This isn't final until 8:30 but this is likely the 1NC
>>>>>

1NC Poverty = Fed Poverty Line
  1. Definitions – Poverty is defined by the Federal Poverty Line
OCPP, Oregon Center for Public Policy, 09
OCPP, Oregon Center for Public Policy, “Federal Government Issues New Poverty Line for 2009,” January 23, 2009, __http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/ display.cgi?page= nr20090123Povert__ [Tom]

The 2009 Federal Poverty Income Guidelines, published in today’s Federal Register, set the definition of poverty that Oregon uses to determine eligibility for programs such as child care subsidies, Head Start, food stamps, school lunches, energy assistance and some health care programs. The poverty guidelines vary by family size. This year, for example, a family of three with an annual income of $18,310 or under qualifies as poor, up from $17,600 in 2008. A four-person family would be poor if their annual income is $22,050 or less.

For declares the targets of social services
Cambridge Dictionary, 2k
Cambridge University Press p.334


For – prep. Intended to be given to; having to purpose of because of, as a result of (doing something); instead of, to help; considering (something or someone with reference to things or people as the usually are); in support or relation to (someone or something); in support of or agreement with

B. Violation – The aff gives a universal right to legal counsel, which applies to people not in poverty.
  1. Standards
    1. Limits – failure to limit eligibility to persons in poverty explodes the topic – every government policy affects persons in poverty
    2. Ground – universal counterplans and criticisms of the federal poverty line are core negative ground
3. Xtra-T – we can’t predict what other groups of people they’ll offer their social service to – makes it impossible to prepare
4. Contextuality – our definition of poverty is the most predictable because it’s defined by the resolutional actor – when the usfg enacts poverty policies, this is the definition they turn to
D. Voter for education and fairness

1NC CERD: Congress CP (1/2)
TEXT: The United States congress should pass all necessary legislation in order for the United States to be in full compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. We’ll clarify.
Congress can send international signals
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 08

(US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, 6/27/08 “South Africa; U.S. Congress Passes Legislation Lifting Mandela, ANC Stigma”, Africa news, 6/27, lexis) [Dan Li]


Congress is sending legislation to __President Bush__ that will finally erase a government-imposed stigma against association with the African National Congress of South Africa. Last night the House and Senate came to agreement on legislation by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman __Howard L. Berman__ (D-CA) that will remove from U.S. databases any notation characterizing the ANC and its leaders -- including Nobel Laureate and former South African President Nelson Mandela -- as terrorists. "Congress finally stands ready to rid U.S. immigration law of this anachronistic blight," Berman noted. "The Senate and House have now both affirmed that America's place is on the side of those who fought against Apartheid, and there should be no discrimination in our legal code based on their ANC association alone." For decades the ANC resisted Apartheid and advocated the rights of black South Africans - first through nonviolence and community activism, and then through the actions of its military wing. The South African government banned the ANC in 1960, and the United States denied entry to ANC members based on the group's activities. With the end of Apartheid in 1990, the ANC grew to become the leading political party; it continues to lead South Africa in a multiracial, multiparty democracy. Berman's bill (H.R. 5690), which passed the House on May 8, effectively removes the stain of the "terrorist" label from the names of current and former African National Congress members. House co-sponsors are Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Africa Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne (D-NJ), and Foreign Affairs Committee members Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Peter Welch (D-VT). The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the legislation yesterday, and the Senate passed it unanimously last night. On the heels of Senate passage, the House approved the final version of the legislation as well. When the measure becomes law, ANC membership alone will no longer trigger additional investigation into an individual's application for a visa to the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called the additional review of ANC members' visas "embarrassing" and has advocated a legislative change to lift it.


1NC CERD: Congress CP (2/2)
And, judicial action inevitably sparks backlash and makes all changes nullified, turning case
Stoddard, prof law NYU, 97
(Thomas B. Stoddard, Former Professor of Law at NYU Law School, November 1997, New York University Law Review, “Bleeding Heart: Reflection on Using Law to Make Social Change,” pg. 7, http://law.ubalt.edu/law/ downloads/law_downloads/ Stoddard.pdf) [Dan Li]



IV "Culture-Shifting" in the Absence of "Rule-Shifting" "Rule-shifting"--the formal adoption by government of new rules to govern all or part of a society--is not always a prerequisite to "culture-shifting," in my experience. In unusual circumstances, "culture-shifting" may take place even without a formal change in rules. In 1993 the Supreme Court of Hawaii, in Baehr v. Lewin, issued the startling ruling that the equal protection clause of the state's constitution appeared to compel the state government to issue marriage licenses to lesbian and gay couples as well as heterosexual couples. It remanded the case to the trial court for that tribunal to consider justifications offered by the state government for the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples. The state would have to show, said the supreme court, that the distinction between couples furthered "compelling state interests" and, in addition, was "narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of constitutional rights." This decision was the first of its kind in the United States--indeed, the entire world. To me and to many (but not all ) of my colleagues, it was enormously cheering: the high court of one of the fifty states had opened the way for same-sex marriage. What a breakthrough! Yet this breakthrough, if that is what it was initially, was very rapidly transformed into an audacious step backwards. In response to the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court, conservative legislators in statehouses around the country offered bills to deny recognition to same-sex marriage licenses that might eventually be issued by Hawaii (or any other state). And then, one by one, states began to enact those bills--even though the litigation in Hawaii had not yet reached a definitive resolution, and no state, including Hawaii, had yet to extend marriage licenses to male-male or female- female couples. Utah was the very first to act, in 1995. In its wake came South Dakota and several other states. The litigation in Hawaii, which was initially so cheering to me, also affected national politics. It provoked a "marriage protection" rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on the eve of that state's presidential caucuses, an event that attracted candidate Patrick Buchanan in person and the support of three other candidates--Bob Dole, Steve Forbes, and Lamar Alexander--in writing. Even more disturbingly, it led to the introduction in both houses of Congress of a federal bill to limit the validity of same-sex marriages that might ultimately be accorded recognition by Hawaii. This bill, given the sanctimonious title of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) declared that no state would be required to "give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage." The bill also asserted that under federal law the word "marriage" would mean "only a legal union between one man and one woman." The House of Representatives approved the Defense of Marriage Act on July 12, 1996, by the overwhelming margin of 342 to 67. The Senate followed suit, by a vote of 85 to 14, on September 10, 1996. And President Clinton, despite his professed support of equal rights for gay people, signed the bill shortly afterwards. (The White House did, however, express regret that he had been presented with such a measure. ) In short, one encouraging judicial decision in only one of the fifty states-- a decision that was merely tentative, since the case in which it was issued was still unresolved--touched off a national political and legal avalanche with horrifying consequences for gay people. One tentative, halting step toward same-sex marriage had incited a nationwide political riot against same-sex marriage.


1NC Progressive Politics DA (1/2)
The judicial process stops progressivism which leads to oppression, only congressional action avoids this: this evidence assumes all of their courts are progressive arguments
West, prof law Georgetown, 93
(Robin West, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Fall 1993, Northwestern Law Review, pg. 241) [Dan Li]



The first reason is, loosely, historical: the "adjudicated Constitution," by which I mean the Constitution that has been construed and applied by the courts, has proven to be a markedly conservative foundational document, and for that reason alone, a rule of restraint looks desirable. More often than not, our adjudicated Constitution has served to protect existing distributions of social, economic, racial, sexual, linguistic, and cultural power against serious threat of change. It has done so by insulating the private, social, economic, and intimate spheres of life, constituted in part by gross inequities of resources and maldistributions of power, against legislative attempts at redistribution or renegotiation of the terms of private, social, or economic struggle. That foundational conservatism is evidenced not only by the Lochner-era Court's substantive Due Process Clause, Contract Clause, and Takings Clause jurisprudence, which insulated economic hierarchies from redistributive legislative attack, but also by the modern Scalia Court's understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, which insulates racial hierarchies from progressive state legislative attack, and the same Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, which insulates cultural hierarchies from legislative renegotiation through hate speech ordinances. Although the adjudicated Constitution obviously has from time to time been used to effectuate progressive gains and to solidify progressive victories, those moments have been rare, anomalous, and often fleeting: the victory has been, as often as not, soured by near instantaneous conservative reconstruction. For the most part, the clauses of the adjudicated Constitution have operated in concert to conserve present distributions of social, economic, and private power against legislative and democratic attempts at redistributing those resources or renegotiating the terms of struggle. If for no other than that reason, progressives would be well advised to break their romance with the United States Constitution. If it is true, as I have suggested, that the adjudicated Constitution is doctrinally and substantively more of a bar to than a vehicle for progressive legislation, then Thayer's rule looks attractive indeed.



1NC Progressive Politics DA (2/2)
Progressive politics checks the threat of proliferation, terrorism, and wars
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, 03
(The Congressional Progressive Caucus, largest non party Congressional Caucus, 2003, Progressive State of the Union 2003, “While Bush Prepares the US for War, the Congressional Progressive Caucus Presents an Alternative for the American People,”
“On America in the World,” http://www.populist.com/03.04. progstate.html) [Dan Li]



Preemptive war doctrine: The administration has come up with a new doctrine, known as "preemptive war," that puts the countries of the world on notice that they may be invaded by US forces at any time, for any reason the administration deems appropriate. Further, the administration announced that the US would use nuclear weapons, even against an adversary that did not possess nuclear weapons of its own. Progressives know that "preemptive war" and "nuclear first strike" doctrines are dangerous for our security. These policies goad countries to prepare for potential US attacks with nuclear weapons of their own, as North Korea has recently demonstrated. Preemptive war and nuclear first strike policies are also illegal. They were made illegal by treaties the US has committed to. Furthermore, "preemptive war" and nuclear first strike are shameful and un-American. Treaties: The administration turned the US into the first country to unilaterally withdraw from a nuclear weapons control (ABM) treaty. Progressives believe that weapons treaties serve our security. The administration should have known that by unilaterally abrogating a nuclear arms control treaty, it would tempt other countries to do the same, as obviously happened in North Korea. Iraq: The administration has claimed that Iraq poses a threat to the US and has ignored the potential of war against Iraq to endanger stability in the region and put our allies at risk. Progressives in Congress believe that war in Iraq is unjustified. The US should allow UN inspectors to complete their inspections and dismantle any existing Iraqi weapons capacity. 9/11: The administration has squandered international support for the US following the attacks by repeatedly using discredited reports of a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 leaders to justify war against Iraq.


Progressives believe that the administration has misdirected America's efforts: A war in Iraq distracts America from finding the specific individuals who plotted the 9/11 attacks.


Court Legitimacy – 1NC (1/3)
A. The court’s decision to uphold the voting rights act in a narrow ruling resulted in legitimacy

Los Angeles Times 6/23
(The LA times “Voting Rights Act is upheld ;The Supreme Court leaves safeguards intact while allowing some municipalities to seek exemptions. June 23, 2009 Lexis)


The historic Voting Rights Act -- the 1965 law that ended a century of racial discrimination at the ballot box and gave blacks a political voice across the South -- survived a strong challenge at the Supreme Court on Monday as justices pulled back from a widely anticipated decision to strike down a key part of the law as outdated and unfair to today's South. Instead, the justices agreed to narrow the law's impact by allowing municipalities with a clean record to seek an exemption. Though the court sided with the Texas water district that brought the case, its 8-1 decision preserved the core of the Voting Rights Act, including its special scrutiny for any changes in election rules by Southern states. The ruling also protected the Roberts court from charges of conservative "judicial activism" in its refusal to tamper with an act of Congress, a often sensitive procedure fraught with political risk. Monday's decision, considered among the most important of the term, came as a surprise and a relief to civil rights advocates.

B. Expanding legal services would be controversial.
Persily et al, PoliSci @ Columiba, UC Berkeley, NYU, 2008
Nathaniel Persily, Law & PoliSci @ Columbia, Jack Citrin, PoliSci @ UC Berkeley, Patrick J. Egan, PoliSci @ NYU, 2008, “Public opinion and constitutional controversy”

Questions about the modern public’s enthusiasm for Gideon arise when one reviews the states’ unwillingness or inability to assure effective counsel for the indigent. In particular many state legislatures have declined to adopt stringent oversight of state-provided counsel and have failed to provide the resources to public defenders that are available to privately hired counsel (I.evine 1975; Lewis 2003). The public has not been aggressive in calling for greater support for state-appointed counsel. Indeed, despite almost unani mous support for the right to a lawyer only 57% of respondents support guaranteeing indigent defendants a lawyer with a small caseload, and only 48% support guaranteeing indigent defendants a lawyer with equivalent exper ience to that of a private lawyer (Belden et at. 2001). The public is equally divided over who should pay for court—appointed lawyers and how much money should he spent. When asked whether they favored or opposed using taxpayer funds to provide court-appointed lawyers to people accused of crimes, only 64% were in favor (Belden ci al. 2001)—far below the 91% and 96% who voiced support for the right to a lawyer. When further asked whether in their state the government “should he spending more or spending less on legal defense for people who cannot afford a lawyer,” 57% supported keeping spending at its current level, 14% supported a reduction, and 17% supported an increase (Helden et at. 2001).


Court Legitimacy – 1NC (2/3)
C. Ruling against the public crushes legitimacy

Yoo, Law @ Berkley, ‘1
(Yoo 2k1, John , Professor, Law at University of California, Berkeley, “In Defense of the Courts’ Legitimacy, 68 U Chi. L. Rev. 775, Lexis)
How does the Court maintain this legitimacy? According to the Casey plurality, the Court receives its public support by "making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation." n39 In other words, only by acting in a manner that suggests that its decisions are the product of law rather than politics can the Court maintain its legitimacy. Therefore, the Court must adhere to settled precedent, lest the public believe that the Court is merely just another political actor. "To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question." n40 Without this legitimacy, the Court would be unable to perform its role as interpreter of the Constitution, which at times may require the Court to act against the popular will in favor of individual rights. Leading social scientists appear to agree with the Casey plurality's notion of judicial legitimacy. The Court's institutional legitimacy both enhances the legitimacy of particular decisions and increases the voluntarily acceptance of unpopular decisions. n41 Valuable as it is, however, legitimacy is hard to come by. Political scientists have emphasized the limited ability of the federal courts to enforce their decisions, and hence have turned to the Court's legitimacy as an explanation for compliance. n42 The Court's standing is further complicated because it lacks any electoral basis for its legitimacy. n43 The way to acquire this legitimacy, many scholars seem to believe, is for the Court to appear to act neutrally, n44 objectively, n45 or fairly n46 by following standards of procedural justice or by making decisions that follow principled rules.

D. Legitimacy key to rule of law, rights, and democracy.

Peretti 1999
(Terri J., In Defense of a Political Court, Princeton University Press)


Should the Court lose its legitimacy and, consequently, its power, we in turn lose the benefits that only the Court can provide. Vitally important constitutional rights and liberties, as well as minority groups, would be unprotected and would likely suffer at the hands of an indifferent or hostile majority. An additional loss of paramount importance is the ideal and the reality of the rule of law. All government action would be reduced to arbitrary will and force, rather than being justified according to reason and, thus, rendered legitimate. The consequences of the Court losing its legitimacy and the ability to play its specialized role, if we are to believe Philip Kurland, are horrible indeed.



E. Cross apply Diamond 95 from the 1AC – Democracy prevents extinction.


Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (1)
  1. Link – Social services legitimize capitalism – this turns case by recreating the labor force and replacing one social problem with many others.
Hall, prof @ University College London, 89
Peter Hall Prof. Planning and Regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London. 1989. Cities of Tomorrow. Pgs. 335-341

At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory. But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land-use and activity patterns, is the result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labour force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation, by ensuring rational allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labour force through the provision of social services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labour and capital and preventing social disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear and Scott put it: 'In summary, planning is an historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.'° In particular, it seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system.59 But, since capitalism also wishes to circumscribe state planning as far as possible, there is an inbuilt contradiction: planning, because of this inherent inadequacy, always solves one problem only by creating another.60 Thus, say the Marxists, nineteenth-century clearances in Paris created a working-class housing problem; American zoning limited the powers of industrialists to locate at the most profitable locations." And planning can never do more than modify some parameters of the land development process; it cannot change its intrinsic logic, and so cannot remove the contradiction between private accumulation and collective action." Further, the *capitalist class is by no means homogenous; different fractions of capital may have divergent, even contradictory interests, and complex alliances may be formed in consequence; thus, latter-day Marxist explanations come close to being pluralist, albeit with a strong structural element.' But in the process, 'the more that the State intervenes in the urban system, the greater is the likelihood that different social groups and fractions will contest the legitimacy of its decisions. Urban life as a whole becomes progressively invaded by political controversies and dilemmas'.


Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (2)
  1. Impact – Capitalism’s drive for material makes crisis and extinction inevitable.

Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95
Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition”



With regard to its innermost determination the capital system is expansion oriented and accumulation-driven. Such a determination constitutes both a formerly unimaginable dynamism and a fateful deficiency. In this sense, as a system of social metabolic control capital is quite irresistible for as long as it can successfully extract and accumulate surplus-labour-whether in directly economic or in primarily political form- in the course of the given society’s expandoed reproduction. Once, however, this dynamic process of expansion and accumulation gets stuck (for whatever reason) the consequences must be quite devastating. For even under the ‘normality’ of relatively limited cyclic disturbances and blockages the destruction that goes with the ensuing socioeconomic and political crises can be enormous, as the annals of the twentieth century reveal it, including two world wars (not to mention numerous smaller conflagrations). It is therefore not too difficult to imagine the implications of a systemic, truly structural crisis; i.e. one that affects the global capital system not simply under one if its aspects-the financial/monetary one, for instance-but in all its fundamental dimensions, questioning its viability altogether as a social reproductive system. Under the conditions of capital's structural crisis its destructive constituents come to the fore with a vengeance, activating the spectre of total uncontrollability in a form that foreshadows self-destruction both for this unique social reproductive system itself and for humanity in general. As we shall see in Chapter 3, capital was near amenable to proper and durable control or rational self-restraint. For it was compatible only with limited adjustments, and even those only for as long as it could continue to pursue in one form or another the dynamics of self-expansion and the process of accumulation. Such adjustments consisted in side-stepping, as it were, the encountered obstacles and resistances when capital was unable to frontally demolish them. This characteristic of uncontrollability was in fact one of the most important factors that secured capitals irresistible advancement and ultimate victory, which it had to accomplish despite the earlier mentioned fact that capital's mode of metabolic control constituted the exception and not the rule in history. After all, capital at first appeared as a strictly subordinate force in the course of historical development. And worse still, on account of necessarily subordinating 'use-value' - that is, production for human need - to the requirements of self-expansion and accumulation, capital in all of its forms had to overcome also the odium of being considered for a long time the most 'unnatural' way of controlling the production of wealth. According to the ideological confrontations of medieval times, capital was fatefully implicated in 'mortal sin' in more ways than one, and therefore had to be outlawed as 'heretic' by the highest religious authorities: the Papacy and its Synods. It could not become the dominant force of the social metabolic process before sweeping out of the way the absolute - and religiously sanctified -prohibition on 'usury' (contested under the category of 'profit upon alienation', which really meant: retaining control over the monetary/financial capital of the age, in the interest of the accumulation process, and at the same time securing profit by lending money) and winning the battle over the 'alienability of land' (again, the subject of absolute and religiously sanctified prohibition under the feudal system) without which the emergence of capitalist agriculture -a vital condition for the triumph of the capital system in general would have been quite inconceivable." Thanks to a very large extent to its uncontrollability, capital succeeded in overcoming all odds - no matter how powerful materially and how absolutized in terms of the prevailing value system of society - against itself, elevating its mode of metabolic control to the power of absolute dominance as a fully extended global system. However, it is one thing to overcome and subdue problematical (even obscurantist) constraints and obstacles, and quite another to institute the positive principles of sustainable social development, guided by the criteria of humanly fulfilling objectives, as opposed to the blind pursuit of capital's self-expansion. Thus the implications of the selfsame power of uncontrollability which in its time secured the victory of the capital system are far from reassuring today when the need for restraints is conceded - at least in the form of the elusive desideratum of 'self-regulation' - even by the system's most uncritical defenders.


Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (3)
  1. The Alternative – Reject the affirmative in order to radically resist capitalism through a process of revolutionary persuasion. The “realistic proposals” of the 1ac cannot provide a systemic alternative to the capitalist political framework inherent in the plan. This debate is the key cite of resistance – our ability to use persuasion and show the “antagonism between capitalism and the environment” is unique to starting a revolution.
Wallis, Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U., 08
(Victor Wallis, Liberal Arts Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U, November 2008: The Monthly Review “Capitalist and Socialist Responses to the Ecological Crisis” http://monthlyreview.org/ 081103wallis.php)
  1. Where the private and the civic dimensions would merge would be in developing a full-scale class analysis of responsibility for the current crisis and, with it, a movement which could pose a systemic alternative. The steps so far taken in this direction have been limited. Exposés like Gore’s have called attention, for example, to the role of particular oil companies in sponsoring attacks on scientific findings related to climate change, but the idea that there could be an antagonism between capitalism and the environment as such has not yet made its way into general public debate. Until this happens, the inertial impact of the prevailing ideology will severely limit the scope of any concrete recuperative measures.37 The situation is comparable to that surrounding any prospective revolution: until a certain critical point has been reached, the only demands that appear to have a chance of acceptance are the “moderate” ones. But what makes the situation revolutionary is the very fact that the moderate or “realistic” proposals will not provide a solution. What gives these proposals a veneer of reasonableness is no more than their acceptability to political forces which, while unable to design a response commensurate with the scale of the problem, have not yet been displaced from their positions of power. But this very inability on the part of those forces is also an expression of their weakness. They sit precariously atop a process they do not understand, whose scope they cannot imagine, and over which they can have no control. (Or, if they do sense the gravity of the situation, they view it with a siege mentality, seeking above all to assure their own survival.38) At this point, it is clear that the purchase on “realism” has changed hands. The “moderates,” with their relentless insistence on coaxing an ecological cure out of a system inherently committed to trampling everything in its path, have lost all sense of reality. The question now becomes whether the hitherto misgoverned populace will be prepared to push through the radical measures (by now clearly the only realistic ones) or whether its members will have remained so encased within the capitalist paradigm that the only thing they can do is to try—following the cue of those who plunged us all into this fix—to fend individually for themselves. This is the conjuncture that all our efforts have been building for; it will provide the ultimate test of how well we have done our work. In order for the scope of the needed measures to be grasped by sufficient numbers of people, an intense level of grassroots organizing will already have to be underway. However, the measures themselves, if they are to accomplish their purpose, will have to advance further the very process that put them on the agenda to begin with. A characteristically revolutionary mix of persuasion and coercion will necessarily apply—the balance of these two methods depending partly on the effectiveness of prior consciousness-raising and partly on the window of time available for the required steps. No dimension of life will be untouched. From our present vantage point we can only begin to envisage the specific changes, which will primarily involve a reversal or undoing of the more wasteful and harmful structures bequeathed by prior development. Fortunately, however, it will not be a matter of starting from scratch. Many historical lessons have already been learned, and not all of them are of things to avoid. There are positive models as well.
CERD International Racism F/L (1/2)
  1. The fact that they think they can solve for international racism is absurd: Racism is engrained worldwide no way one action can overcome it
Gifford, prof social science La Trobe U, 6/13/09
(Sandy Gifford. June 13, 2009, The Age (Melbourne). Professor in the school of social sciences, La Trobe University and director of the La Trobe Refugee Research Centre. “Lifting the veil on our ingrained racism; COMMENT & DEBATE” Lexis) [Dan Li]


The evidence is clear: racism is part of our national character. AUSTRALIA is a racist society. There, I've said it. I've wanted to say this for the past 24 years - from the time I arrived here. Within my first week on Aussie soil a well meaning young man offered to introduce me to "boongs" - I thought he meant an Australian kind of dope-smoking pipe. When I expressed my shock on discovering that it referred to an Australian form of racism, he assured me that I would agree with him once I knew the truth. Anyway, I was a Yank and a foreigner so what did I know? It is exactly this attitude that helps perpetuate our collective denial that racism is part of our national character. Racism in Australia is pervasive, part of the fabric of everyday life and normalised in ways that render it invisible and make it one of the strongest forms of structural violence. Confronting our racism is painful, but denying it is wrong and making up excuses for specific acts of violence makes us complicit. It also makes us racist.

  1. The United States will sign about 10 distinct UN human rights conventions in the coming months each one of which independently sends a massive international sign
Human Rights Watch, 7/24/09
(Human Rights Watch, July 24, 2009, “US: Treaty Signing Signals Policy Shift, Disabilities Convention Will Be First Human Rights Treaty Signed by US in Nearly a Decade,” http://www.hrw.org/en/news/ 2009/07/24/us-treaty-signing- signals-policy-shift) [Dan Li]


The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which President Obama is scheduled to announce today that the US will sign, will be the first international human rights treaty signed by the United States in nearly a decade, Human Rights Watch said today. Obama is scheduled to make the announcement at a White House event this afternoon. "This treaty was created to make sure that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else and are fully included in society," said Joe Amon, director of the Health and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "This is a real victory for both that goal and for the disability rights advocates who have worked so hard for it." The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2006 and was signed by 82 countries when it opened for signature on March 30, 2007. Today 140 countries have signed, and 61 have ratified. It requires governments to prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities and support their dignity, autonomy, and full participation in society. Amon said that signing the treaty sent a broader signal about US respect for international law. "For nearly a decade, the US has been on the sidelines as new treaties have been developed and existing treaties gained international support," he said. "By signing the Disabilities Convention, the US is beginning to reassert leadership on international human rights." The last human rights treaties signed by the United States were two optional protocols - one prohibiting the participation of children in armed conflict, and the other the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography - both signed in 2000 and ratified in 2002. They are the only human rights treaties that the US has ratified since 1994. The United States has signed six of the nine core international human rights treaties, but ratified only three: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Human Rights Watch identified several other important outstanding treaties that the United States should sign and/or ratify: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): This convention is the world's primary legal document on women's equality. The United States is one of only seven countries - together with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga - that have failed to ratify it. Signed by the US in 1980, the treaty has been favorably reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee twice: once in 1994 and again in 2002.


CERD International Racism F/L (2/2)


Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): The US signed the convention in 1995, but is the only country other than Somalia that has failed to ratify it. The treaty emphasizes the rights of children to survival, to develop to their fullest potential, and to protection from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. It is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): The covenant commits states to address basic rights such as to health and education. Together with its counterpart, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its protocols, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICESCR forms what is known as the International Bill of Rights. The treaty has been ratified by 160 nations. Although the US signed it in 1977, it has yet to ratify. Convention against Enforced Disappearance: The convention, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, prohibits the abduction and secret detention of any person by the state. The United States' use of CIA secret prisons for terrorist suspects during the Bush administration was in clear violation of the convention. However, President Obama's January 2009 executive order abolishing this practice has brought the United States into compliance with the treaty's core component. The US has neither signed nor ratified the convention. Mine Ban Treaty: The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty comprehensively bans all antipersonnel landmines, requires destruction of mines that are stockpiled and in the ground, and urges assistance to landmine victims. The treaty has been ratified by 156 countries. Since it came into force in 1999, the use of antipersonnel landmines has largely ceased and more than 43 million stockpiled mines have been destroyed. The US is in de facto compliance with most of the treaty's provisions, but has neither signed nor ratified. Convention on Cluster Munitions: The convention prohibits the use of cluster munitions, which pose grave dangers to civilians both during and long after attacks. The convention was adopted in 2008; 98 countries have signed it. The US has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 or Afghanistan since 2002. In after-action reports from Iraq in 2003, US forces called their own cluster munitions "relics" and "losers" and questioned the weapons' utility. The US has agreed to ban the weapon, but only starting in 2018. It has not signed the convention. Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture: The US ratified the Convention against Torture in 1994, but has neither signed nor ratified an optional protocol that would establish a system of regular visits by national and international monitors to prisons, jails, and other places of detention, with the goal of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world, with nearly 2.4 million persons behind bars on any given day, but has no independent agency monitoring prison conditions. The State Department has indicated that three human rights conventions - the Disabilities Convention, the CRC, and CEDAW - are under active review.


CERD Solvency F/L (1/3)
  1. International Law leaves the question of the accountability of individuals: disorders within exemptions means conventions and treaties inevitably fail.
Stark, prof law Hofstra, 02
(Barbara Stark, Visiting Professor of Law at Hofstra Law School, 2002, “Violations of Human Dignity' and Postmodern International Law,” 27 Yale J. Int'l L. 315, Summer pp. 339-40)
The law governing individual accountability for violations of human dignity in internal wars is so fragmentary that it is incoherent. As the symposium demonstrates, the sharpest legal minds in international law are unable to agree on what the law is, let alone its meaning, impact, or application. First, there are two distinct bodies of international law purporting to apply here, international humanitarian law ("IHL") and international human rights law. Neither is particularly clear in this context. Notwithstanding lex specialis; the general rule that the more specific law will apply, the more specific IHL is riddled with exceptions in the context of internal armed conflict. As set out in the four Geneva Conventions, for example, only common Article 3 applies to internal armed conflicts. Common Article 3 only applies, moreover, if the armed conflict occurs "in the territory of one of the high contracting parties." In addition, it only applies to "persons taking no active part in the hostilities," thus eliminating the prisoner of war regime applicable in international armed conflicts. IHL is further muddled because "conflict not of an international character" is nowhere defined. Optional Protocol II, specifically focused on non-international conflicts (whatever they are), is further limited to conflicts among "organized armed groups, which, under responsible command, exercise such control over part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol." Article 1.2, however, explicitly exempts "situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of this similar nature, as not being armed conflicts." As Theodor Meron notes, as long as there is a state, it will characterize an armed conflict within its borders as a "disturbance." While conventional human rights law is not explicitly limited to peacetime, during conflict it is subject to derogation under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Specified rights, e.g., the right to life or freedom from arbitrary detention, are nonderogable, but even these may be balanced against the humanitarian law defense of "military necessity." While peremptory norms, i.e., jus cogens norms, from which no derogation is permitted, remain in effect, reliance on other CIL during conflict is problematic.
CERD doesn’t solve for US discrimination.
Groves, fellow @Heritage Foundation, 4/22/08
Steven Groves, fellow @ Heritage Foundation, 4/22/08, “Furthering the U.N.'s Leftist Agenda: The U.N. CERD Committee Report”



The supposed purpose of the CERD and the CERD Committee is to review the efforts of the U.S. government and report on the U.S. record on improving race relations and addressing racial disparities and discrimination. Unfortunately, however, the CERD Committee does very little of that, instead using its resources and reports to deliver a demonstrably leftist attack on U.S. policy on social issues, immigration, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, abortion, the death penalty, and various other matters high on the liberal agenda.Advancing the Leftist Agenda. Very little of the CERD Committees report actually addresses issues and allegations regarding race in the United States.4 Instead, the largest portion of the commit- tee's concerns and recommendations constitutes a laundry list of positions taken by liberal academics, international human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the United Nations, and other members of the "international community" on various causes completely unrelated to racial discrimination.


CERD Solvency F/L (2/3)
  1. Changes to the military aid bill to Ethiopia will reverse and outweigh any trend that the plan can set, it not only sends a bad message to other democratic nations but also sends and inviting message to dictators
Mariam, prof political science Cal State, 6/1/09
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, “Endgame!- President Obama signed H.R. 1125”, Professor of Political Science at California State University, and attorney based in Los Angeles, http://ethioforum.org/wp/ archives/1087)



For the past several weeks, the noise machine of the dictatorship in Ethiopia has been in overdrive reacting to human rights findings made against it in the February 29, 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report. The official spokesmen of the dictatorship angrily denounced the alleged inaccuracies in that report, carped about its groundless charges of criminal wrongdoing, whined about the hidden agendas of shadowy manipulators of U.S. foreign policy, groused about the fictitious and fanciful claims of human rights abuses and blasted the American government for lying outright to undermine their credibility and portray them as international pariahs. Even the leader of the dictatorship took a jab at the report. With simulated dramatic flair, he described the report as a “fairy tale” (te-ret) and “false propaganda” to his parliament. As usual, he categorically denied the occurrence of any systematic human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, mass detentions without charges and the commission of crimes against humanity by himself, his official minions or security and military forces. Of course, one man’s fairy tale is another man’s tale of fear. Dr. Merera Gudina, chairman of the Oromo People’s Congress and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces was quick to disagree, as quoted by the gazette Addis Negger: I see it as one of the government’s attempts to conceal its human rights abuses. For example, the government claims that ‘there are no secret prisons in Ethiopia,’ but about 15 kilometers away from Ambo, where I have enough information about, there are three unofficial secret prisons: the old Emperor Haile Selassie’s Palace in Ambo, Senkele Police Training Center and Holeta Military Camp. Dedesa, where many thousands had been locked up after the 2005 elections, is not an official prison. We can provide as much evidence as needed. It is well known that people have been jailed in Maekelawi [the notorious high-security torture prison in Ethiopia] from one month to up to several years without court warrants. I do not understand who the government is trying to deceive. Others offered similar assessments about the dictatorship’s brazen and audacious denials of documented and established facts of notorious human rights abuses. The funny thing about the dictatorship’s spasmodic eruption of belated moral outrage against an imaginary cabal of evil international human rights organizations is that they had been ignoring those “fairy tale” reports impassively and scornfully for well over a decade. In their recent counteroffensives, they even stressed the fact that it is not their policy to dignify the “false and propagandistic fairy tales” of the human rights organizations with a response. But now, out of the blue, the dictatorship is squealing like a stuck pig and flailing every which way to respond to the 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report. Why? What has changed so dramatically to cause the dictatorship to sweat it out? We Know Why They Are Squealing! The dictators are squealing because the U.S. has quietly and matter-of-factly cut off assistance for military training and equipment to them. That is right! No more American taxpayer dollars to train human rights abusers and criminals; no more American taxpayer dollars for guns, tanks and Humvees to kill innocent Ethiopians. No military partnership with thugs! Many people will no doubt be surprised by this fact, but the law is explicit and its provisions plain and unmistakable. On March 11, 2009, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 1125, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009″ __1__ for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. H.R. 1105 (Title IV, International Security Assistance, p. 332, fn. 1) prohibits military assistance and \training to rogue regimes that engage in gross human rights violations. The relevant legislative language of H.R. 1125 (see fn. 1 below, p. 332) provides, “INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING - For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,… Provided further, That funds made available under this heading for assistance for Haiti, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Libya, and Angola may only be provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations and any such notification shall include a detailed description of proposed activities…” Further, under Title IV of H.R. 1105, “FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM”, the following prohibition is indicated: “Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for assistance for Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haiti, Guatemala, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo except pursuant to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: H.R. 1105 also forbids reprogramming of any funds made available in prior appropriations (previous years) to provide assistance to these rogue regimes in the current fiscal year. (See fn. 1, pp. 342, 344): REPROGRAMMING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SEC. 7015. (f) None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended for assistance for Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Iran, Haiti, Libya, Ethiopia, Nepal, Mexico, or Cambodia and countries listed in section 7045(f)(4) of this Act except as provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. H.R. 1105 allows training assistance to non-military personnel “who are not members of a government [and] whose participation would contribute to improved civil-military relations, civilian control of the military, or respect for human rights…” The foregoing change in U.S. military assistance policy in Ethiopia is an extraordinary transformation in U.S. foreign policy. For the first time in decades, the U.S. government has decided to explicitly link human rights abuses in Ethiopia to its military aid program. Congress, by requiring extraordinary presidential reporting “through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations” has expressly denied military assistance to the dictators and limited the discretion of the U.S. President to furnish such assistance under the authority of section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In plain language, H.R. 1105 cuts off military assistance to the identified rogue regimes, but allows the President to waive the prohibition on a case by case basis in the national interest, provided that he notifies the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate (committees responsible for funding the U.S. government) 15 days in advance of his intention to do so, and supplies a “detailed description of proposed activities” justifying the waiver. Even in emergency cases, the President must notify the Appropriations Committees that he has provided military assistance to the rogue regimes “no later than 3 days after taking the action to which such notification requirement was applicable.” In short, H.R. 1105 prohibits funds for military training or equipment to dictatorial regimes that engage in gross and consistent human rights abuses. That is why the dictators in Ethiopia were squealing like a stuck pig over the past few weeks! Sea Change in American Foreign Policy in Ethiopia In his inauguration speech, President Obama sent a clear message to the tin pot dictators of the world: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will


CERD Solvency F/L (2/3)



extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” By denying funds for military training and equipment, the President and the


new Congress are standing tall with the “starving people of the poor nations” of the world and against the filthy-rich kleptocratic dictators who oppress them and “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.” The message from the Obama administration to the dictators in Ethiopia is crystal clear: “America will not give you a penny to train your soldiers to terrorize your civilian population, nor will it provide your military establishments a single gun, plane, tank or Humvee to kill them.” George Bush’s unholy “alliance with atrocity” is over. No more unconditional and blind support to dictators who abuse and mistreat their people in the name of “promoting U.S. interests.” Bush’s war on terror under Obama will be transformed into a struggle for global peace under the rule of law and respect for human rights. Admittedly, U.S. military assistance to the dictatorship in Ethiopia has not been very large, although the dictatorship has received the lion’s share of such aid in the past. What is important about the termination of military assistance in H.R. 1105 is not the dollar amount but rather the implicit moral and political condemnation of the dictatorship for its use of American military aid to violate the human rights of innocent Ethiopians and oppress the population. This simple and straightforward legislative action by the Appropriations Committees represents a sea change, a re-direction, of U.S. foreign policy. It is the first shot across the bow warning all tin pot dictators that the U.S. will no longer form or maintain partnerships with thugs and criminals. The Obama administration obviously understands that future U.S. military operations with rogue regimes could be adversely affected by such a policy, particularly in terms of potential anti-terror or peacekeeping missions. But the Congress and President Obama are making it clear that they are no longer willing to sustain the culture of impunity of these regimes or subordinate fundamental human rights to political expediency by providing dictators with military training and equipment which will inevitably be used to crackdown on internal opposition and wage war against neighboring countries. The Moral Challenge in Obama’s Foreign Policy Last week, President Obama gave a stirring speech on the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how he plans to keep America safe from its sworn enemies: … I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. In that speech, the President raised American foreign policy from the murky morass of Bush’s cowboy unilateralism to the sublime heights of moral clarity grounded in America’s founding principles and values. The President stressed the urgency of restoring a moral perspective in the debates over the challenges of American foreign policy, and the need to return to fundamental American principles and values for guidance. President Obama has witnessed the enormous damage inflicted upon America’s role in the world, and the corruption of American values and principles under the Bush-Cheney administration. The contrived war in Iraq, the unspeakable abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and the albatross hanging around America’s neck, the grotesque detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are merely examples of the moral decay America had to endure over the past eight years. That is why the President had to emphatically declare to the world that he believes “with every fiber of his being” in the “rule of law, liberty, justice, equality fairness and the dignity of the individual”. No more of a foreign policy based on a twisted philosophy of the “end justifies the means”. We anticipate the hollow and deceitful sovereignty arguments raised so often by the dictators in Ethiopia. They say, “no one can tell them how to run their ‘country’ by giving or denying them aid.” But they need to understand that linking military aid, or for that matter economic aid, to explicit human rights criteria is not to violate anyone’s sovereignty. Sovereign American law (Leahy Amendment) requires denial of military aid to any regime whose military units engage in gross abuses of human rights. By denying military aid, the U.S. is merely dissociating itself from the crimes, corruption and atrocities of the dictators in Ethiopia. The U.S. no longer wants to support and foster their culture of impunity that tolerates the burning of villages in the Ogaden to accomplish the ends of “counter-terrorism”, or the massacre of innocent protesters in the streets to help them “cling to power”. Most importantly, the termination of military assistance to rogue regimes is essentially about America itself and its role in the world. Tin pot dictators have the choice of “clinging to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent”; and America has the choice of clinging fiercely and tenaciously to its fundamental principles and values of “liberty, justice, freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.” H.R. 1105 makes that choice for America. Writing on the Wall: Endgame! It is reasonable to suppose that the dictators in Ethiopia see the relevant provisions of H.R.1105 as the proverbial writing on the wall, the beginning of the endgame. They never thought in their wildest imaginations that Barack Obama would be elected President. They thought they had it sewed up by donating millions to a certain foundation. They thought they could throw around their millions on K Street lobbyists and stonewall any change in American foreign policy towards them. They thought they were invincible because they could wine and dine witless American politicians to do their dirty deeds. They thought Bush’s “war on terror” will go on forever. They thought they could exploit to their advantage America’s global dilemma over national security and the protection of human rights. They thought American power came from the shrapnel of its bombs, the deadly accuracy of its missiles and the formidable capabilities of its armed forces. But they could never imagine or understand that America’s awesome power lies in the principles and values declared to a “candid world” over two centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is impossible for them to even begin to understand what President Obama means when he says he believes “with every fiber of his being” in the “power of our most fundamental values”. But it is with the aid of these values and principles that President Obama shall seek to restore America’s leadership in the world, and win the hearts and minds of friends and foes alike. The dictators in Ethiopia have a big problem on their hands. They don’t know what to do with President Obama. They are confused. Most likely, they feel vulnerable and unsure of what will happen next. So, they will try to entice him to support them by re-deploying troops to Somalia to prove once more that the U.S. needs them to fight against al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda and whoever else is hiding behind a rock there. They will try to scare him by threatening to dump America and go to China for their military needs. They will try to sweet-talk him into believing that they will be nice and take steps to be more democratic and stop violating human rights. They will pile lies upon lies in a desperate attempt not to lose American material and moral support. But all of that will be in vain. President Obama is not George Bush. He can not be schmoozed by silly talk of the birth pangs of a “nascent democracy” and that sort of hogwash. President Obama knows African politics and history well; and he has spoken eloquently of Africa’s tragic predicament: Dictators that “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent,” human rights abuses, the absence of the rule of law, corruption and repression. One can not overcome these problems by having more guns and tanks or by training soldiers to use them skillfully against innocent citizens. That is why President Obama reached out to all tin pot dictators and promised “that we will extend a hand if [they] are willing to unclench [their] fist”, and offered “to the people of poor nations [that] we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” America will not give military aid to dictators to kill and oppress their people; but if the dictators “unclench their fists”, it will gladly help them build institutions and civil society organizations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and human rights, and establish “the vital trust between a people and their government.” Let there be no mistake: President Obama is not naïve. He knows the terrorists and tin pot dictators of the world will not be influenced by



CERD Solvency F/L (3/3)



pleas for observance of the rule of law, or moral appeals to do what is right. He knows there is no magic formula to transform dictators into democrats. That does not happen even in fairy tales, though it has been said that once in fairyland a frog was transformed into a prince. But there is no fairyland that exists in the imagination where it is possible to change thugs into statesmen. For in the end, U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration will not be about what is wrong with self-delusional tin pot dictators that “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.” Rather, it will be about using America’s democratic values and principles to win the hearts and minds of a hostile and skeptical world that has witnessed a great nation degenerate to its lowest level over the past eight years.


Possibly More Case Defense


Updated at 8:27 PM


Heg causes Russian-Sino alliances to counterbalance – causes nuclear extinction
Paul Craig Roberts 07 Senior Research Fellow @ the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies (“US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance,” __http://www.lewrockwell.com/ roberts/roberts218.html__)
This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance. This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China. Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony. Russia and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration’s unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite 5 years of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict. In an attempt to gain the advantage in a nuclear conflict, the neocons are positioning US anti-ballistic missiles on Soviet borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is an idiotic provocation as the Russians can eliminate anti-ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. Neocons are people who desire war, but know nothing about it. Thus, the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan’s have broken the agreements and understandings. The US gratuitously brought NATO and anti-ballistic missiles to Russia’s borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of V. Putin. These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote resources to their economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America’s aggressive posture to revamp their militaries. Americans need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between the US, Russia, and China would establish the hegemony of the cockroach. In a mere 6.5 years the Bush regime has destroyed the world’s good will toward the US. Today, America’s influence in the world is limited to its payments of tens of millions of dollars to bribed heads of foreign governments, such as Egypt’s and Pakistan’s. The Bush regime even thinks that as it has bought and paid for Musharraf, he will stand aside and permit Bush to make air strikes inside Pakistan. Is Bush blind to the danger that he will cause an Islamic revolution within Pakistan that will depose the US puppet and present the Middle East with an Islamic state armed with nuclear weapons? Considering the instabilities and dangers that abound, the aggressive posture of the Bush regime goes far beyond recklessness. The Bush regime is the most irresponsibly aggressive regime the world has seen since Hitler’s.
US hegemony destroys the economy
Ivan Eland 02, Director of defense policy studies Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 459- The Empire Strikes Out: The New Imperialism and Its Fatal Flaws, November 26, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/ pa459.pdf)
Most of all, the strategy of empire is likely to overstretch and bleed America’s economy and its military and federal budgets, and the overextension could hasten the decline of the United States as a superpower, as it did the Soviet Union and Great Britain. The strategy could also have the opposite effect from what its proponents claim it would have; that is, it would alarm other nations and peoples and thus provoke counterbalancing behavior and create incentives for other nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction as an insurance policy against American military might.
Nuclear War
Mead, 9 – Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Walter Russell, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, 2/4/09,
__http://www.tnr.com/politics/ story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887- 4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2__)
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.