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized man is an envious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their glances meet he ascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, "They want to take our place." It is true, for there is no native who does not dream at least once a day of setting himself up in the settler's place. n25 "Security" is another bulwark of the "new world-order." This is not surprising, for "development" requires the creation of conditions that facilitate its implementation and that ensure the obedience, if not the subservience, of those to be "developed." Security, as a motive for ordering, has been a useful distraction for this purpose, as is demonstrated by its transformation from a precept of coexistence to a common cause of globalization.From its very conception, the current framework of international order, constructed through the United Nations Charter, had as its fundamental rationale the creation of conditions of security. Born out of the expressed aspirations of the Atlantic Charter n26 amid the early phases of the Second World War, the postwar UN Charter begins with words that were intended to resonate generations down the line: "We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. . . ." n27 [*613] With these visions of an order freed from the madness of states in conflict, there was created a basis for collective responsibility in the preservation of peace--the collective security regime under the supervision of the Security Council, and particularly, its "Permanent Members," as stipulated in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. n28 Many further refinements to these high ideals have since been made as the post-UN Charter world-order evolves. With the end of formal colonialism, attention was transferred in the 1960s and 1970s to the perceived importance of elaborating on principles of non-aggression and non-intervention. The 1980s and 1990s have seen a reversal of enthusiasms, however, as interest is being increasingly expressed, especially within "Western" states, for a more "collective" undertaking of responsibility in matters of security. This includes the forwarding of arguments in favor of "humanitarian intervention" in cases of "internal" conflicts. n29 These trends in the changing outlook on "security" and its relationship to "sovereignty" have continued, and have recently resulted in the formation of a permanent International Criminal Court to bring to justice perpetrators of "genocide," "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." n30 Ever so gradually, it seems, the "new world-order" is moving away from the statist pillars of sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction to a globalist notion of collective rights and responsibilities. Yet, as the following two observations on the nature of the global "security" landscape demonstrate, the realities of ordering that have flowed from reiterations of the commitment to non-violence have failed to establish a legacy of security for the majority of the global population:

- 28 –

Page 29: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Utopia / Safe World

Link – your vision of a new and safe world order violently negates the worlds that don’t conform to this utopiaJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnPerspectives on the truth of the human condition, and of its possibilities, lie at the heart of transformatory imagination. To control, if not capture, truth, therefore, is to enforce "order." This may be made clearer if we revisit the earlier discussion in Section II on the meaning of "order" as "structure."Truth, as the ground from which "humanity" springs, represents that fundamental exposition of the human condition from which all social relationships gain meaning. The notion of order as "structure" pertains precisely to this laying of the truth of humanity. "Order," in this respect, is premised on the existence of the undesired "other" condition of "disorder," from which structure is to be created. From the previous discussion on the ideologies of "development" and "security" we see this clearly. n40 The "order" of "development" is presented as the humanizing process of creating structure and movement from the truth of the undesirable "disorder" of "underdevelopment" or "poverty," the "order" of "security," from that of "insecurity" and "anarchy." These suppositions of the truths of the human condition, therefore, serve to authenticate and legitimize the constructed institutions and structures of order as part of the progressive civilizational movement out of the preceding, pre-civilizational, non-humanity. Before the "ordered" world, the argument would go, there was the word of "order;" before the Word of order, there was nothingness.Yet, this proclaimed "truth" is a lie. The "other" of civil-izational order was never, and is not, nothingness. Rather, the other of order may be seen, alternatively, as diversity. Seen in this light, the universalism of order is but the negation of diversity, to validate the "truth" of the one "order" is to invalidate the truths of diverse orders. This other truth of humanity, however, is the unspeakable of order; that which does not conform to the "civilized" vision of order, is deemed invisible, non-existent, despicable, and if nothing else, unworkable, irrelevant, unrealistic. From the violence of colonialism, through to the current orderings of the present-day "uncivilized," this negation of other orders has served to legitimize the violence perpetuated in the name of human betterment and progress.

- 29 –

Page 30: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Security

The affirmative speaks a secure world into being. The terrified scamper away from international anarchy leads us to violently structure the world to fit arbitrary conditions of security. It turns their internal links to stable hegemony because what keeping the peace MEANS changes with longitude and latitude.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity, 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnAnd with the passing of history, so has the legitimizing claim for the necessity of violent ordering for "security" purposes--fascism, colonialism, communism, capitalism (depending on the

ideological orientation of the claimant), terrorism (particularly of the Islamic bent). There is always an enemy, sometimes internal, sometimes external, threatening the well-being of the people. The languages of nationalism and sovereignty, of peace and collective security, constructed to suit whichever threat happens to be in fashion, are passionately employed ; the anarchy that is a Hobbesian state of nature is always the prophesied consequence of the lack of order that is impending . And the price that the "ordered" has to pay for all this "security" in the post-colonial, new world-order?: the freedom of those who order to be violent! From a "nationalist" standpoint, the rhetoric would insist that the security of the state is paramount, all else flowing from it . By this perspective, the state, that prize which was (re)gained from the colonial epoch, that jewel to be protected by the international order of "collective security," becomes the expression of the dignity of the "people ," no questions asked. n33 From the anti-colonial struggle, from independence, the reasoning flows naturally, it seems, that the State is to be preserved from any challenge. The police, the military, and the secret service, purportedly given sight and hearing by the eyes and the ears of "the people," are the trophies of "independence." Overnight, the term "freedom fighter" is banished from the vocabulary of the state, the notion of the "terrorist" becomes its replacement. Overnight, the revolution is

terminated, with "counter-revolution" becoming [*615] the label for any attempt to challenge the new status quo. Overnight, supposedly, the basic structures for freedom from violence are achieved--the condition of "security" that must be preserved is attained . Of course, the post-colonial state could not

construct this security alone. In the spirit of the new "co-operation," where security is a global concern, the contribution by the "international community," providing the basic instruments of and training for security, proves essential.n34 From this "internationalist," arguably

now, global, perspective, this "freedom to be violent" is a selective freedom , however. In some cases--in Turkey, Mexico, Burma, and until recently, in Indonesia, for example--the preserve of the state to "secure" its jurisdictional space is maintained , even encouraged, if not supported. In others--Kosovo and Iraq , for example--this "freedom to be violent" is denounced with the force of righteousness that automatically flows from the labeling of actions as "genocide," "crimes against humanity," "ethnic cleansing," or "holocaust." Most other cases, however, remain largely outside of global vision--Angola, Sierra Leone, Tibet, and Liberia being examples--where the sensitivities of morality are little disturbed by the apparent.

The new world of global security and co-operative peacekeeping established by the 1AC creates a new regime of international ordering that does violence unto its subjects. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity, 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, ln"Security" is another bulwark of the "new world-order." This is not surprising, for "development" requires the creation of conditions that facilitate its implementation and that ensure the obedience, if not the subservience, of those to be "developed." Security, as a motive for ordering, has been a useful distraction for this purpose, as is demonstrated by its transformation from a precept of coexistence to a common cause of globalization.From its very conception, the current framework of international order, constructed through the United Nations Charter, had as its fundamental rationale the creation of conditions of security. Born out of the expressed aspirations of the Atlantic Charter n26 amid the early phases of the Second World War, the postwar UN Charter begins with words that were intended to resonate generations down the line: "We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. . . ." n27

[*613] With these visions of an order freed from the madness of states in conflict, there was created a basis for collective responsibility in the preservation of peace--the collective security regime under the supervision of the Security Council , and particularly, its "Permanent Members," as stipulated in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. n28 Many further refinements to these high ideals have since been made as the post-UN Charter world-order evolves. With the end of formal colonialism, attention was transferred in the 1960s and 1970s to the perceived importance of elaborating on principles of non-

aggression and non-intervention. The 1980s and 1990s have seen a reversal of enthusiasms, however, as interest is being increasingly expressed, especially within "Western" states, for a more "collective" undertaking of responsibility in matters of security. This includes the forwarding of arguments in favor of "humanitarian intervention" in cases of "internal" conflicts . n29 These trends in the changing outlook on "security" and its relationship to "sovereignty" have continued, and have recently resulted in the formation of a permanent International Criminal Court to bring to justice perpetrators of "genocide," "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity ." n30 Ever so gradually, it seems, the "new world-order" is moving away from the statist pillars of sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction to a globalist notion of collective rights and responsibilities . Yet, as the following two observations on the nature of the global "security" landscape demonstrate, the realities of ordering that have flowed from reiterations of the commitment to non-violence have failed to establish a legacy of security for the majority of the global population:

- 30 –

Page 31: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink – Leadership

Leadership is a link. That the U.S. should order the world in a safe fashion is justification for civilizing the other – ordering the world as a response to conflict makes conflict inevitableJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnOrder as Coercive Command: The flip side of order as "structure" is order as "command." Viewed in this way, it is the present of the coercive process of "ordering" rather than the future of the emancipatory condition/structure of order that becomes emphasized. There is nothing "natural," "evolutionist" or "neutral" about world-order when the command of ordering is made visible. The vision of civilization as mechanical organization of the component parts of "humanity" is no longer tenable when the coercion of command to fit into this order is exposed. World-order, then, no longer describes the "order" of the world open to discovery, but rather, the "ordering" of the world open to conflict. [*606] Distinguishing these two meanings of "order" provides us with radically opposed directions of analysis and orientations for future imagings of social relations. Although the rhetoric of world-order would focus on visions of some projected "world" that provides the aspiration for collective endeavors, "order" does not come to be without necessary "ordering;" the "world" of "world-order" has not come to be without the necessary ordering of many worlds. The ordering and the ordered, the world of order and the ordered world, all are inextricable parts of the past and the present of "civil-ization."

- 31 –

Page 32: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K___________

**Link Blocks

- 32 –

Page 33: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K2NC Link Wall

1) Responsibility - who's to blame, the 1AC isolates that

2) Who’s the cure- the 1AC is framed around who will save the world. That places individuals within the state at the supreme power and relieves us from the gravity of the present. This releases us from our guilty consciences, displacing blame and focus away from ourselves, which leads to a system of countless environmental destructionBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711, Gender Paraphrased [*715] In contrast to other areas of social reform, however, environmental law presents some unique problems. While the causes of crime, poverty, and other social problems can, without too much intellectual turmoil, be attributed to individual behavior, environmental degradation appears to implicate all of us. Pollution can strike observers as the integral by-product of the relatively comfortable lifestyle enjoyed by a majority of Americans in the late twentieth century. Yet, with images of smokestacks, dying lakes, and oil-drenched otters constantly intruding on the public consciousness, we are forced to live out Pogo's dilemma: We have met the enemy, and [it] he is us. n15 Because the deep-seated causes of pollution tend to implicate us all, we feel the desire for psychological guilt release or redemption with special force. Thus, laws that externalize blame to outside forces allow us to preserve a way of life to which we have grown accustomed and one that we are reluctant to change -- the very way of life that generates pollution in the first place. Environmental laws help us escape this psychological dilemma. They establish clear lines between the perpetrators and the victims, maintaining our position safely on the side of the innocent by treating pollution not as a natural, expected outcome of industrialization, but instead as an aberration from a norm of cleanliness. Environmental laws and the social patterns they reflect raise troubling questions. If we reduce the purpose of environmental law to merely stopping end-point pollution, we inevitably discourage scrutiny of our basic habits and ways of life. With pollution being "taken care of " by the government, only the most guilt-sensitive will take action to change their own behavior , and only the most fervently committed will press for deeper changes in our systems of production and waste disposal. Unfortunately, these ardent few occupy a marginalized position in mainstream America, and as the process of environmental lawmaking marches onward -- identifying and punishing its scapegoats -- the underlying causes of pollution are rarely mentioned, let alone acted upon. n16 Thus, environmental legislation presents a striking example of how the law can legitimize an existing state of affairs while simultaneously creating the appearance of reforming it.

3) Framework- The aff demands you to be a policy maker. With this demand comes the ignorance of your place as an individual in our communities of here and now.

- 33 –

Page 34: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Corporations are to Blame

The causes of environmental destruction are individual, not industrial systemsMichael P. Vandenbergh, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School, 200120 Va. Envtl. L.J. 191 Many of the remaining environmental problems are not caused by large, industrial point sources, however. Instead, these problems are the result of numerous small, diffuse, non-point sources . For convenience, these sources are described in this essay as second generation sources, and the problems they cause are described as second generation problems. Examples of second generation problems include: urban and agricultural runoff; air pollution problems caused by emissions from numerous small businesses and from increases in the number and use of motor vehicles; increases in waste generation by individuals, and many sources of global warming gases. Examples of second generation sources include the 25,000 to 35,000 dry cleaning facilities in the United States. The EPA has concluded that their cumulative environmental impact is significant. n25 Similarly, automotive service and repair shops comprise the largest number of generators of small quantities of hazardous waste of any commercial or industrial sector. n26 The EPA estimates that 74% are not in compliance with hazardous waste requirements. n27

- 34 –

Page 35: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Link Turns / We’re Helpful

The politics of inclusion does NOTHING to solve the violence of colonialism. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnOthers among us, without the comforts of such complacencies and with the best of intentions, may seek to extend and apply the benefits of the world that we know, that is "our" truth, to those who we identify as being "excluded." The politics of inclusion then dominates our attention--inclusion of the poor in "development," inclusion of the terrorized in the framework of "security," inclusion of all those thus far marginalized into the "world." n50 The keyword for this new politics of inclusion, we often hear, is "participation." So we might struggle to bring the excluded within the fora of national, international and transnational organizations, articulate their interests and demand service to their cause. And yet, so much inclusion has done little to change the culture of violence. However sympathetic, even empathetic, we may be to the cause of the "subaltern," however sophisticated and often self-complicating our exposition of violence, one thing is difficult for us to face: when all is said and done, most of us engaged in these transformatory endeavors are far removed from the existential realities of "subaltern" [*627] suffering. For "them," what is the difference, I wonder, between the violence of new orders and that of the old, what is the difference between the new articulations of violence and those of the old, when violence itself is a continuing reality? But we push on, keeping ourselves busy. What else can we do but suggest new beginnings?

- 35 –

Page 36: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Our Intent is Good

Intent is irrelevant. Orders of the world perpetuate violence on the other. Benign intent IS our impact – we all become unaware of complicity with genocideJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnI am not suggesting that all "new beginnings" of world-order, past and present, were envisioned with cynical intent. Quite the opposite is the reason for the point I wish to make. The persistent realities of violence within "ordered" worlds are all the more glaring when we acknowledge that they arise in the name of human aspirations that were mostly articulated by progressive forces, in the wake of real struggles, to contribute to the transformation of the inequities and violence of the then existing "orders." Yet more and more talk of universal human welfare, transformed world-orders, new beginnings and the like have only given us more and more occasion to lament the resulting dashed hopes.My questioning is not of intent, or of commitment, or of the sincerity of those who advocate world-order transformations. Rather, my questionings relate to a perspective on "implications." Here, there is a very different, and more subtle, sort of globalized world-order that we need to consider--the globalization of violence, wherein human relationships become disconnected from the personal and are instead conjoined into distant and distanced chains of violence, an alienation of human and human. And by the nature of this new world-ordering, as the web of implication in relational violence is increasingly extended, so too, the vision of violence itself becomes blurred and the voice, muted. Through this implication into violence, therefore, the order(ing) of emancipatory imagination is reinforced. What we cannot see, after all, we cannot speak; what we refuse to see, we dare not speak.

- 36 –

Page 37: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K______________

**Nuclear Freeze

- 37 –

Page 38: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Nuclear Freeze

Nuclear Freeze Movement Proves our Impact: When it focused locally had unprecedented power, once shifted to global visions it died. Thomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Professor of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 175-6

Freeze leaders themselves came to place their exclusive emphasis on policy change, which movements frequently fail to achieve. To pass a freeze resolution in Congress was an enormous undertaking, one that demanded of movement leaders a narrowness of purpose and vision that was alien to most of them . Success of the congressional effort required that the freeze movement not take any positions that would be controversial. Thus, for example, congressional staffers argued at the national freeze con ference in 1983 that the movement could not take a position against cruise and Pershing II missile deployment without hurting the freeze resolution in the House that year (Waller 1987: 173—178). People like Randy Kehler were forced to turn their backs on a long history of grassroots organizing in order to concentrate on the search for support among congressional moderates.Passage of the freeze resolution was an all-consuming task and one that was doomed to achieve less than the movement organizers hoped. The effort to write freeze legislation was very much like an attempt to script your side of a conversation when you do not yet know how the other person is going to react to your opening words. In his detailed account of the battles in the House of Representatives to pass freeze legislation, Waller shows that debates on the freeze were quickly caught up in the impossible task of legislating outcomes for hypothetical negotiations. The freeze idea is simple in principle, but to put it into practice requires that a host of decisions be made concerning which weapons are to be included or excluded, whether testing and replacement of existing weapons is to be allowed, how to draw the line between improvement of existing weapons systems and the creation of new ones, and how to dovetail timing of the freeze with other arms control proposals.Because of these difficulties, the freeze resolution could never have been anything other than symbolic. But the symbol was not worth its cost: neglect of the grassroots movement and the narrowing of focus by the critical arms control community to a single proposal. Everything that the freeze movement stood for had become hostage to the wording of a congressional resolution, to the votes on a long series of amendments, and to the media interpretation of whether the convoluted language that was eventually adopted represented vindication or defeat for the Reagan administration’s foreign policy.The grassroots strength of the freeze movement suggests that change in social values might have been a more appropriate goal of the movement. To place change in social values high on the freeze movement agenda would have required a shift in emphasis away from congressional and media cam paigns in favor of the local activism that animated the movement in its ear liest stages . It is difficult to say no to individuals and organizations that offer to bankroll a statewide referendum campaign and even more difficult to say no to a Senator Kennedy who wants to introduce freeze legislation in the Senate. In fact, even if there were a will to say no, there may not have been the option to do so. The choice was available, however, for the movement to continue the grassroots educational effort while others championed its cause on the floor of the House.

- 38 –

Page 39: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KLink—Nuclear Freeze

Because Maine refused to join the global focus, it was the ONLY part of the movement that survived co-option. Thomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Professor of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 203-204The goal of this chapter is to describe and explain a case of successful freeze movement adaptation at the state level in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The case is that of Maine, where the successor organizations to the freeze campaign developed innovative and successful programs, a stable and committed membership base, and effective cooperation within and between peace organizations.Studies of movement decline have focused on various organizational factors. These include the movement’s inability to relate to day-to-day real concerns experienced by members of the public who could at least potentially support the movement (Bean 1988), having too narrow a middle-class base (Young 1984: 13), excessive concern with organizational survival in times of decline (Meyer 1990), interorganizational rivalry (see Will Hathaway and David S. Meyer, Chapter 4, this book; Robert Kleidman and Thomas R. Rochon, Chapter 3 this book), and a fixation on the policies of the national government together with a blindness to how the government may in the long term vitiate movement goals (Young 1984: 14; cf. Huberts 1989; Joseph 1993).I will argue that the peace movement in Maine in the late 1980s and early 1 990s generally avoided these pitfalls.’ I focus on the most important statewide successor organizations to the freeze campaign. These are the groups that concentrated on disarmament and economic conversion, topics most closely related to the original goals of the freeze. I did not study in depth groups concerned with less closely related issues such as Central America. However, it should be noted that people in the latter organizations often took action in the cause of disarmament or economic conversion without the knowledge of the freeze campaign and its successors (Feinstein 1993).CONTINUESThis chapter focuses on how peace movement leaders in Maine kept their organizations viable at a time when the national movement was declining and the national political climate was less favorable to mobilization. In the following pages, I focus on conscious mobilization choices by peace movement organizations. My analysis is located primarily within the resource mobilization tradition of social movement research (for example, Jenkins 1983; McCarthy and Zald 1977; cf. Oliver 1989). I contend that the peace movement in Maine succeeded in adapting to the post—Cold War environment primarily because of organizational strategies. Although the political opportunity structure in the state was not particularly favorable, movement organizations were skillful at sustaining and mobilizing their resources. Peace leaders in Maine made and then successfully implemented a number of intelligent decisions that enabled their organizations to hus band their resources, devise creative programs, and forge constructive intra- and interorganizational relationships. As a result, some organizations flourished, in particular those concerned with economic conversion. The “traditional” peace organizations that succeeded the freeze campaign, while not growing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also remained viable and adaptable.

Turn horse trading: The Freeze resolution provided political cover for nuclear buildupsThomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Professor of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, pages 204 The House did indeed pass a freeze resolution by a comfortable major ity the following year , though it was a resolution burdened by twenty-six amendments that weakened even the symbolic significance of this nonbinding legislation. The softness of freeze support in Congress was demonstrat ed just three weeks later when key Democratic supporters of the freeze res urrected funding for the MX missile, which was recognized by everyone as a qualitative step forward in nuclear armament. According to Elizabeth Drew (1983), votes for the MX were procured by administration promises of a more active arms control policy. MX opponent Les AuCoin spoke caustically to his colleagues on the floor of the House: “The President gets an MX missile, and the country gets a statement of sincerity about arms control” (Drew 1983: 69).But there was more to it than a simple trade. Congress was simply not prepared to endorse a clear shift in nuclear weapons policy. In policymaking circles, support for the freeze was largely a lever to revive the arms control process. Support for the MX, however, was an expression of deter mination to obtain arms control agreements from a position of strength. As Representative Norman Dicks (D, Washington) put it, “I’m getting identi fied as a freezie, and I’ve got to get back.” Representative Les Aspin (D, Wisconsin) even claimed to have scheduled the MX vote shortly after the freeze vote precisely in order to enable members to balance a symbol of arms control with support for new weapons development. Although move ment organizations opposed to nuclear weapons continued to grow across the country for some years, the proposal died in Washington once it had served its symbolic purpose.

- 39 –

Page 40: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KImpact—Nuclear Freeze

Turn Arm Chair Radicals: Congressional focus relieved freeze activists of their own responsibility in nuclear violence - caused the downfallThomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Prof of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 169-170In sum, there is a clear tension between the congressional and electoral strategies of the freeze, which were designed to influence policy, and the goal of social change, which is the product of millions of conversations in schools, offices, and living rooms. When a state referendum drive becomes a direct mail and mass media campaign rather than an excuse to knock on doors, then the social change potential of the freeze is diminished even as the prospect of passing the referendum goes up. Movement scholars have pointed out that ballot initiatives ask for little sacrifice from supporters and so have distinct advantages as a means of mobilizing weak support (Ennis and Schreuer 1987). This is true, but the down side is that media campaigns for ballot initiatives do little to inculcate the altered social values associated with generating strong support for a movement.Some peace groups that made social change their first priority followed strategies involving much more attention to local action than did the freeze . Ground Zero, an organization dedicated to grassroots action, sponsored a nationwide week of teach-ins, discussion groups, art displays, and other local events in April 1980. Ground Zero’s founder, Roger Molander, believes that “it was the [freeze] movement’s failure to understand the role of education in movement development, not political naiveté or a lack of sufficient political base, that was the overriding cause of its failures and decline” (Molander and Molander 1990). Pam Solo, a dissident tactician within the freeze movement , also believes that “keeping education separate from strategy was like giving the movement a lobotomy” (Meyer 1990:191). By focusing on its congressional strategy, the freeze campaign neglected the social change potential of local action. The most eloquent testimony to this neglect of local action comes from an activist in New York, who sent a plaintive message to the St. Louis office: “Just please let’s have a simple, clear task for all of us to work on. . . . The five-hour-a-week volunteers want to know how to spend that time most effectively” (Solo 1988: 139).

Turn supporting local activism to the global freeze squandered the greatest reserve of activist capital in historyThomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Professor of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 176An upsurge of public interest and activism such as that displayed on behalf of the nuclear freeze between 1981 and 1984 can be a powerful tool in the hands of a movement. The freeze movement chose to use its mobi lization capacity to organize referenda and to work on election campaigns. These efforts led to impressive results in the 1982 elections and were instrumental in the passage of a freeze resolution in the House of Representatives in 1983. But, by November 1984 the possibilities of elec toral action were exhausted . The focus of the movement narrowed to the halls of Congress, and the grassroots of the movement were reduced to a fund-raising mechanism.At the height of the freeze movement mobilization, George Kennan (1982: 201) wrote, “The public discussion of the problems presented by nuclear weaponry which is now taking place in this country is going to go down in history… as the most significant that any democratic society has ever engaged in.” By failing to see this surge in public discussion as the truly significant aspect of the freeze movement, strategists of the movement allowed Kennan’s vision to remain unfulfilled.

- 40 –

Page 41: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KImpact—Nuclear Freeze

As a result, the freeze was a total failureThomas Rochon, vice president for academic affairs @ U. St. Thomas, and David S Meyer, Associate Prof of Sociology and Political Science @ UC Irvine, 1997, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 163-164Despite these accomplishments, the freeze movement is most often characterized as a failure (Solo 1988; McCrea and Markie 1989). Its strate gy of developing mass support and then working through Congress to pass freeze legislation has been dubbed a disaster. Critics point to the fact that the 1984 elections returned President Ronald Reagan in a landslide, despite the mobilizing efforts of the freeze. The freeze resolution passed in the House of Representatives in 1983 proved to be a symbolic gesture with no direct impact on policy. The freeze proposal itself was raised briefly by Soviet negotiators at the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) in 1982, but was quickly dropped and never received serious consideration. Finally, critics point to the rapid collapse of the movement after the 1984 elections. In 1987 the much-reduced national staff of the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign (NWFC) merged with the longer established antinuclear organi zation SANE . As Jeffrey W. Knopf points out in Chapter 7 of this book, the freeze movement articulated public concerns about the hard-line approach to arms control taken by the early Reagan administration, an approach that was later modified. Yet the activities of the freeze itself had only a tempo rary impact on the arms control policy process and none on arms control policy. Despite the massive support gained during its moment in the sun, the freeze was a failure .

- 41 –

Page 42: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K________

**Impacts

- 42 –

Page 43: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KTurns Case

The kritik turns the case – shifting blame to others and responsibility to the state is perceived as redemption for individual guilt. Individual participation in environmental degradation will continue unchecked because government has “dealt with” the problem and we refuse to change ourselves. Star this card it will win us the debate.Bradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 The first aspect of the legitimizing effect of environmental law centers on guilt , shame, and forgiveness, subjects that have engaged human thought for millennia. n190 How are these subjects pertinent to [*745] environmental law? To state the case plainly, the enactment of environmental laws can be viewed as ritualistic acts of redemption for the collective guilt of a society ashamed of its polluting ways. To be sure, the laws are intended to address real problems with the legal tools at hand. But on another level, environmental law functions to absolve a culture at odds with its own conception of itself. Fleshing out this idea requires discussion of two basic premises: (1) the existence of "guilt" for environmental problems and (2) the suggestion that passage of environmental laws can function to expiate such guilt, much like the scapegoat rituals discussed above. n191 CONTINUESBy way of illustration, suppose a version of the "garbage-crisis" story plays on the evening news. Even if the story involves other people's [*746] garbage (recall the travails of the "garbage barge"), n195 the observer may find it difficult to escape the central message that gives the story its emotive power -- we all create waste, and as a nation we do so in prodigious quantities. The irrefutable fact of personal waste production (we all take out the garbage and flush) situates the observer among the perpetrators of the problem and not just among its victims. The feelings of guilt thereby created may exist at low frequencies, but they exist nonetheless. Witness the booming popularity of recycling programs. n196 By taking part in these programs, one does the environmentally "right thing ," regardless of the particular program's ultimate effectiveness. Participation in recycling activities may be motivated as much by the desire to ease a troubled conscience as by an individual commitment to abstract principles of waste reduction. In addition, sixty percent of Americans identify themselves as "environmentalists," and another thirty percent lean in that direction. n197 At various times, polls indicate that people rank environmental issues at or near the top of the list of problems facing the country. n198 Yet conforming one's personal behavior to an espoused concern for environmental quality takes the kind of energy, time, and diligence that few people can consistently muster. Alternatives to this guilt-producing predicament hold little appeal. They include: cynically denying either that environmental problems exist or that personal action matters; engaging in various forms of Ludditism; or resigning oneself to some degree of personal hypocrisy. Environmental guilt -- endemic in some people, negligible or absent in others -- seems an inevitable consequence of enjoying the benefits of life in an industrialized nation that simultaneously has an insatiable appetite for crisis-driven environmental journalism. n199 Questions of guilt lead to matters of atonement. "The real question ," one author writes, "is not how one gets into guilt but how one gets out of [*747] it." n200 According to psychologists, theologians, and the voice of common experience, feelings of guilt engender a desire for forgiveness. n201 This desire for absolution lies at the core of many religions. Rituals of guilt redemption -- however counterfeit they might appear to nonbelievers -- are vital to the devout. n202 But in a religiously heterogeneous society like the United States, there can be little hope for consensus about which religious ceremonies carry the true powers of redemption. n203 What we do share, however, is a common faith in the power of law . One might argue that the legalistic character of American society fills the vacuum created by the lack of common religious values. Law thus becomes our secular religion, having its own sacred texts and its own priesthood -- whether they wear the robes of judicial power, fill the seats of Congress, or occupy the Presidency. n204 [*748] Without commonly accepted religious Continues…

- 43 –

Page 44: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KTurns Case

Continued…ceremonies to expiate guilt, Americans turn instead to the sanctifying rituals of lawmaking. The ritualistic elements of legislative action are difficult to dismiss. In environmental law, we have our own sacred clerics, scapegoats, and rites of redemption, even though they inhabit the seemingly a sectarian world of law and politics. Indeed, the inherent spiritualism associated with nature provides a special religiosity to environmental lawmaking, as twenty-five years of incantatory rhetoric from the mouths of our leaders amply prove. n205 Unfortunately, when society retrofits the simple calculus of blame, sacrifice, and redemption to resolve complex social problems, it leaves a legacy of legislative overbuilding and conceptual chaos -- precisely the condition of environmental law today. The enactment of environmental laws also includes a less virtuous tendency to return with one hand what is taken away by the other . We wish to exorcise our demons, but still retain the pleasures of their company. A law that strikes at the external manifestations of an environmental problem satisfies the common desire for identifying and banishing the guilty. On a personal level, however, no one wants her own habits exposed to the same harsh light. By acting with righteous vehemence against the visible end-products of pollution, we avoid asking harder questions about global resource allocation and the sustainability of existing industrial, agricultural, and personal patterns of behavior. Enactment of environmental laws not only releases us from guilt -- or the state of being "part of the problem" -- but also enables us to avoid scrutinizing deeper patterns that implicate our personal habits and appetites. Few would like to admit that these habits, and not simply the immediate targets of environmental law, create the very problems the law appears to address. In this manner, laws aimed at curtailing pollution can ultimately create barriers to lasting reform by legitimizing the more deeply rooted causes of pollution that the very process of lawmaking has exonerated from blame. Except for the environmental scapegoats -- duly shamed and punished -- the rest of society is liberated, free to pursue its old ways without fear of reprisal.

- 44 –

Page 45: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KTurns Case

It turns the case – not only do environmental regulations become too complicated to enforce, they shift public thought and discussion away from the individual causes of environmental harm, because the government is “taking care” of the problemBradley C. Bobertz, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law, 199573 Tex. L. Rev. 711 The phenomenon of environmental scapegoating helps to foster the massiveness, disorganization, and incomprehensibility that plague environmental law. n176 When lawmakers react to a social problem by enacting legislation that hinges on a distorted picture of reality, a legal regime that lacks appropriate formative principles is an unsurprising result. Moreover, a law that depends on false diagnoses will grow in complexity as its legal [*742] suppositions come into increasing conflict with the facts. n177 As a coping strategy, lawmakers opt to adjust (and complicate) legislative programs only enough to accommodate the current problematic factors instead of starting fresh with new models that conform more accurately to the true problem. n178 The Clean Air Act's "nonattainment program" (a euphemistic name for a failing system) provides a good example. Its length and complexity increased geometrically between its initial enactment in the mid-course correction amendments of 1977 and its second, monstrously intricate iteration in the 1990 amendments. n179 Explaining the nonattainment provisions and other aspects of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to lawyers ordinarily accustomed to reading and understanding statutory law continues to provide lucrative business opportunities for continuing legal educators. n180 Overcomplexity in the law by itself imposes costs on society. Initially, regulated entities must add to their ordinary cost of compliance the cost of simply understanding what the law requires them to do. Complicated laws also increase the likelihood of noncompliance, n181 undermining the attainment of environmental goals and creating pressures for extending [*743] deadlines and raising permissible emission levels -- a pattern endemic in environmental law. n182 Even more troubling is the fact that unnecessary legal complexity deprives society at large of a common, comprehensible vocabulary for debating environmental policy. A system of democratic rule implies discourse not only among a select group of experts, but also among the voting public. Environmental law has swollen into a fortress of specialized concepts and jargon practically impregnable to ordinarily informed and aware citizens . n183 Creating barriers to public understanding of, and involvement in, environmental law frustrates the theoretical virtues of democratic self-rule and also engenders a problem of more practical import -- a spirit of confusion and anger that characterizes most public encounters with environmental problems and the laws erected to correct them. n184 Such encounters typically result in resignation and apathy toward the law, qualities that impoverish any legal system directed toward social reform. n185

Ultimately, the legacy of environmental scapegoating may be the paradox of legitimizing polluting activities while simultaneously appearing to curtail them . The legitimizing effect of environmental lawmaking involves two factors that will be discussed in detail in separate sections below. The first section notes that environmental legislation does not merely punish the blameworthy; it exonerates the "innocent ." Upon the conviction of one suspect, the others are set free . Thus, the appearance of positive action in Washington (or the state capitol) creates the impression that a problem has been solved and repairs the perceived break in the social order that had given the law its initial momentum. The second section [*744] observes that enacting any social reform legislation, including environmental laws, n186 creates new expectations and patterns of behavior that harden with time into societal structures that, however flawed, prove nearly impossible to alter . Today's innovative solutions can become tomorrow's institutionalized nightmares , n187 a pattern from which environmental law enjoys no immunity.

- 45 –

Page 46: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KImpact – Invisible Violence

The affirmative ordering of the world is defined by the “scenarios” in their Washington Times and Khalilzad evidence. The 23 million deaths in unimportant situations don’t impact their vision of security. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThe period since 1945 may be regarded as a long peace only in the restricted sense that there has been no war between major powers. In other respects, and for much of the world, it has been a period of frequent wars. . . . By one estimate, between 1945 and 1989 there were 138 wars, resulting in some 23 million deaths. . . . All 138 wars were fought in the Third World, and many were fuelled by weapons provided by the two major powers [the United States and the Soviet Union] or their allies. n31The twentieth-century is a period of history which, in the words of anthropologist Marvin Harris, has seen "a war to end all wars followed by a war to make the world safe for [*614] democracy, followed by a world full of military dictatorships." We were then promised a New World-order as the reward for agreeing to the Gulf War, as the end of the Cold War gave way to a seemingly endless series of intra-state wars which the international community is unwilling or unable to bring to order. n32 Once again, from the perspective of the ordered, the order of security has proved to be the ideological weapon for the systematic infliction of violence. It is not so much the order of security that is of interest here, but rather, the ordering which takes place in its guise.

- 46 –

Page 47: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KImpact—Agency

Loss of our relationship with our personal agency is an impact of the highest order. Surrender of our individual capacity to change the world reduces us to serviceable instruments of the state which authorizes war and genocide. BERES, Professor of International Law @ Purdue University, 1994 (Louis Rene, , 11 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 1, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, SELF-DETERMINATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SURVIVAL ON PLANET EARTH)The State requires its members to be serviceable instruments, suppressing every glimmer of creativity and imagination in the interest of a plastic mediocrity. Even political liberty within particular States does nothing to encourage opposition to war or to genocide in other States. Since "patriotic self-sacrifice" is demanded even of "free" peoples, the expectations of inter-State competition may include war and the mass killing of other peoples. In the final analysis, war and genocide are made possible by the surrender of Self to the State. Given that the claims of international law 35 are rendered [*14] impotent by Realpolitik, this commitment to so-called power politics is itself an expression of control by the herd. Without such control, individuals could discover authentic bases of personal value inside themselves, depriving the State of its capacity to make corpses of others. The herd controls not through the vulgar fingers of politics but by the more subtle hands of Society. Living without any perceptible rewards for inner direction, most people have discovered the meaning of all their activity in what they seek to exchange for pleasure. Hence, meaning is absorbed into the universal exchange medium, money, and anything that enlarges this medium is treated as good. According to this model, finality of life is not, as Miguel de Unamuno wrote, "to make oneself a soul," 36 but rather to justify one's "success" to the herd. Instead of seeking to structure what Simone Weil, who was strongly influenced by Unamuno, calls "an architecture within the soul," we build life upon the foundations of death. Thus does humankind nurture great misfortune.

- 47 –

Page 48: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K_____________

**Impact Blocks

- 48 –

Page 49: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: We Solve Violence

Your response to violence in the third world engages in the double standards that are inevitable in any ordering of the world. You create an economy of violence with relevant exchange rates.Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnOf course, the post-colonial state could not construct this security alone. In the spirit of the new "co-operation," where security is a global concern, the contribution by the "international community," providing the basic instruments of and training for security, proves essential. n34 From this "internationalist," arguably now, global, perspective, this "freedom to be violent" is a selective freedom, however. In some cases--in Turkey, Mexico, Burma, and until recently, in Indonesia, for example--the preserve of the state to "secure" its jurisdictional space is maintained, even encouraged, if not supported. In others--Kosovo and Iraq, for example--this "freedom to be violent" is denounced with the force of righteousness that automatically flows from the labeling of actions as "genocide," "crimes against humanity," "ethnic cleansing," or "holocaust." Most other cases, however, remain largely outside of global vision--Angola, Sierra Leone, Tibet, and Liberia being examples--where the sensitivities of morality are little disturbed by the apparent inconsequentiality of the deaths, pain and fear, the insecurity, of those sectors of humanity. Why this discrepancy in the international community's moral judgment on violence and "insecurity"? It may be that no "development" stakes presently exist for the international community with regard to the fate of these nameless, faceless wretches; they are so deemed unworthy of a starring role in the real-life dramas of prime-time television.Media hype and its feeding of the fixation of the arm-chair audience who are the ratings-figures that inform the corporate media of "newsworthiness" notwithstanding, the reality of insecurity is that it is a localized experience. No amount of editorial juxtapositioning of "shots" of suffering is able to capture fear and pain. "Insecurity" is beyond "order;" it either exists as an experiential reality or it does not. And where it does exist, it exists as a result of relationships of violence. Issues of complicity here warrant little air-time. Less compelling are revelations that distant suffering is not often the result of depravities "out there," but rather, the outcome of "securities" enforced on [*616] "our" behalf. In this respect, I wonder for whom projections of order are (re)articulated at timely intervals. Is it for the secure who need reassurance to dissuade the suspicions within their conscience, or for the insecure whose very bodies and minds are the material "subjects" and objects of the very real effects of the ordering that is violence?Of course, in the interests of "fairness," we must begin by giving the benefit of the doubt to the assumption that it is for the victims of insecurity that the orders of security should occupy our minds. I have one simple difficulty with this, however: the after-the-event rhetoric of "security" is no security. Security is not an anticipation of the future, it is a state of being in the present. I anticipate a counter-argument: "We must engage in projections of orders of security to avoid the 'mistakes' of the past, to ensure that this (whatever the 'this' is that is historically relevant and topical) barbarism never happens again." Perhaps this is a valid argument, but again, the worrying genre of "new beginning"-talk may be detected. And new beginnings have a way of (re)appearing and disappearing, of being remembered and forgotten. Never has this been so blatantly exposed as in the "barbaric" events that unfolded in 1999. Kosovo and East Timor provide us with the bloody realities of both dimensions of the rhetoric of order in relation to human (in)security as the next millennium is contemplated.

Benign world–ordering is violent and colonialistJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThe discussion above was intended to provide a perspective of world-order as an historical process of ordering which, contrary to the benign symbolism of universalism evoked by notions such as "one world" and "global village," is constructed out of the violent destruction of diverse socialities. World-order, when re-viewed, therefore, may be understood as follows:. As a concept that seeks to articulate the civilizational project of humanity, it is at best nonsense, and at worst a fraudulent ideology of legitimization for the perpetuation of colonizing violence--"world-order" as symbolic violence.. As a material reality of violent social relations, it is a conscious and systematized design for the control of resources through the disciplining of minds and bodies--"world-order" as embodied violence.

- 49 –

Page 50: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: We Solve Violence

Regulating violent state action is part of a disciplinary economy of world order – the affirmative views suffering as a commodityJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnIn my identification of what may be regarded as the technologies of ordering, I have consciously omitted sustained discussion of one--the regulation of regulation. Regulation, as the coercive agent of ordering, means to be "included," kicking and screaming, into the global market-place, to engage in "free-trade" and be subject to the decisions of the WTO, to be persuaded of the necessary good of the Multilateral Agreement of Investment, to be "assisted" by the prescriptions of the "experts" of the World Bank and the IMF, to be good "subject-citizens" and be willing (or unwilling--it does not really matter) objects of "security"-related surveillance, to be modernized, trained, moved, developed. Regulation, then, is for the "critic" an obvious focus of analysis. My omission of any further discussion of the violence of the regulation of regulation, therefore, is not because I consider it unimportant, but rather, because this is the aspect of world (mis)ordering which has already been the subject of much sophisticated discussion. n39 For the purposes [*621] of the present discussion, I take it as a given that we stand informed by the effective repudiations of much of contemporary regulatory endeavors aimed at the coercive "integration" of human sociality into a universalizing and violent "order" of destructive globalization. Having said this, I wish instead to invite reflection on what is perhaps less often the focus of critiques of "ordering."

- 50 –

Page 51: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K___________

**Alternatives

- 51 –

Page 52: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K2NC Alternative Extension

Changing the symptom does nothing - we must change the social practices that give rise to it - the aff criminalizes the symptom while it spreads the diseaseRBJ Walker, Prof of I.R. @ Keele U., One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace, 1988, p 142-144To rethink the meaning of security, or development, or democracy is to enter upon very difficult conceptual terrain. It is to move from what is to what might be. It is to strain at the limits of prevailing categories and to wrench enormously influential concepts out of their present contexts. The most familiar concepts of security refer to the presumed “interests” of states. If we listen to critical social movements, it becomes clear that what ever security could possibly mean in the future, it must refer to the security of people. A people’s security must necessarily move beyond familiar con cerns about warfare and military policy. It must be grounded in a reconstruction of the way violence and vulnerability enter into social practices of all kinds. It must be able to address concerns usually framed under the concept of development.CONTINUESWhether rethinking security, development, or democracy, there is a similar pattern. Problems are posed as questions of policy. Mainstream political forces attempt to answer these questions of policy, and they do so on the presumption that existing institutions and authorities are sufficient both to formulate answers and to put them into effect. Critical social move ments , however, are driven to move from specific problems to the demand for structural transformation. And they move from received images of the way structural transformation is to be attained—the images of political revo lution as the taking of state power , the positing of grand utopian schemes to be brought down to earth—to a rethinking of the possible character of so cial and political transformation itself . To protest about bombs and poverty, violence and brutality, militarization and maldevelopment, is to confront the need to rethink the way people live together and act toward each other . The practices of critical social movements are necessarily directed not only to attempts to bring about better policies, of the kind usually prescribed by politicians and leaders of state, but toward a rethinking of political life in general.CONTINUES There are undoubtedly many people, including many who are active in social movements, who would be happy enough to see some particularly noxious symptoms brought under control. This is certainly understandable. But the real force of the message coming from so many movements is that the control of symptoms cannot be enough . Indeed, movements recognize that attempts to treat symptoms alone have often turned into one more legiti mation of the underlying processes that create problems in the first place . The unhappy experience of so many foreign-aid programs is perhaps indica tive in this respect. CONTINUESActing in particular situations, critical social movements are able to gen erate new ways of thinking about what it means to express solidarity with others, to share a common destiny as human beings. Their practices express new ways of knowing how to be both singular and many. From this perspective, it is clear that a just world peace cannot be a singular condition, some thing that can be specified in a way that is applicable to all societies at all times . A just world peace may be a universal aspiration. But no one can claim a monopoly on what it may come to be. Nor is it a static condition, an architectural procedure. It is an ongoing process, a continuous struggle. It is possible to act in a world of peace and justice—not in some distant future— but here, and now.

- 52 –

Page 53: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAlternative—Emancipation

Theorizing emancipation defers communal emancipation. Thinking of world as distant from ourselves, divorced from our lives is how we allow complicity with violence. If we were to let our guards down, and to immerse ourselves in the experience we profess to care about, we would have a better basis from which to confront them. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnYou see, I do feel wonder. I wonder at the immense industry of intellectuals and at their incredible capacity for knowledge. Yet I wonder. I wonder whether for all this accumulated knowledge contained in the uniform currency of the intellectual business enterprise, any step closer is made toward the realization of a less violent reality. It is not that my wonderment and my wondering are not connected in any way. For in so much of the recent works of intellectual theorizations the grounded work of emancipatory politics is emphasized. No longer, it seems, are the promises of far-away tomorrows legitimate, the search now is for peoples everyday and localized commonsense. I wonder at the theoretical elegance of these new proposals. But something, however, does not feel quite right. Despite its many qualities something feels so totally lacking. I feel this something is touch; for all their intellectual appeal, there is no joy, nor pain, no living , which touches me in these attempts to theorize emancipation .Am I wrong to wonder in this way? Is it wrong that I wonder who it is that these "epistemic transitions"--the intellectual version of what can simply be described as a change in our understanding of the world--are said to affect? Who is the "audience" to whom this call for an emancipatory common sense is directed? The intellectual merit of what is being done cannot be faulted; intellectually, there is much to praise about the challenges that have been identified in order that a less violent reality may be worked for. But I wonder if all this is a little too convenient. I wonder if these theorizations, when the jargon and the complexities of language are removed, say much more than [*631] what has already been said in so many different tongues, as the articulation of common sense.Returning to this question of a change in our understanding of the world, I wonder if here lies the issue: what change to whose understanding of the world?Why do I feel this insecurity? Why do I find myself constantly in this spiral of seeking direction, perhaps even, sometimes, solace, from the vast "treasures" of "scholarly" expositions? Is it because I am afraid to shift my eyes from the "book" to the world? Is it because I am afraid to see?I wonder if the searching for comfort in the mind relieves what is already known. When we speak of a change in our understanding of the world, this heralded "epistemic transition" that is supposed to be the hallmark of "post-modern knowledge," what we are really talking about is the way in which we who are afraid to accept our own responsibility for the many expressions of violence in the world, although we know it, seek to find a means of making sense, from a distance, of violence, of madness. By changing the way in which we understand the world intellectually therefore we postpone again that time when pain and joy are allowed to filter into our hearts in lived emancipation, with all their messy repercussions. Instead we remain largely untouched within this realm of theorized emancipation.It is not easy however to keep our distance. It requires a lot of effort in order to not see and feel. We have to keep ourselves constantly busy.This spiral of constant reinterpretations of violence through so many theories becomes almost an anaesthetic. When I plunder through my "readings," as I search for further articulations of "good ideas," with my daily musings over "theoretical frameworks," as I keep myself busy, I am diverted from asking why--what is this all for? I know that if I stop, if I have a moment or two for reflection, if I deny myself the distractions of "good ideas," that question re-emerges; in our quiet moments, if we allow ourselves quiet moments, we cannot hide from ourselves. If we take away the numbing comfort and security of our professional reason for being, we are faced with the disconcerting uncertainties of our responsibility in being. This is not easy. Yet, perhaps, it is only when we are pulled in every Continues…

- 53 –

Page 54: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAlternative—Emancipation

Continued…direction with doubt, conviction, pain and joy, that we are able to share in the emancipatory wisdom of humanity that has been the lived life of generations before us and of generations to come. Life then ceases to be a problem to be solved. Rather it reveals itself as a journey to be traveled, and travailed. In all wonder, I take my first tentative steps.And the directions for these steps must always be the subject of personal and collective judgment, nurtured through conversation rather than orders, relationships rather than orderings, in located worlds rather than in the abstracted "world," in living rather than in acting.

- 54 –

Page 55: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K________________

**Alternative Blocks

- 55 –

Page 56: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local”

1. Intrinsicness- The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s violent framing and violence of their plan, not to recognize anything. This is a voting issue because they can shift to avoid any negative offense. Permutations are potentially damning arguments, which means that the time we have to spend on these arguments causes irreparable skews elsewhere in the debate. They also alter the new links and impacts we can read, because we don’t know in advance whether you’ll rule them theoretically legitimate or not.

2. The permutation still links. Extend our 1NC Nayar alternative evidence that says that we must deny ourselves the anesthetic of good ideas to recognize our own complicity.

3. The Perm is co-option. Turning even the most localized resistance towards a global view encloses activism. It appropriates our critical distancing as a way to strengthen their order of the world, further legitimizing violence. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThere are now, on one level, high degrees of "professionalization" and "globalization" of "social activism." At this level, social activism becomes a career choice with "international" possibilities, for which salaries, job specifications, and promotions become considerations for "satisfaction." Besides the satisfaction of the "job" of "activism" that is done, other necessities of institutional location and aspiration increasingly gain in importance--funds acquired and funds expended become important performance indicators alongside the substantive impact of the projects undertaken, "research" papers written, conferences organized and attended, "networks" established--all become essential measures of the "job" well-done alongside the actual transformations of social relations engendered. n47 The [*624] bottom-line concern of the career researcher/activist is and, in fact, must be, that the career represents a livelihood activity, n48 this without undermining the "activist's" own spiritual commitment to the aims of the job. In this respect, the "career" of social research/activism, like the institutions and corporations that so often represent the objectionable focus of activist activities, is enmeshed within the totality of the ordered "world," itself, impliedly, a component part of the ordered, order(ing), globalized world.The mutuality of "professional" sensibilities between the "criticized" and the "critic" brings with it a considerable degree of closure. Primary among the consequences of this familiarity and, therefore, similarity between the "professional" location of both, is that emancipatory imagination is contained within the same aspirational "languages" that are commonly understood. Through this closure of language and , therefore, imagination, emancipation itself becomes absorbed into an enclosed conceptual space for articulation. The standpoint of the same rhetorical devices of civilizational projections become the tools for entitlement claims. Put differently, what we might see as direction for emancipation is itself "ordered" by our own conceptual frameworks that we derive from ourselves as subjects and objects of ordering.Thus, just as the aspirations of most anti-colonial elite leaderships were infused with the colonizer's visions of human progress--the languages of "statehood," of "modernization," of "institution building, and the like--so too now the languages of the elites of "civil society" reflect the terrain as demarcated by contemporary world-orderists. Development, democracy, human rights, NGO "networks," even "education" and "law," are all contemporary slogans that are repeated in the hope of a progressive civilizational movement toward human emancipation. And Continues…

- 56 –

Page 57: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local”

Continued…increasingly, these "transnational," even "global," languages of human emancipation are formulated and articulated within professional sites of resistance and activism that stand as mirrors of ordering institutions; for the government committee there are the NGO forums, for the ministerial conference there is the "alternative" conference of civil society delegates, for the business/corporate coalition with government there are the similar NGO partnerships. The play of critique and legitimization, of compromise and cooperation, of review and reformulation, is thereby enabled, taking on a [*625] momentum and a rationale of its own, becoming an activity of grand proportions where the activity itself becomes a reason for, and object of perpetuation. To be outside of these circles of "communication" is deemed to be without "voice," which is for the critic, an unacceptable silencing. To be inside these circles, however, entails a constant torment of co-option, betrayal and appropriation of voice.The power of world-ordering to self-sustain, I suggest, lies precisely in this, its ability to order the "voices" and the "voicing" of dissent. From this perspective, the fact of dissent or critique is not, in itself, the significant indicator of resistance that we might consider it to be. The point, I argue, is not that dissent is registered, but rather, how, where and in what form that dissent is expressed. Voices of dissent that are absorbed into the channels of voicing as provided by the structures of order, in my view, have themselves been ordered. Rather than providing energies for imagination, they are drained of them, sustaining instead the orders against which they purport to stand. In the struggle to find a voice we, therefore, comply with the orders of voicing; the best of times being when our voice is "heard," tolerated, sometimes even congratulated and rewarded, the worst of times being when it is appropriated and transformed into further legitimizations of violence, and most commonly, when it is simply ignored. To sustain "us," therefore, self-referential communities of voice are founded, established and propagated, quoting back and forth the same voices, repetition being equated with significance and impact. While we keep busy being heard, "achieving" lots by way of giving volume to (our) voice, little is changed in the order-ing of worlds. How much of the continuing violence within the misorderings of the world has followed from this experience?

The permutation is severance. They only way they could logically permute our criticism is to sever the representations of the 1AC.

a) Moving Target- allows them to shift out of our offense mid-round, which is unpredictable and infinitely regressive.

b) Performative contradiction- puts them on both sides of the debate advocating global and local action, which forces us to debate ourselves.

That’s a voting issue for fairness and ground.

- 57 –

Page 58: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local”

Global thinking kills solidarity. When we “Think Global” and “ Act Local” we forget our corner of the world. It presupposes that the local is ineffective in front of the global goliath which separates us from the only world in which we live- our communities. Gustavo Esteva, de-professionalized intellectual and non-partisan political activist a.k.a. bad ass, and, Madhu Suri Prakash, Prof and in charge of the Educational Theory and Policy program @ Penn State also a total pimp, 1997, Post Development Reader, edited by Majid Rahnema p. 277-78‘Think globally, act locally’: the slogan supposedly formulated by Rena Dubos some decades ago is not only a popular bumper sticker today; it increasingly captures the moral imagination of millions of people across the globe. Several ‘certainties’ support this slogan’s moral injunction: first, the modern age forces everyone to live today in a global village; second, there fore , across the globe, people face shared predicaments and common enemies, like Cargill, Coca Cola, the World Bank and other transnational corporations, as well as oppressive nation-states; third, only a clear awareness of the global nature of such problems could help forge the coalitions of ‘human solidarity’ and ‘global consciousness’ needed for struggling successfully against these all-pervasive global enemies; fourth, this global consciousness includes the recog nition that every decent human being must be morally committed to the active global defense of ‘basic needs’ or universal human rights (schooling, health, nutrition, housing, livelihood, etc.) and human freedoms (from torture, oppression, etc.).The slogan simultaneously rejects the illusion of engaging in global action . This is not mere realism: ordinary people lack the centralized power required for ‘global action’. It is a warning against the arrogance, the far-fetched and dangerous fantasy of ‘acting globally’. It urges respect for the limits of ‘local action’. It resists the Promethean lust to be godlike — omnipresent. By clearly defining the limits of intelligent, sensible action, it encourages decentralized, communal power. To make ‘a difference’, actions should not be grandiosely global but humbly local.Our paper attempts to extend the valuable insights contained in the second part of the slogan to the first part. We urge the replacement of ‘global thinking’ with ‘local thinking’. We begin by presenting a synopsis of Wendell Berry’s well worked—out argument, warning not only against the dangerous arrogance of ‘global thinkers’, but also of the human impossibility of this form of thought.1 From there, we attempt to debunk the other ‘certainties’ that today pressure millions of modern, developed ‘global citizens’ into believing that they have the moral obligation to engage in global thinking.Contemporary globalists also uphold the ‘certainties’ that disparage their injunction ‘think locally’. The latter centers around another modern illusion: that local thinking must necessarily be not only ineffective in front of the global Goliath, but also parochial, taking [hu]mankind back to the Dark Ages when each was taught only to look after his/her own, and ‘the devil take the hindmost’. In rejecting these charges, we will try to show both the parochial ism of ‘global thinking’ and the open nature of ‘local thinking’. The modern ‘gaze’ can distinguish less and less between reality and the image broadcast on the television screen.2

To fit the Earth conveniently into the modern mind, the latter has shrunk it to a little blue bauble, a mere Christmas-tree ornament; and invited modern men and women to forget how immense, grand, unknown and mysterious it is, warns Wendell Berry. If we forget this, we succumb to the arrogance of thinking that we can also overcome the limits of human intelligence. Like the Gods, we can know the globe; and, knowing it, engage in ‘thinking globally’ to manage planet Earth.We can only think wisely about what we actually know well. And no person , however sophisticated, intelligent and overloaded with the information age state—of—the—art technologies, can ever ‘know’ the Earth — except by re-ducing it statistically, as all modern institutions tend to do today, supported by reductionist scientists.3 Since none of us can ever really know more than a minuscule part of the Earth, ‘global thinking’ is at best only an illusion and at worst the ground for the kinds of destructive and dangerous actions per petuate the slogan supposedly formulated rated by global ‘think-tanks’ like the World Bank, or their more benign counterparts — the watchdogs in the global environmental movement.Continues…

- 58 –

Page 59: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Perm “Think Global, Act Local”

Continued…In bringing his contemporaries ‘down to Earth’ from out of space and space ‘thinking’, in teaching us to stand once again on our own feet as did our ancestors, Wendell Berry helps us to rediscover the immensity, grandeur and mystery of the Earth in the face of human finiteness, and to debunk another ‘fact’ of television-manufactured reality: the ‘global village’. The trans national reach of Dallas and the sexual escapades of the British royal family or the Bosnian bloodbath, like the international proliferation of McDonald’s, Benetton or Sheraton establishments, confirm the modern prejudice that we all live in ‘one world’.4 McLuhan’s unfortunate metaphor of the ‘global village’ now operates as a ‘fact’, a pre-formulated judgment, completely depleting critical consciousness. Modern arrogance suggests that modern man can know the globe, just as pre-moderns knew their village. To rebut this nonsense, Berry confesses that he still has much to learn in order to ‘husband’ with thought and wisdom the small farm in his ancestral Kentucky that he has tilled and harvested for the past forty years. His honesty about his ignorance in caring for his minuscule piece of our Earth renders naked the dangerousness of those who claim to ‘think globally’ and aspire to monitor and manage the ‘global village’.

Any inclusion of global vision eliminates local focus and carries the worst baggage of global oppression. Gustavo Esteva, de-professionalized intellectual and non-partisan political activist a.k.a. bad ass, and, Madhu Suri Prakash, Prof and in charge of the Educational Theory and Policy program @ Penn State also a total pimp, 1997, Post Development Reader, edited by Majid Rahnema p. 278-79In the tradition of Gandhi, Illich, Leopold Kohr and his disciple Fritz Schumacher, Berry warns of the many harmful consequences of ‘thinking big’: pushing all human enterprises beyond the human scale. Exemplifying the humility that comes with an appreciation of the genuine limits of human intelligence and capacities, Berry celebrates the age—old wisdom of ‘thinking little’: on the scale that humans can really understand, know and take care of the consequences of their actions and decisions upon others.Afraid that local thinking weakens and isolates people, localizing them into parochialism, the alternative global thinkers5 forget that Goliath did in fact meet his match in David. And, forgetting this biblical moral insight, they place their faith in the countervailing force of a competing Goliath of their own: global thinking or ‘planetary consciousness’. By framing their local efforts within the context of global thinking — transmitted internationally through e-mail, CNN and other networks — they seek the global ban of DDT, nuclearpower or torture; and the global dissemination of schools, vaccines, hospitals, roads, flush toilets and other ‘basic amenities’ of modern life to every village on Earth. Hunger in Ethiopia, bloody civil wars in Somalia or Yugoslavia , human rights violations in Mexico thus become personal concerns for all good, non-parochial citizens of Main Street, supposedly complementing their local involvement in reducing garbage, homelessness or junk food in their own neighborhoods. Most global Samaritans fail to see that when their local actions are informed, shaped and determined by the global frame of mind, they become as uprooted as those of the other globalists they explicitly criticize .To relearn how to think little, Berry recommends starting with the ‘basics’ of life: food, for example. He suggests discovering ways to eat, which take us beyond ‘global thinking and action’ towards ‘local thinking and action.’Global thinkers and think-tanks, like the World Bank, disregard this wis dom both at the level of thought and at that of action. Declaring that cur rent food problems, among others, are global in their nature, they seek to impose global solutions. Aware of the threats perpetrated by such ‘solutions’, the proponents of ‘think globally, act locally’ take recourse to the tradition of Kolir et al. only at the level of action. By refusing to ‘think little’, they thus actually support and function on their enemies’ turf.

- 59 –

Page 60: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Permutation Generic

Ordering the world is a regulation of truths about global organization that are incompatible with our alternative. The affirmative is bounded within the parameters of their matrix which prevents critical emancipation. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnThis regulation of truth, (despite the rhetoric of "reason," that truth exists as an eternal, open to those who are simply willing and able to "discover" it), cannot be achieved without processes of coercive ordering. Humanity requires constant reminding of its asserted truthfulness. So, human sociality is [*622] repeatedly defined and confined, faithfuls rewarded and deviants punished. All aspects of humanity, therefore, become subjects for the domination of ordered truths, reached and checked through the many technologies of truth-propagation. The institutions of "vision" and "information" and their "(re)presentation" of truths, n41 institutions of "learning" and their "teaching" of truths, n42 institutions of "doing" and their "acting" upon truths, n43 all recreate the desired "order" of civil-ization. Within and through these institutions is "spoken" and "heard" what is deemed to be the "truth." Outside them, so it would be claimed, exists "untruth," superstition and propaganda."We" too are subjects of this regulation. I speak here from my location within an institution of "teaching"/"learning." Nowhere is this order(ing) of truth more insidiously and impoverishingly done, than in the "worlds" of socalled "education." Here takes place the propagation of "truth-knowing;" here, knowledge that is "valuable" and "worthy" is expounded . But the body of knowledge that is regarded as valuable and worthy is increasingly becoming one that is homogenized, standardized, and "monoculturized." Despite having been exposed as a colonizing and alienating force, the "banking" model of education thrives on. n44 The "real" knowledge of the "world," through the "learning" of the life sciences, social sciences, business administration, and information technology, is everywhere disseminated using the same signposts, reference-points and "texts" of wisdom if it is to be "recognized" as valuable and worthy. n45 Thus, "students" from around the "world" come together to share in these discourses, minor inconveniences of vocabularic differences and accents aside, they share a language and, therefore, a "worldview." Questions of what is "real," what is "possible," what are the "problems" and what may be the "solutions" are, therefore, contemplated and [*623] imagined within managed parameters. "Creativity" is confined within the boundaries of a validated discourse, if not paradigm. n46 This is the knowledge domain of "practitioners." This is not to say that knowledges of the "other"--of cultures, languages, social systems, beliefs, rituals, "traditional" economies--are excluded. They too have their hallowed place; they are the "studies" of antiquity and the exotic. They are studied for the sake of "knowledge" rather than wisdom, information rather than action. Their students are "scholars," not "practitioners."Thus, the past, the present, the future, to be human, and to exist in "society" are all given "ordered" meaning. Thus, the world-order(ing) of truth is the impoverishment of the diversity of wisdom through the particularization of knowledge. With this "truth," we then set about viewing the world, setting it right. These "truths" of a (mis)ordered (in)humanity, therefore, become repeated, and although critiqued, are maintained in their integrity as constituting a self-contained universe of and for imagination.

They only way they could logically permute our criticism is to sever the representations of the 1AC.

c) Moving Target- allows them to shift out of our offense mid-round, which is unpredictable and infinitely regressive.

d) Performative contradiction- puts them on both sides of the debate advocating global and local action, which forces us to debate ourselves.

That’s a voting issue for fairness and ground.

- 60 –

Page 61: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Alt Hurts Democracy

Political disengagement won’t undermine democracy and order- state centric solutions are not the only way to effectuate change.Weissberg Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Illinois-Urbana 04 (Robert Weissberg is., Society “Abandoning Politics,” May/June,http://transactionpub. metapress.com/app/home/content.asp)The conventional wisdom tells us that Americans are generally politically apathetic and, judging by re- cent voting trends this situation may be deteriorating. Self-appointed civic guardians predictably express profound unease about this disengagement and offer up a plethora of remedies, everything from user-friendly ballots to electronic versions of democracy to reenergize political life. Academics seem especially alarmed that apathy will impede impoverished minorities from climbing up the socio-economic ladder while allowing “special interest” to ride roughshod over the common good. Alas, these discussions are quite superficial and misdirected. At most, those damning apathy glibly offer unproven clichés about “rising alienation” and similar banalities as if Americans were suddenly paralyzed to shape the world around them. Laments about lethargy fail to grasp that this disengagement only reflects a shift in choice of weapons, not laziness. Those grumbling about idle parents reluctant to pressure government for better schools incorrectly assume that rejecting politics will necessarily guarantee shoddy education. Ditto for those who seem “indifferent” about crime, the environment, high taxes and just about all other maladies—misery awaits those who sit on the sidelines. Reality is more nuanced and, critically, this reflexive bewailing of apathy reflects a state centered view of progress so, ipso facto, political disengagement preordains failure. Fortunately, the United States is not a totalitarian system in which the government is the only game in town. This myopic focus on state-centered solutions also obscures an important emerging fact. To the extent that abandoning politically directed remedies is not ideologically uniform, the civic landscape will soon be profoundly altered. In a nut- shell, the Left with its deep commitment to political solutions will continue to dominate policy-making while the nation as a whole quietly moves rightward.

- 61 –

Page 62: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Must Act / Alternative

The affirmative acts blindly in placing a matrix of peace upon the world. Only our alternative of re-imagining our relationships to violence in the world avoids reproducing the technologies of colionalismJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnRightly, we are concerned with the question of what can be done to alleviate the sufferings that prevail. But there are necessary prerequisites to answering the "what do we do?" question. We must first ask the intimately connected questions of "about what?" and "toward what end?" These questions, obviously, impinge on our vision and judgment. When we attempt to imagine transformations toward preferred human futures, we engage in the difficult task of judging the present. This is difficult not because we are oblivious to violence or that we are numb to the resulting suffering, but because, outrage with "events" of violence aside, processes of violence embroil and implicate our familiarities in ways that defy the simplicities of straightforward imputability. Despite our best efforts at categorizing violence into convenient compartments--into "disciplines" of study and analysis such as "development" and "security" (health, environment, population, being other examples of such compartmentalization)--the encroachments of order(ing) function at more pervasive levels. And without doubt, the perspectives of the observer, commentator, and actor become crucial determinants. It is necessary , I believe, to question this, "our," perspective, to reflect upon a perspective of violence which not only locates violence as a happening "out there" while we stand as detached observers and critics, but is also one in which we are ourselves implicated in the violence of ordered worlds where we stand very much as participants. For this purpose of a critique of critique, it is necessary to consider the "technologies" of ordering.

- 62 –

Page 63: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Vague Alternative

1. The alternative isn’t vague- hold us to the text of the 1nc. We will make solvency arguments about our alternative but we will defend our text.

2. It’s a solvency argument, not a theory argument. They wont win a voting issue as to why our alternative is abusive.

3. Defending the status quo is just as vague and constructed as the alternative. Any risk of offense is inevitable.

4. Cross-examination checks- they can ask us anything about our advocacy in cross ex and we will answer. Don’t punish us because they don’t care to ask.

- 63 –

Page 64: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local K___________

**Framework

- 64 –

Page 65: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Frameworks Not Competitive

1. It is competitive- our argument is that we must take a step off the bandwagon of global orders because they necessitate colonialism and genocide. Your 1AC creates a new global order and takes a global approach to solve it. I dare you to go for this argument.

2. Focus on the global obscures the local- we will win that your global approach prevents us from ever solving environmental problems, that’s our Bobertz evidence.

3. Alternative must come first- only when we abandon our fetish for the global can we change the local and evaluate the violence in here which is necessary to deal with the violence out there.

4. Any reason to vote for the permutation is a reason to maintain global orders. Global visions are the conditions for legitimizing forms of colonization. That’s our 1NC Nayar evidence.

- 65 –

Page 66: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Fiat Good

1. Debate has political effects and you should not ignore them - we critique the idea that we are just observers, we can either take part in political strategies or just say that the strategies are out there. In the context of political strategies, it is devastating to embrace the latter

2. We should engage in changes of our individual relationships with the environment, before we demonstrate our need for environmental protection, we need to change our lifestyles that necessitate environmental destruction.

3. This gets them no where- they'll never win a voting issue. Even in a world of fiat they don’t solve for their harms contention. Our criticism is a disad to the way they decide to decide. Ignoring our criticism of their thought process will only lead to error replication.

4. Kills negative ground - if the affirmative chose the framework for every debate, they could shift it every round- the negative would never win. Giving us the ability to criticize the way they form their 1AC plan and advantages is key to negative flexibility.

5. Counter Interpretation: only allow criticisms that that reject the entirety of the 1AC. This solves all their offense.

6. Not a voting issue- just hold us to the text of the 1nc alternative. We may make solvency arguments but we’ll stick to our text.

7. Our kritik is a pre-requisite to questions of action. Calling our perspective into question is necessary to resist violent world-orderingsJayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnRightly, we are concerned with the question of what can be done to alleviate the sufferings that prevail. But there are necessary prerequisites to answering the "what do we do?" question. We must first ask the intimately connected questions of "about what?" and "toward what end?" These questions, obviously, impinge on our vision and judgment. When we attempt to imagine transformations toward preferred human futures, we engage in the difficult task of judging the present . This is difficult not because we are oblivious to violence or that we are numb to the resulting suffering, but because, outrage with "events" of violence aside, processes of violence embroil and implicate our familiarities in ways that defy the simplicities of straightforward imputability. Despite our best efforts at categorizing violence into convenient compartments--into "disciplines" of study and analysis such as "development" and "security" (health, environment , population, being other examples of such compartmentalization)--the encroachments of order(ing) function at more pervasive levels. And without doubt, the perspectives of the observer, commentator, and actor become crucial determinants. It is necessary , I believe, to question this, "our," perspective, to reflect upon a perspective of violence which not only locates violence as a happening "out there" while we stand as detached observers and critics, but is also one in which we are ourselves implicated in the violence of ordered worlds where we stand very much as participants. For this purpose of a critique of critique, it is necessary to consider the "technologies" of ordering.

- 66 –

Page 67: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Fiat Good

8. Our impacts play in the world of real OR imagined world orderings. Speaking the 1AC is violence. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnSetting aside these divergent articulations of the vision of world-order, let us locate the rhetoric of world-order within the realm of social experience. The point of our concern is not simply about "world-order-talk," after all, but rather, about the real or potential impacts of world-orders, real or imagined. I suggest we begin this exploration into an alternative narrative on world-order by stepping off the bandwagon of world-order narratives to reflect on the connotations of its very terminology.

9. The affirmative’s hailing of world order is a colonization of the mind. The vision of an ordered world dominated by a strong US leadership is a violent practice of language. Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21 st Century: Orders of Inhumanity , 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999, lnFollowing this transformation of the material political-economy of the colonized, or "ordered," colonialism entrenched the "state" as the symbolic "political" institution of "public" social relations. The effect of this "colonization of the mind" was that the "political-economic" form of social organization--the state--was universalized as common, if not "natural," resulting in a homogenization of "political" imagination and language. Thus, diversity was unified, while at the same time, unity was diversified. The particularities and inconveniences of human diversity--culture and tradition--were subordinated to the "civilized" discourse of secular myths (to which the "rule of law" is central), n16 while concurrently, humanity was formally segregated into artificial "states," enclosures of mythic solidarities and common destinies.This brief remembering of colonialism as an historic process, provides us with the most explicit lessons on the violence of the "ordering" of "worlds." From its history we see that an important feature of ordering prevails. The world of those who "order" is the destruction of the "worlds" of those ordered. So many ideologies of negation and (re)creation served to justify this "beginning"--terra nullius, the "savage" native, the "civilizing mission." n17 The [*608] "world," after all, had to be created out of all this "unworldly" miasma, all for the common good of the universal society of humankind.Although historical colonialism as a formal structure of politico-legal ordering of humanity has come and gone, the violence of colonization is very much a persistent reality. A striking feature of historical world-orderings was the confidence with which the "new world" was projected upon human imagination. Colonialism was not a tentative process. The "right" of colonization, both as a right of the colonizer and as a right thing to do by the colonizer, was passionately believed and confidently asserted. Thus, for the most part, this "right" was uncontested, this confidence unchallenged. "World-order" today is similarly asserted with confidence and rectitude.

- 67 –

Page 68: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Policy Focus Good for Activism

1. They don't engage in federal planning - voting affirmative does not cause any change. Debate is a game of competing activisms. The judge has no ability to influence the actual passage of the plan.

2. Their intpretation of debate numbs us to the local discourse- they force us to conceive debate as an activity where we play a game and then go to sleep.

3. Our entire 1NC is an internal link turn- Nayar says that the complete focus on a global world view and global ways to solve our problems distracts us from the here and now. When we try and find ways to change the world we forget the only world that we live in. When we plea to global order, we undermine our individual voices, undermine our activism, and undermine our ability to change our surroundings.

- 68 –

Page 69: Global Local Kritik

Planet Debate Global/Local KAT: Don’t Evaluate Discourse

1. Discourse has concrete effects- the way we think and view the world has implications on the way we act towards the world. It is impossible to evaluate policy without the discourse that evaluates that policy.

2. Not allowing us to criticize discourse justifies letting teams get away with racist and sexist language. We should be forced to justify our language in a game like debate.

3. Counter interpretation- The affirmative must defend that the plan and all of the 1AC is good.

4. We’re not saying debate is bad. We are saying that their methodological strategy is problematic.

- 69 –