You are on page 1of 120

Gonzaga Debate Institute 1

Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan Affirmative
Sudan Affirmative................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Sudan 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Sudan 1AC........................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Sudan 1AC........................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Camus Module- Killing an Arab 1/ .................................................................................................................................... 13
Camus Module- Killing an Arab 2/ .................................................................................................................................... 14
Camus Module- Killing an Arab 3/ .................................................................................................................................... 15
Camus Module – Killing an Arab 4/ .................................................................................................................................. 16
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 21
Camus Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................... 22
***US Role is Key***........................................................................................................................................................ 23
US is Key to Peace in Sudan .............................................................................................................................................. 24
US Role is Key.................................................................................................................................................................... 25
***Racism Add On***....................................................................................................................................................... 26
Racism Advantage .............................................................................................................................................................. 27
***Harms Extensions*** ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Genocide.............................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Internally Displaced Peoples .............................................................................................................................................. 41
Disease................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
***Topicality Answers*** ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Sudan is a UN Peacekeeping Mission................................................................................................................................ 44
Sudan Peacekeeping Increases UN Credibility.................................................................................................................. 45
***Politics***..................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Politics Frontline 1/4........................................................................................................................................................... 47
Politics Frontline 2/4........................................................................................................................................................... 48
Politics Frontline3/4............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Politics Frontline 4/4........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Sudan is a Win for Bush ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Sudan Costs No Political Capital........................................................................................................................................ 52
Sudan a Win for Bush ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Uniqueness .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Substantive Solvency .......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Militias Solve ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Militias Solve ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58
International Intervention Solves........................................................................................................................................ 59
***Justice/Genocide Module*** ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Obligation to the Other ....................................................................................................................................................... 63
We Must Acknowledge Genocide to Solve ....................................................................................................................... 65
Justice Is Key to Reconciliation ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Justice key to prevent culture of impunity ......................................................................................................................... 66
Justice Is Key to Reconciliation ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Justice is key........................................................................................................................................................................ 67
Justice Is Key to Reconciliation ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Justice is key to peace ......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

We Must Understand Genocide.......................................................................................................................................... 69


We Must Understand Genocide.......................................................................................................................................... 70
Narratives Key to Remembering/Remembering Key........................................................................................................ 71
We must recount what happened in Rwanda or risk forgetting ........................................................................................ 71
Assuming Responsibility Key to Prevent Future Genocide .............................................................................................. 72
Bystanders Influence Genocide .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Inaction is a choice-bystanders have an obligation to act.................................................................................................. 73
Bystanders Influence Genocide .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Genocide Minimalization Bad............................................................................................................................................ 75
Genocide Education Good .................................................................................................................................................. 76
The Holocaust Requires Vigilance Against Future Genocide........................................................................................... 77
Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 78
Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 79
Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 80
Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurance.............................................................................................................. 82
***Infinite Responsibility Module***............................................................................................................................... 83
The Aff. is the Ultimate Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 84
Infinite Responsibility Solves for Violence ....................................................................................................................... 85
Responsibility Creates Effective Politics ........................................................................................................................... 86
Responsibility Solves Egoism ............................................................................................................................................ 87
Recognizing Responsibility is a Sign of Love ................................................................................................................... 88
Responsibility is a Form of Resisting Domination ............................................................................................................ 89
Personal Testimony Solves................................................................................................................................................. 90
Moral Force (Good) ............................................................................................................................................................ 91
Language Alone Opens the Possibility of a Relationship With the Other........................................................................ 92
Engaging the Face 1/1......................................................................................................................................................... 93
***Derrida***..................................................................................................................................................................... 94
Calculation Bad ................................................................................................................................................................... 95
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE OTHER............................................................................................................................... 97
Bearing Witness ................................................................................................................................................................ 101
AU Counterplan Frontline 1/1 .......................................................................................................................................... 105
AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 106
No OAU unity ................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Local organizations solve ................................................................................................................................................. 108
AU has no power............................................................................................................................................................... 109
AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 110
AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 111
AU Lacks Resources......................................................................................................................................................... 112
No Advantage to Consultation.......................................................................................................................................... 113
The AU is Not Ready to Lead in Conflicts ...................................................................................................................... 114
The AU is Ineffective........................................................................................................................................................ 115
AU Consultation Fails....................................................................................................................................................... 116
AU Doesn’t Want into Sudan ........................................................................................................................................... 117
The AU won’t agree to stop Sudan conflict..................................................................................................................... 117
The AU is not concerned with Zimbabwe crisis.............................................................................................................. 117
Gonzaga Debate Institute 3
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
Observation 1 Inherency
The government of Sudan continues to support the Janjaweed who are using systematic
rape as a means of “Arabification” and Torture of the African Population
Washington Post July 4, 2004 (accessed online at
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1139384,jec)
At first light last Sunday, three young women walked into a field just outside their refugee camp in West
Darfur. They had gone out to collect straw for their family's donkeys. They recalled thinking that the Arab
militiamen who were attacking African tribes at night would still be asleep. But six men grabbed them,
yelling Arabic slurs such as zurga and abid, meaning "black" and "slave." Then the men raped them, beat
them and left them on the ground, they said. "They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, 'Black girl,
you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,'" said Sawela Suliman, 22, showing
slashes from where a whip had struck her thighs as her father held up a police and health report with details
of the attack. "They said, 'You get out of this area and leave the child when it's made.'" Suliman's father, a
tall, proud man dressed in a flowing white robe, cried as she described the rape. It was not an isolated
incident, according to human rights officials and aid workers in this region of western Sudan, where 1.2
million Africans have been driven from their lands by government-backed Arab militias, tribal fighters
known as Janjaweed. Interviews with two dozen women at camps, schools and health centers in two
provincial capitals in Darfur yielded consistent reports that the Janjaweed were carrying out waves of attacks
targeting African women. The victims and others said the rapes seemed to be a systematic campaign to
humiliate the women, their husbands and fathers, and to weaken tribal ethnic lines. In Sudan, as in many
Arab cultures, a child's ethnicity is attached to the ethnicity of the father. "The pattern is so clear because
they are doing it in such a massive way and always saying the same thing," said an international aid worker
who is involved in health care. She and other international aid officials spoke on condition of anonymity,
saying they feared reprisals or delays of permits that might hamper their operations. She showed a list of
victims from Rokero, a town outside of Jebel Marra in central Darfur where 400 women said they were raped
by the Janjaweed. "It's systematic," the aid worker said. "Everyone knows how the father carries the lineage
in the culture. They want more Arab babies to take the land. The scary thing is that I don't think we realize
the extent of how widespread this is yet." Another international aid worker, a high-ranking official, said,
"These rapes are built on tribal tensions and orchestrated to create a dynamic where the African tribal groups
are destroyed. It's hard to believe that they tell them they want to make Arab babies, but it's true. It's
systematic, and these cases are what made me believe that it is part of ethnic cleansing and that they are
doing it in a massive way."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 4
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
Scenario One Internally Displaced Peoples

In an attempt to flee the Janjaweed, over one million Sudanese have been displaced
Slavin in 2004 (July 4, Chicago Sun Times, accessed online, jec)
But there is little to celebrate in Darfur. Powell's visit was the administration's most dramatic effort yet to
find a solution to the looming humanitarian catastrophe here. More than a million people have been forced
from their homes in a bitter conflict over power and resources that also has ethnic roots. The Janjaweed are
Arab militias who have driven non-Arab villagers off the land in Darfur in an ethnic-cleansing campaign that
many human rights groups believe now verges on genocide. United Nations officials and human rights
activists say Sudan's armed forces back the Janjaweed. The government in Khartoum says they are outlaws
and it is determined to disarm them. What is not in dispute is that people in Darfur are dying in alarming
numbers. Conditions at Abu Shouk, the site selected for Powell to see by the Sudanese government, are
vastly superior to the horrific scenes of famine and squalor in other camps to the north and west. Some aid
workers called Abu Shouk a ''show camp'' that was spruced up for Powell, who was accompanied by
Sudanese officials at all times. While there were no visible signs of famine here, other camps are said to be
heartbreaking. ''The camp I went to was one of the better camps,'' Powell told National Public Radio after his
visit. ''I'm sure there are camps out there that are awful and nowhere near what I saw today.'' Between 15,000
and 30,000 people have perished in Darfur in the past 16 months. U.S. officials say 500,000 more may die if
they can't go home or if more aid doesn't arrive soon. Powell spent only about 20 minutes here, cutting short
his visit to escape an approaching sandstorm. Afterward he told reporters that Abu Shouk -- located about
400 miles west of the Sudanese capital of Khartoum -- and more than 130 other camps in Darfur are not the
solution to the crisis. ''These people want to go home, they need to go home,'' he said. ''And they can't go
home if it's not safe.''

As the rainy season approaches the displaced are at risk for multiple diseases
Slavin in 2004 (July 4, Chicago Sun Times, accessed online, jec)
Relief workers worry that the death toll will rise during the rainy season, which lasts until August and turns
camps like Abu Shouk into lakes of mud. Already, there have been outbreaks of measles, diarrhea,
meningitis, malaria and even polio in Darfur camps. Half of the malnourished children who catch measles
die, aid workers say.

The Potential Exists for these Diseases to Kick off an Epidemic


Garrett, Senior Fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, May 18, 2004
[Laurie, The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario), l/n]
As the horrors of Sudan's ethnic conflict mount, opportunities for pathogenic microbes -- germs that could
threaten people all over the world -- rise in tandem. War and disease are often a matched set in Africa, with
terrifying results: If the fighting doesn't kill you, disease very well could. And without outside help to stop
the cycle, the devastating results will only spread. In the Darfur region of western Sudan, an estimated one
million ethnic-African Sudanese are refugees, the targets of government troops and horseback "janjaweed"
militia -- ethnic Arabs -- who are torching and raping their way across hundreds of miles of poor farmland.
It is almost impossible to overstate how remote this region is. Permission to legally visit the area is rarely
granted by the Sudanese government. So scientists know very little about the area's plants and animals, much
less its microbes. But what they can surmise is frightening. Darfur is just 800 kilometres north of N'zara,
where scientists believe the often lethal West Nile virus (which has now spread to the United States and
Canada) resides. In 1976, N'zara also was the site of a major outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus. And across
Sudan's southern border, Uganda is believed to be ground zero for the global AIDS epidemic. The
circumstances of West Nile's spread remain a mystery, but the Ebola outbreak and the AIDS epidemic owe a
great deal to the treacherous mixing of war, refugees and microbes.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 5
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
Scenario 2 Genocide
As the Bush Administration Invokes Memories of Our Inaction in Rwanda, They fail to
take firm stand against Ongoing Genocide in Sudan
New Republic July5 ,2004 ( pg.7, accessed online,jec)
In March 2003, days before the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein, President Bush went on the radio
to declare, "We have seen far too many instances in the past decade--from Bosnia to Rwanda to Kosovo--
where the failure of the Security Council to act decisively has led to tragedy." But behind his statement lay a
bitter irony. Because, even as the United States was resolving never again to stand by and allow genocide in
Iraq, it was standing by and allowing genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Over the past year, as the national security
rationale for the Iraq war has deteriorated, the Bush administration has turned increasingly to moral language
to justify its invasion. Which makes it all the more remarkable that it has remained so passive in the face of
the greatest moral emergency on earth today. For more than a year now, in its western province of Darfur,
Sudan's Arab government has been sending its bombers and arming a militia known as the Janjaweed to
slaughter and ethnically cleanse black Africans from the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa tribes, which the
government accuses of backing a rebellion. The International Crisis Group estimates the conflict has already
claimed 30,000 lives and displaced 1.2 million people. And usaid Administrator Andrew S. Natsios predicts
that as many as one million people could die from starvation and disease during the current rainy season if
the Sudanese continue to deny relief agencies access. So far, the United States and the world have done
precious little in response. The Bush administration fears that, if it alienates the Khartoum government over
Darfur, it will undermine one of its signature African achievements--the potential end to the 21-year civil war
in southern Sudan. China and France have resisted a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that
Khartoum halt the violence and allow immediate humanitarian access because they have oil investments in
Sudan. Russia and rotating Security Council member Pakistan, both of which are combating insurgencies,
object that a resolution would infringe on Sudan's sovereignty. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week
agreed to visit Darfur soon but made no further commitment. This inaction is particularly tragic because
there's so much that can be done. Khartoum has yet to make good on its promise to disarm the Janjaweed, but
it clearly has influence over the militia; indeed, many Janjaweed members have close ties to the Sudanese
military. And the world has influence over Sudan. In 1996, for instance, Khartoum bent to international
demands and expelled Osama bin Laden. In 2001, foreign pressure helped launch new peace talks in the
south. In recent weeks, the Bush administration has taken modest steps in the right direction. It has
conditioned the normalization of relations with Khartoum upon an end to violence in Darfur. And it may
supplement America's current sanctions against Sudan with travel and financial restrictions that target
individual government officials. To make such sanctions more effective, the United States should coordinate
with its European allies, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. But economic pressure isn't
enough. The African Union and European Union are currently assembling 120 soldiers to monitor the "cease-
fire" in Darfur--a region the size of France. That force needs to be much larger and much more aggressive.
Until the violence stops and the humanitarian crisis subsides, peacekeepers should establish safe havens for
displaced persons--places where aid organizations can tend to the hungry and sick, safe from attacks by
Khartoum's killers.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 6
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
International Action-Acknowledging the Genocide – is Key to Solve
Chiahemen 2004 (Fanen U.N. Wire) http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040617/449_24984.asp, LL
Sudan needs to reconcile itself to the multiplicity of its cultures and religions if it is to end the crisis in the
western Darfur region and avoid future internal conflicts, a panel of Sudan experts said yesterday, noting that
ethnic cleansing is well underway in Darfur and needs to be halted by international pressure. With its mix of
African and Arab Muslims, as well as a small population of mostly Christian Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians
and Italians, Sudan is a multiethnic, multireligious country, and issues of multiplicity need to be solved on a
national level, former Darfur governor Ahmed Diraige said yesterday at a forum on the Sudan crisis at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "Unless the issue of multiplicity is solved, Sudan
will always be in trouble," he said. An acknowledgement of the country's multiethnic makeup would give
way to the sharing of political power and wealth and an end to the hegemony by the ruling Arab elite that has
sparked conflict by the agitated, disfranchised black African population, such as the people of Darfur,
Diraige said. "[The people of] Darfur want to be incorporated into the government; they want recognition of
their presence," Diraige said. Because "Darfur is a microcosm of the Sudan," he added, "if we solve the
whole problem of the Sudan, then we can solve the problems of Darfur." Diraige and the other two panelists,
U.N. representative on internally displaced persons Francis Deng and John Prendergast, special adviser to the
president of the International Crisis Group, said the conflict in Darfur is at a critical stage and the world
needs to act now rather than squabble over whether what is taking place in Darfur can be labeled genocide.
"What the government [of Sudan] has done more than satisfies the definition of genocide," Prendergast said,
arguing that with the government having driven an ethnic cleansing campaign, the second phase of genocide
was now being carried out "in full force," whereby starvation and disease are being used to "finish the job."
"It's a choice whether we want 350,000 people to die in the next six months," Prendergast said, adding that
there should be "a multilateral condemnation" of the government of Sudan, which has used food and
starvation as a weapon against the people of Darfur. Prendergast called the tactics that have been used by the
Sudanese government "more brutal than most of the ... top 20 great violators of human rights in the last
century," and said he was "flabbergasted" that there was no U.N. human rights monitor in Sudan. He said
those seeking to end the suffering in Sudan need to focus simultaneously on famine prevention, the reversal
of ethnic cleansing and peacemaking. He also called for a mechanism of accountability for those who have
carried out and supported the violence. Diraige pressed for the use of a military force such as NATO to help
with humanitarian operations as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo. Reiterating the need for action, Deng
said that while he was impressed by the level of concern around the world for Darfur, he felt the world was
experiencing guilt for allowing the Rwandan genocide to take place, in which about 800,000 people were
killed. The crisis in Darfur "has been happening in other parts of Sudan for decades," Deng said. "This outcry
is soothing our conscience."

The Window to Stop This Genocide is Closing


Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)
Once again, Africa is being stained by the horror of genocide. In the western region of Sudan, in a place
called Darfur, 30,000 people have been murdered in a Sudanese government-supported mass killing. More
than a million have been driven from their homes. The global community should not stand idly by -- and it
did in Rwanda -- and tolerate mass murder. Recent NASA photos of the Darfur region show destruction in
nearly 400 villages. Widespread attacks camps for displaced persons have been reported. Worse still, the
window of opportunity to help 2 million Sudanese in need of aid in Darfur is quickly closing, said Andrew
Natsios, administrator of the Agency for International Development. The agency estimates that 350,000
people could die of disease and malnutrition over the next nine months. Natsios calls that estimate
conservative. The violence in Darfur is directed at the darker-skinned people of the region by the lighter-
skinned Arabs in the north. The purpose appears to be acquisition of land by means of annihilation. The
Bush administration did well in helping to broker a peace deal between the Islamic government of Sudan in
the north and Christian and animist rebels in the south. That ended a 21-year war in which 2 million people
lost their lives. But now another war has erupted, and it demands immediate action.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 7
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Plan – The United States federal government should increase support for UN Peacekeeping
operations by acknowledging that the activity of the Junjaweed is genocide and providing
non combatant force multipliers to the Sudan peacekeeping mission. Funding and
Enforcement are guaranteed. Any questions just ask
.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 8
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
Solvency

Private Military could be used in Sudan are Force Multipliers


Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
David Wimhurst, a spokesman in the office of the U.N. Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping
Operations, dismisses the privatization idea. "It's not going to go anywhere. Forget about it," he says. "So you
get a gang of mercenaries in there, basically. Who do they report to? Who controls them? It's a nonstarter."
Wimhurst's vehement response is typical at the United Nations, says Peter Gantz, a peacekeeping associate
at Refugees International, a private humanitarian group: There, people's aversion to putting soldiers of
fortune among blue helmets gets in the way of an honest assessment of what private companies could offer.
"The thing that disappoints me is that the people who oppose the idea oppose it so categorically, it seems,
particularly the United Nations, so they don't open themselves up to the middle ground," he says. "To me,
what the Department of Peacekeeping Operations should be doing is looking at what companies are out there
and what they can provide and having an honest debate within the United Nations about it. If you have the
United States and the United Kingdom and France and these other major military powers utilizing private
companies to support military operations, then the United Nations should be able to at least consider doing
the same thing." To some degree, it already is. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Los Angeles-based
Pacific Architects & Engineers revamped the airfields and now manages air traffic control, a crucial part of
operations in a country as vast as that one, where a paltry 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers cannot possibly be
expected to be everywhere at once. PAE is providing fuel, vehicles, and rations for the new mission in Ivory
Coast. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution fellow and the author of Corporate Warriors, a detailed analysis
of the rise of private military companies, says, "Logistics is not just innocuous tasks. It is things that are
critical to the overall operation. The second thing is that on the modern battlefield, there's no fixed front line,
so any part of the operation can come under threat. And any part of the operation may be called on to play a
role in combat." A more robust version of logistical support would use private firms as "force multipliers" to
leverage the power of U.N. troops. This is the key to Brooks's Sudan proposal: Refurbish five airfields, plop
U.N. troops down to guard them, and rely primarily on surveillance equipment with a satellite connection so
that government officials and rebels can monitor the truce in virtual time. Do more with less.

Labelling the Darfur Tragedy Genocide Ensures Intervention


Newsweek 04 (July 12, pg. 30, accessed online, jec)
The venue was the message. Still, in case the point somehow escaped anyone in the crowd at Washington's
Holocaust Memorial Museum, the rally's organizers pounded the word relentlessly: "Genocide!" They were talking
about the ongoing crisis in Sudan's Darfur region, where government-backed Arab militias have savagely driven
roughly 1 million black villagers from their homes and land. Relief officials say 300,000 or more of the victims
could die in the next few months of hunger and disease. Protesters gathered again in Washington last week outside
the Sudanese Embassy to demand U.N. military intervention aimed at "ending the genocide of Sudan's African
people." An army of activists has taken up the cry. "This is genocide unfolding," says Physicians for Human Rights
investigator John Heffernan. U.S. Committee for Refugees spokesman Steven Forester concurs: "It's incumbent on
the president to strongly call this by its rightful name. Time has run out." What's in a name? Plenty, when the topic
is genocide. Applying the term to Darfur would give the Bush administration little choice but to put the matter
before the U.N. Security Council, and would probably mean sending in U.N. troops. The United States is among the
135 parties to a 1948 U.N. convention denouncing genocide as "an odious scourge" and requiring the participating
nations to punish and prevent "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group." Bill Clinton's advisers froze at the prospect during the 1994 bloodbath in Rwanda (much to their
later regret). But in recent weeks the Bush administration has crept to the very edge of using the word to describe
Darfur. Both Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan flew in last week to give the
Sudanese government one last chance to stop the killing. "What we are seeing is a disaster, a catastrophe," Powell
told reporters in Khartoum. "We can find the right label for it later. We've got to deal with it now." Can Khartoum
really be trusted to reverse course? Desperate barely begins to describe Darfur's plight. "People spoke about their
water supply being poisoned, their crops being burned, their livestock stolen," says Heffernan, who recently visited
refugee camps on Darfur's border with Chad. "There needs to be some kind of action. By waiting any longer, we risk
the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 9
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
Acknowledging the Genocide Obligates US to Involvement
Zimmerman 01( Kenneth R, accessed Insight on the News, July 16.jec)
"The term `genocide' is important," says one top congressional staffer who follows African affairs on a daily
basis. "If the State Department determines that the massacre of Christians and animists in southern Sudan fits
the meaning of genocide, then the United States is duty-bound to intervene in the conflict by the terms of the
International Convention on Genocide. Sensitivity to the slaughter in Africa has become more acute since
1994, when the international community failed to intervene in Rwanda to stop the massacre of hundreds of
thousands of Tutsi tribesmen by rival Hutus."

The US IS key to Gaining International Support for Stopping the Junjaweed


Power, Harvard University, 2004 (Samantha, April 22,Federal Document Clearing House Congressional
Testimony, jec)]
In Sudan, the all-or-nothing approach has been compounded by the administration's reluctance to risk
undermining the peace process it has spearheaded between Sudan's government and the rebels in the south.
While President Bush should be applauded for his leadership in attempting to broker peace in Sudan's civil
war, he must stand up to Khartoum during these difficult negotiations. What would standing up to Sudan
entail? The administration has several options: On the economic and diplomatic front, the United States has
already demonstrated its clout in Sudan, which is desperate to see American sanctions lifted. So far,
Secretary of State Colin Powell has rightly described the humanitarian crisis as a "catastrophe." But the
White House and the Pentagon have been mostly mute. President Bush must use American leverage to
demand that the government in Khartoum cease its aerial attacks, terminate its arms supplies to the
Janjaweed and punish those militia accused of looting, rape and murder. The president made a phone call to
Sudan's president, Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir, and issued a strong public denunciation of the Darfur
killings on April 7, 2004, and this pressure yielded the immediate announcement of a cease-fire. But as soon
as U.S. attention waned, the killings resumed. Mr. Bush should keep calling until humanitarian workers and
investigators are permitted free movement in the region, a no-fly zone is declared and the killings are
stopped, and he should dispatch Mr. Powell to the Chad- Sudan border to signal America's resolve. The
Bush administration cannot do this alone. Ten thousand international peacekeepers are needed in Darfur.
President Bush will have to press Sudan to agree to a United Nations mission -- and he will also need
United Nations member states to sign on. The Europeans can help by urging the Security Council to refer the
killings to the newly created International Criminal Court. Though the United States has been hostile to the
court, this is one move it should not veto, as an investigation by the court could deter future massacres.

The US Can Send Tangible and Symbolic Signals to Sudan to Stop the Genocide
Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)
The United States should impose strict sanctions against the Sudanese government until it reigns in the
Janjaweed, a group of allied Arab militias attacking people in the south. The administration has characterized
what is happening now in Sudan as ethnic cleansing rather than the genocide that many consider it to be.
Classifying it as genocide could impose legal obligations to intervene. As stretched as the U.S. military is
now, the intervention of U.S. peacekeeping troops is not a viable option. But the United States can prod the
U.N. Security Council to take action, including the use of troops. The world body needs to make clear that
the slaughter of innocent people will not be tolerated. Joseph Siegle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, who worked in south Sudan with World Vision, a humanitarian organization, said the Sudanese
government is duplicitous and will only respond when it's in its interest. The United States and the Security
Council need to signal that there will be penalties if the killing continues. The European Union and the
African Union also should be enlisted to stop the bloodshed. "The critical thing is to call for all countries to
break off relations with Sudan," said Robert Rotberg, a Harvard University professor and president of the
World Peace Foundation. That means the United States must press the rest of the world to ban air traffic to
Sudan and to not allow Sudanese aircraft to fly over any other country's air space. In short, the Sudanese
government needs to know it will be isolated by the world community if it does not end support for the
Janjaweed. The world largely stood by during the genocide in Rwanda. That's not a mistake that should be
made a second time.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 10
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC

Acknowledging Sudan as a Genocide and Referring to the ICC solves future genocides by
spurring domestic legal change and empowering political groups
Christian Science Monitor, 9/5/2002
Court advocates know the ICC will be no panacea. Still, they call it the greatest achievement for universal
human rights in half a century, a tool that may revolutionize how domestic courts around the globe conduct
their business. The ICC jurisdiction and its definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
will compel signatory countries to adopt these statutes in their criminal codes, supporters say - and to
prosecute violators or face the prospect of the ICC doing it for them. That is expected to embolden judges,
prosecutors, and activists, particularly in the developing world. "For those who feel utter helplessness that
nothing is done about rogues who defy the international community and act as if they are above the law, the
ICC extends the frontiers of justice," said Albie Sachs, an anti-apartheid activist who now serves on the
Constitutional Court of South Africa. "The ICC emphasizes the universality of human rights and the
universal responsibilities of all of humanity. The excuse of sovereignty can no longer be used in the face of
human tragedy." Hailing the court as "a victory for accountability" and "the end of impunity," the governing
body of the ICC is meeting in the UN and now begins a three-month process of nominating the ICC
prosecutor and its 18 judges. Elections are slated for February, with the court expected to begin investigating
cases next summer.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 11
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC
The responsibility to the other solves digression and hatred it is able to endure violence to
the self
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. 110-111
In obsession the accusation effected by categories turns into an absolute accusative in which the ego proper
to free consciousness is caught up. It is an accusation without foundation, to be sure, prior to any movement
of the will, an obsessional and persecuting accusation. It strips the ego of its pride and the dominating
imperialism characteristic of it. The subject is in the accusative, without recourse in being, expelled from
being, outside of being, like the one in the first hypotheses of Parmenides, without a foundation, reduced to
itself, and thus without condition. In its own skin. Not at rest under a form, but tight in its skin, encumbered
and as it were stuffed with itself, suffocating under itself, insufficiently open, forced to detach itself from
itself, to breathe more deeply, all the way, forced to dispossess itself to the point of losing itself. Does this
loss have as its term the void, the zero point and the peace of cemeteries, as though the subjectivity of a
subject meant nothing? Or do the being encumbered with oneself and the suffering of constriction in one’s
skin, better than metaphors, follow the exact trope of an alteration of essence, which inverts, or would invert,
into a recurrence in which the expulsion of self outside of itself is its substitution for the other? Is not that
what the self emptying itself of itself would really mean? This recurrence would be the ultimate secret of the
incarnation of the subject; prior to all reflection, prior to every positing, an indebtedness before any loan, not
assumed, anarchical, subjectivity of a bottomless passivity, made out of assignation, like the echo of a sound
that would precede the resonance of this sound. The active source of this passivity is not thematizable. It is
the passivity of a trauma, but one that prevents its own representation, a deafening trauma, cutting the thread
of consciousness which should have welcomed it in its present, the passivity of being persecuted. This
passivity deserves the epithet of complete or absolute only if the persecuted one is liable to answer for the
persecutor. The face of the neighbor in its persecuting hatred can by this very malice obsess as something
pitiful. This equivocation or enigma only the persecuted one who does not evade it, but is without any
references, any recourse or help (that is its uniqueness or its identity as unique!) is able to endure. To undergo
from the other is an absolute patience only if by this from-the-other is already for-the-other. This transfer,
other than interested, “otherwise than essence,” is subjectivity itself. “To tend the cheek to the smiter and to
be filled with shame,”14 to demand suffering in the suffering undergone (without producing the act that would
be the exposing of the other cheek) is not to draw from suffering some kind of magical redemptive virtue. In
the trauma of persecution it is to pass from the outrage undergone to the responsibility for the persecutor,
and, in this sense from suffering to expiation for the other. Persecution is not something added to the
subjectivity of the subject and his vulnerability; it is the very movement of recurrence. The subjectivity as the
other in the same, as an inspiration, is the putting into question of all affirmation for-oneself, all egoism born
again in this very recurrence. (This putting into question is not a preventing!) The subjectivity of a subject is
responsibility of being-in-question’5 in the form of the total exposure to offence in the cheek offered to the
smiter. This responsibility is prior to dialogue, to the exchange of questions and answers, to the thematization
of the said, which is superposed on my being put into question by the other in proximity, and in the saying
proper to responsibility is produced as a digression.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 12
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 1/


This argument is intended to work with more traditional explanations of what is happening
in Sudan. It essentially seeks to establish that , only through the relationship with the other
can we survive and transcend violence. There are a few untagged cards in back so that you
have some flexibility in running it.

The US is Currently Unwilling to Classify the Sudan as a Genocide


Birchall 04(Jonathan, Financial Times Online, July 5, jec)
More than 800,000 people have been made homeless. Pro-government militias have systematically burned
villages and destroyed crops and wells. Up to 30,000 have been killed in the conflict, many of them civilians;
and there are fears that at least 300,000 more could die from resulting hunger and disease. By any measure,
the situation in Sudan's western Darfur region is a man-made catastrophe. But as the international community
steps up pressure on Sudan's government over the crisis, it is also struggling with a question of definitions:
should the targeting of the region's black African population by militia drawn largely from the local nomadic
Arab herders be classed as genocide? "These are innocent people being raped, murdered, forced into sexual
slavery and being submitted to other kinds of brutality," argued Donald Payne, a member of the US House of
Representatives, announcing a bid to persuade the US and the United Nations to invoke the international
convention on genocide over Darfur. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, disagrees. After visiting Sudan
last week, he talked of "some indicators, but certainly not a full accounting of all the indicators that lead to a
legal definition of genocide".

We are at a crisis point. Daily we allow more Sudanese to be slaughtered by the


government funded Junjaweed. We are not unlike Camus’ Mersault- forced with a decision
to make live or let die.
Albert Camus, The Stranger, pg.58,1963)
As soon as he saw me, he sat up a little and put his hand in his pocket. Naturally, I gripped Raymond's gun
inside my jacket. Then he lay back again, but without taking his hand out of his pocket. I was pretty far away
from him, about ten meters or so. I could tell he was glancing at me now and then through half-closed eyes.
But most of the time, he was just a form shimmering before my eyes in the fiery air. The sound of the waves
was even lazier, more drawn out than at noon. It was the same sun, the same light still shining on the same
sand as before. For two hours the day had stood still; for two hours it had been anchored in a sea of molten
lead. On the horizon, a tiny steamer went by, and I made out the black dot from the corner of my eye because
I hadn't stopped watching the Arab. It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be
the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back. I took a few steps toward
the spring. The Arab didn't move. Besides, he was still pretty far away. Maybe it was the shadows on his
face, but it looked like he was laughing. I waited. The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel
drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows. The sun was the same as it had been the day I'd buried Maman,
and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this
burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I
wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward. But I took a step, one step, forward. And this time, without
getting up, the Arab drew his knife and held it up to me in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like
a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down
over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm, thick film. My eyes were blinded behind the
curtain of tears and salt. All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and,
indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me. The scorching blade slashed at my
eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes. That's when everything began to reel. The sea carried up a thick,
fiery breath. It seemed to me as if the sky split open from one end to the other to rain down fire. My whole
being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave; I felt the smooth underside of
the butt; and there, in that noise, sharp and deafening at the same time, is where it all started. I shook off the
sweat and sun. I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where
I'd been happy. Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving
a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 14
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 2/


Plan – We should acknowledge that the actions of the Sudan government and Junjaweed,
its assassins is is violation of the Genocide Convention. Any questions, just ask.

As citizens of the United States, we have begun emotionally faitigued to the point that we
no longer recognize the tragedy in others. Like Mersault we have privileged our physical
needs over the needs of the other.
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963)
Right after my arrest I was questioned several times, but it was just so they could find out who I was, which
didn't take long. The first time, at the police station, nobody seemed very interested in my case. A week later,
however, the examining magistrate looked me over with curiosity. But to get things started he simply asked
my name and address, my occupation, the date and place of my birth. Then he wanted to know if I had hired
an attorney. I admitted I hadn't and inquired whether it was really necessary to have one. "Why do you ask?"
he said. I said I thought my case was pretty simple. He smiled and said, "That's your opinion. But the law is
the law. If you don't hire an attorney yourself, the court will appoint one." I thought it was very convenient
that the court should take care of those details. I told him so. He agreed with me and concluded that it was a
good law.
At first, I didn't take him seriously. I was led into a curtained room; there was a single lamp on his desk
which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained standing in the shadows. I had
read descriptions of scenes like this in books and it all seemed like a game to me. After our conversation,
though, I looked at him and saw a tall, fine-featured man with deep-set blue eyes, a long gray moustache, and
lots of thick, almost white hair. He struck me as being very reasonable and, overall, quite pleasant, despite a
nervous tic which made his mouth twitch now and then. On my way out I was even going to shake his hand,
but just in time, I remembered that I had killed a man.
The next day a lawyer came to see me at the prison. He was short and chubby, quite young, his hair carefully
slicked back. Despite the heat (I was in my shirt sleeves), he had on a dark suit, a wing collar, and an odd-
looking tie with broad black and white stripes. He put the briefcase he was carrying down on my bed, in-
troduced himself, and said he had gone over my file. My case was a tricky one, but he had no doubts we'd
win, if I trusted him. I thanked him and he said, "Let's get down to business."
He sat down on the bed and explained to me that there had been some investigations into my private life. It
had been learned that my mother had died recently at the home. Inquiries had then been made in Marengo.
The investigators had learned that I had "shown in-sensitivity" the day of Maman's funeral. "You under-
stand," my lawyer said, "it's a little embarrassing for me to have to ask you this. But it's very important. And
it will be a strong argument for the prosecution if I can't come up with some answers." He wanted me to help
him. He asked if I had felt any sadness that day. The question caught me by surprise and it seemed to me that
I would have been very embarrassed if I'd had to ask it. Nevertheless I answered that I had pretty much lost
the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 15
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 3/


Once we abandon hope of seeing the other as ourselves, it becomes nothing to let them die.
As Mersault explained to the magistrate- one shot or five shots – it is all the same when the
one being shot is less than human to us. Despite the difficulty, we must recognize that we
are all criminals. We are all judges.
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 100).
. Again without any apparent logic, the magistrate then asked if I had fired all five shots at once. I thought for
a minute and explained that at first I had fired a single shot and then, a few seconds later, the other four. Then
he said, "Why did you pause between the first and second shot?" Once again I could see the red sand and feel
the burning of the sun on my forehead. But this time I didn't answer. In the silence that followed, the
magistrate seemed to be getting fidgety. He sat down, ran his fingers through his
hair, put his elbows on his desk, and leaned toward me slightly with a strange look on his face. "Why, why
did you shoot at a body that was on the ground?" Once again I didn't know how to answer. The magistrate
ran his hands across his forehead and repeated his question with a slightly different tone in his voice. "Why?
You must tell me. Why?" Still I didn't say anything.
Suddenly he stood up, strode over to a far corner of his office, and pulled out a drawer in a file cabinet. He
took out a silver crucifix which he brandished as he came toward me. And in a completely different, almost
cracked voice, he shouted, "Do you know what this is?" I said, "Yes, of course." Speaking very quickly and
passionately, he told me that he believed in God, that it was his conviction that no man was so guilty that
God would not forgive him, but in order for that to happen a man must repent and in so doing become like a
child whose heart is open and ready to embrace all. He was leaning all the way over the table. He was waving
his crucifix almost directly over my head. To tell the truth, I had found it very hard to follow his reasoning,
first because I was hot and there were big flies in his office that kept landing on my face, and also because he
was scaring me a little. At the same time I knew that that was ridiculous because, after all, I was the criminal.
He went on anyway. I vaguely understood that to his mind there was just one thing that wasn't clear in my
confession, the fact that I had hesitated before I fired my second shot. The rest was fine, but that part he
couldn't understand.
I was about to tell him he was wrong to dwell on it, because it really didn't matter. But he cut me off and
urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if I believed in God. I said no.
He sat down indignantly. He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs
on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless. "Do you
want my life to be meaningless?" he shouted. As far as I could see, it didn't have anything to do with me, and
I told him so. But from across the table he had already thrust the crucifix in my face and was screaming
irrationally, "I am a Christian. I ask Him to forgive you your sins. How can you not believe that He suffered
for you?" I was struck by how sincere he seemed, but I had had enough. It was getting hotter and hotter. As
always, whenever I want to get rid of someone I'm not really listening to, I made it appear as if I agreed. To
my surprise, he acted triumphant. "You see, you see!" he said. "You do believe, don't you, and you're going
to place your trust in Him, aren't you?" Obviously, I again said no. He fell back in his chair.
He seemed to be very tired. He didn't say anything for a minute while the typewriter, which hadn't let up the
whole time, was still tapping out the last few sentences. Then he looked at me closely and with a little
sadness in his face. In a low voice he said, "I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours. The criminals who
have come before me have always wept at the sight of this image of suffering." I was about to say that that
was
Gonzaga Debate Institute 16
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module – Killing an Arab 4/


precisely because they were criminals. But then I realized that I was one too. It was an idea I couldn't get used to.
Then the judge stood up, as if to give me the signal that the examination was over. He simply asked, in the same
weary tone, if I was sorry for what I had done. I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt
kind of annoyed. I got the impression he didn't understand

The moment we chose to make or let die, life becomes meaningless. Only by engaging the
other and making or letting live do we achieve a purpose in living. Mersault’s final days are
spent in abandon as he realizes that life is nothing.
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, P114)
Well, so I'm going to die." Sooner than other people will, obviously. But everybody knows life isn't worth living.
Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either
case other men and women will naturally go on living—and for thousands of years. In fact, nothing could be clearer.
Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying. At that point, what would disturb my
train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life
ahead of me. But I simply had to stifle it by imagining what I'd be thinking in twenty years when it would all come
down to the same thing anyway. Since we're all going to die, it's obvious that when and how don't matter. Therefore
(and the difficult thing was not to lose sight of all the reasoning that went into this "therefore"), I had to accept the
rejection of my appeal. Then and only then would I have the right, so to speak—would I give myself permission, as
it were—to consider the alternative hypothesis: I was pardoned. The trouble was that I would somehow have to cool
the hot blood that would suddenly surge through my body and sting my eyes with a delirious joy. It would take all
my strength to quiet my heart, to be rational. In order to make my resignation to the first hypothesis more plausible,
I had to be level-headed about this one as well. If I succeeded, I gained an hour of calm. That was something
anyway. It was at one such moment that I once again refused to see the chaplain. I was lying down, and I could tell
from the golden glow in the sky that evening was coming on. I had just denied my appeal and I could feel the steady
pulse of my blood circulating inside me. I didn't need to see the chaplain. For the first time in a long time I thought
about Marie. The days had been long since she'd stopped writing. That evening I thought about it and told myself
that maybe she had gotten tired of being the girlfriend of a condemned man. It also occurred to me that maybe she
was sick, or dead. These things happen. How was I to know, since apart from our two bodies, now separated, there
wasn't anything to keep us together or even to remind us of each other? Anyway, after that, remembering Marie
meant nothing to me. I wasn't interested in her dead. That seemed perfectly normal to me, since I understood very
well that people would forget me when I was dead. They wouldn't have anything more to do with me.

Our Responsibility to the Other Demands an Accounting-


Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, ,jec)
That far from ensuring responsibility, the generality of ethics incites to irresponsibility. It impels me to speak,
to reply, to account for something, and thus to dissolve my singularity in the medium of the concept.
Such is the aporia of responsibility: one always risks not managing to accede to the concept of responsibility
in the process of forming it. For responsibility (we would no longer dare speak of "the universal concept of
responsibility") demands on the one hand an accounting, a general answering-for-oneself with respect to the
general and before the generality, hence the idea of substitution, and, on the other hand, uniqueness, absolute
singularity, hence nonsubstitution, nonrepetition, silence, and secrecy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 17
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
Our Inability to Relate to the Other is a product of that fatigue and exposure. Internally,
we all crave the relationship with the other but our socialization stops us short of making
the connection
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 64).
He thought for a minute. He asked me if he could say that that day I had held back my natural feelings. I said,
"No, because it's not true." He gave me a strange look, as if he found me slightly disgusting. He told me in an
almost snide way that in any case the director and the staff of the home would be called as witnesses and that
"things could get very nasty" for me. I pointed out to him that none of this had anything to do with my case,
but all he said was that it was obvious I had never had any dealings with the law.
He left, looking angry. I wished I could have made him stay, to explain that I wanted things between us to be
good, not so that he'd defend me better but, if I can put it this way, good in a natural way. Mostly, I could tell,
I made him feel uncomfortable. He didn't understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me. I felt the
urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else, just like everybody else. But really there wasn't much
point, and I gave up the idea out of laziness.

The price of not recognizing the other is personal imprisonment and torment
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 64).
That day, after the guard had left, I looked at myself in my tin plate. My reflection seemed to remain serious
even though I was trying to smile at it. I moved the plate around in front of me. I smiled and it still had the
same sad, stern expression. It was near the end of the day, the time of day I don't like talking about, that
nameless hour when the sounds of evening would rise up from every floor of the prison in a cortege of
silence. I moved closer to the window, and in the last light of day I gazed at my reflection one more time. It
was still serious—and what was surprising about that, since at that moment I was too? But at the same time,
and for the first time in months, I distinctly heard the sound of my own voice. I recognized it as the same one
that had been ringing in my ears for many long days, and I realized that all that time I had been talking to
myself. Then I remembered what the nurse at Maman's funeral said. No, there was no way out, and no one
can imagine what nights in prison are like.

Once We abandon our responsibility, our paths are lost


Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 97).
In the darkness of my mobile prison I could make out one by one, as if from the depths of my exhaustion, all
the familiar sounds of a town I loved and of a certain time of day when I used to feel happy. The cries of the
newspaper vendors in the already languid air, the last few birds in the square, the shouts of the sandwich
sellers, the screech of the streetcars turning sharply through the upper town, and that hum in the sky before
night engulfs the port: all this mapped out for me a route I knew so well before going to prison and which
now I traveled blind. Yes, it was the hour when, a long time ago, I was perfectly content. What awaited me
back then was always a night of easy, dreamless sleep. And yet something had changed, since it was back to
my cell that I went to wait for the next day ... as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily
to prison as to the sleep of the innocent.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 18
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
Failing the Other Leaves us caught in the machinery and lost to higher purpose
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p108).
P 108
For the third time I've refused to see the chaplain. I don't have anything to say to him; I don't feel like talking,
and I'll be seeing him soon enough as it is. All I care about right now is escaping the machinery of justice,
seeing if there's any way out of the inevitable. They've put me in a different cell. From this one, when I'm
stretched out on my bunk, I see the sky and that's all I see. I spend my days watching how the dwindling of
color turns day into night. Lying here, I put my hands behind my head and wait. I can't count the times I've
wondered if there have ever been any instances of condemned men escaping the relentless machinery, dis-
appearing before the execution or breaking through the cordon of police. Then I blame myself every time for
not having paid enough attention to accounts of executions. A man should always take an interest in those
things. You never know what might happen. I'd read stories in the papers like everybody else. But there must
have been books devoted to the subject that I'd never been curious enough to look into. Maybe I would have
found some accounts of escapes in them. I might have
discovered that in at least one instance the wheel had stopped, that in spite of all the unrelenting calculation,
chance and luck had, at least once, changed something. Just once! In a way, I think that would have been
enough. My heart would have taken over from there. The papers were always talking about the debt owed to
society. According to them, it had to be paid. But that doesn't speak to the imagination. What really counted
was the possibility of escape, a leap to freedom, out of the implacable ritual, a wild run for it that would give
whatever chance for hope there was. Of course, hope meant being cut down on some street corner, as you ran
like mad, by a random bullet. But when I really thought it through, nothing was going to allow me such a
luxury. Everything was against it; I would just be caught up in the machinery again.

Ethics of Responsibility are not concerned with costs and reasonability


Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p111).
But naturally, you can't always be reasonable. At other times, for instance, I would make up new laws. I
would reform the penal code. I'd realized that the most important thing was to give the condemned man a
chance. Even one in a thousand was good enough to set things right. So it seemed to me that you could come
up with a mixture of chemicals that if ingested by the patient (that's the word I'd use: "patient") would kill
him nine times out of ten. But he would know this— that would be the one condition. For by giving it some
hard thought, by considering the whole thing calmly, I could see that the trouble with the guillotine was that
you had no chance at all, absolutely none. The fact was that it had been decided once and for all that the
patient was to die. It was an open-and-shut case, a fixed arrangement, a tacit agreement that there was no
question of going back on. If by some extraordinary chance the blade failed, they would just start over. So
the thing that bothered me most was that the condemned man had to hope the machine would work the first
time. And I say that's wrong. And in a way I was right. But in another way I was forced to admit that that was
the whole secret of good organization. In other words, the condemned man was forced into a kind of moral
collaboration. It was in his interest that everything go off without a hitch. I was also made to see that until
that moment I'd had mistaken ideas about these things. For a long time I believed—and I don't know
why—that to get to the 111 you had to climb stairs onto a scaffold. I think it was because of the French
Revolution—I mean, because of everything I'd been taught or shown about it. But one morning 1
remembered seeing a photograph that appeared in the papers at the time of a much-talked-about execution. In
reality, the machine was set up right on the ground, as simple as you please. It was much narrower than I'd
thought. It was funny I'd never noticed that before. I'd been struck by this picture because the guillotine
looked like such a precision instrument, perfect and gleaming. You always get exaggerated notions of things
you don't know anything about. I was made to see that contrary to what I thought, everything was very
simple: the guillotine is on the same level as the man approaching it. He walks up to it the way you walk up
to another person. That bothered me too. Mounting the scaffold, going right up into the sky, was something
the imagination could hold on to. Whereas, once again, the machine destroyed everything: you were killed
discreetly, with a little shame and with great precision.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 19
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
Our Inability to Identify With the Other Risks Societal Collapse
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 100).
I was listening, and I could hear that I was being judged intelligent. But I couldn't quite understand how an
ordinary man's good qualities could become crushing accusations against a guilty man. At least that was what
struck me, and I stopped listening to the prosecutor until I heard him say, "Has he so much as expressed any
remorse? Never, gentlemen. Not once during the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his
heinous offense." At that point, he turned in my direction, pointed his finger at me, and went on attacking me
without my ever really understanding why. Of course, I couldn't help admitting that he was right. I didn't feel
much remorse for what I'd done. But I was surprised by how relentless he was. I would have liked to have
tried explaining to him cordially, almost affectionately, that I had never been able to truly feel remorse for
anything. My mind was always on what was coming next, today or tomorrow. But naturally, given the
position I'd been put in, I couldn't talk to anyone in that way. I didn't have the right to show any feeling or
goodwill. And I tried to listen again, because the prosecutor started talking about my soul. He said that he
had peered into it and that he had found nothing, gentlemen of the jury. He said the truth was that I didn't
have a soul and that nothing human, not one of the moral principles that govern men's hearts, was within my
reach. "Of course," he added, "we cannot blame him for this. We cannot complain that he lacks what it was
not in his power to acquire. But here in this court the wholly negative virtue of tolerance must give way to
the sterner but loftier virtue of justice. Especially when the emptiness of a man's heart becomes, as we find it
has in this man, an abyss threatening to swallow up society

Our creation of the other provides us with comfort and cordiality that lures us into
Numbness
Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 70).
After that, I saw a lot of the magistrate, except that my lawyer was with me each time. But it was just a
matter of clarifying certain things in my previous statements. Or else the magistrate would discuss the
charges with my lawyer. But on those occasions they never really paid much attention to me. Anyway, the
tone of the questioning gradually changed. The magistrate seemed to have lost interest in me and to have
come to some sort of decision about my case. He didn't talk to me about God anymore, and I never saw him
as worked up as he was that first day. The result was that our discussions became more cordial. A few
questions, a brief conversation with my lawyer, and the examinations were over. As the magistrate put it, my
case was taking its course. And then sometimes, when the conversation was of a more general nature, I
would be included. I started to breathe more freely. No one, in any of these meetings, was rough with me.
Everything was so natural, so well handled, and so calmly acted out that I had the ridiculous impression of
being "one of the family." And I can
say that at the end I the eleven months that this investigation lasted, I *s almost surprised that I had ever
enjoyed anything otlpr than those rare moments when the judge would leadne to the door of his office, slap
me on the shoulder, airway to me cordially, "That's all for today, Monsieur Antichrist." I would then be
handed back over to there are some things I've never liked talking about. A few days after I entered prison, I
realized that I wouldn't like talking about this part of my life.
Later on, though, I no longer saw any point to my reluctance. In fact, I wasn't really in prison those first fevv
days: I was sort of waiting for something to happen. It was only after Marie's first and last visit that it all
started. From the day I got her letter (she told me she would no longer be allowed to come, because she
wasn't my wife), from that day on I felt that I was at home in my cell and that my life was coming to a
standstill there.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 20
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
Mersault Confronts the Police
Albert Camus, The Stranger, P117
He sat down on my bunk and invited me to sit next to him. I refused. All the same, there was something very
gentle about him. He sat there for a few seconds, leaning forward, with his elbows on his knees, looking at
his hands. They were slender and sinewy and they reminded me of two nimble animals. He slowly rubbed
one against the other. Then he sat there, leaning forward like that, for so long that for an instant I seemed to
forget he was there. But suddenly he raised his head and looked straight at me. "Why have you refused to see
me?" he asked. I said that I didn't believe in God. He wanted to know if I was sure and I said that I didn't see
any reason to ask myself that question: it seemed unimportant. He then leaned back against the wall, hands
flat on his thighs. Almost as if it wasn't me he was talking to, he remarked that sometimes we think we're
sure when in fact we're not. I didn't say anything. He looked at me and asked, "What do you think?" I said it
was possible. In any case, I may not have been sure about what really did interest me, but I was absolutely
sure about what didn't. And it just so happened that what he was talking about didn't interest me. He looked
away and without moving asked me if I wasn't talking that way out of extreme despair. I explained to him
that I wasn't desperate. I was just afraid, which was only natural. "Then God can help you," he said. "Every
man I have known in your position has turned to Him." I acknowledged that that was their right. It also meant
that they must have had the time for it. As for me, I didn't want anybody's help, and I just didn't have the time
to interest myself in what didn't interest me. At that point he threw up his hands in annoyance but then sat
forward and smoothed out the folds of his cassock. When he had finished he started in again, addressing me
as "my friend." If he was talking to me this way, it wasn't because I was condemned to die; the way he saw it,
we were all condemned to die. But I interrupted him by saying that it wasn't the same thing and that besides,
it wouldn't be a consolation anyway. "Certainly," he agreed. "But if you don't die today, you'll die tomorrow,
or the next day. And then the same question will arise. How will you face that terrifying ordeal?" I JO said I
would face it exactly as I was facing it now. At that he stood up and looked me straight in the eye. It was a
game I knew well. I played it a lot with Emmanuel and Celeste and usually they were the ones who looked
away. The chaplain knew the game well too, I could tell right away: his gaze never faltered. And his voice
didn't falter, either, when he said, "Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that
when you die, you die, and nothing remains?" "Yes," I said. Then he lowered his head and sat back down. He
told me that he pitied me. He thought it was more than a man could bear. I didn't feel anything except that he
beginning to annoy me. Then I turned away and went and stood under the skylight. I leaned my shoulder
against the wall. Without really following what he was saying, I heard him start asking me questions again.
He was talking in an agitated, urgent voice. I could see that he was genuinely upset, so I listened more
closely. He was expressing his certainty that my appeal would be granted, but I was carrying the burden of a
sin from which I had to free myself. According to him, human justice was nothing and divine justice was
everything. I pointed out that it was the former that had condemned me. His response was that it hadn't
washed away my sin for all that. I told him I didn't know what a sin was. All they had told me was that I was
guilty. I was guilty, I was paying for it, and nothing more could be asked of me. At that point he stood up
again, and the thought occurred to me that in such a narrow cell, if he wanted to move around he didn't have
many options. He could either sit down or stand up. I was staring at the ground. He took a step toward me
and stopped, as if he didn't dare come any closer. He looked at the sky through the bars. "You're wrong, my
son," he said. "More could be asked of you. And it may be asked." "And what's that?" "You could be asked
to see." "See what?' The priest gazed around my cell and answered in a voice that sounded very weary to me.
"Every stone here sweats with suffering, I know that. I have never looked 118 at them without a feeling of
anguish. But deep in my heart I know that the most wretched among you have seen a divine face emerge
from their darkness. That is the face you are asked to see." This perked me up a little. I said I had been
looking at the stones in these walls for months. There wasn't anything or anyone in the world I knew better.
Maybe at one time, way back, I had searched for a face in them. But the face I was looking for was as bright
as the sun and the flame of desire—and it belonged to Marie. I had searched for it in vain. Now it was all
over. And in any case, I'd never seen anything emerge from any sweating stones. The chaplain looked at me
with a kind of sadness. I now had my back flat against the wall, and light was streaming over my forehead.
He muttered a few words I didn't catch and abruptly asked if he could embrace me. "No," I said. He turned
and walked over to the wall and slowly ran his hand over it. "Do you really love this earth as much as
all that?" he murmured. I didn't answer. He stood there with his back to me for quite a long time. His
Gonzaga Debate Institute 21
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
presence was grating and oppressive. I was just about to tell him to go, to leave me alone, when all of a
sudden, turning toward me, he burst out, "No, I refuse to believe you! I know that at one time or another
you've wished for another life." I said of course I had, but it didn't mean any more than wishing to be rich, to
be able to swim faster, or to have a more nicely shaped 119 _ THE STRANGER « mouth. It was all the
same. But he stopped me and wanted to know how I pictured this other life. Then I shouted at him, "One
where I could remember this life!" and that's when I told him I'd had enough. He wanted to talk to me about
God again, but I went up to him and made one last attempt to explain to him that I had only a little time left
and I didn't want to waste it on God. He tried to change the subject by asking me why I was calling him
"monsieur" and not "father." That got me mad, and I told him he wasn't my father; he wasn't even on my
side. "Yes, my son," he said, putting his hand on my shoulder, "I am on your side. But you have no way of
knowing it, because your heart is blind.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 22
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Camus Extensions
Mersault Abandons Reason for Anger
Albert Camus, The Stranger, P120
Then, I don't know why, but something inside me snapped. I started yelling at the top of my lungs, and
I insulted him and told him not to waste his prayers on me. I grabbed him by the collar of his cassock.
I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy. He seemed so
certain about everything, didn't he? And yet none of his certainties was worth one hair of a woman's
head. He wasn't even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man. Whereas it looked as if I
was the one who'd come up emptyhanded. But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he
could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. But at
least I had as much of a hold on 120 it as it had on me. I had been right, I was still right, I was always
right. I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another. I had done this and I
hadn't done that. I hadn't done this thing but I had done another. And so? It was as if I had waited all
this time for this moment and for the first light of this dawn to be vindicated. Nothing, nothing
mattered, and I knew why. So did he. Throughout the whole absurd life I'd lived, a dark wind had
been rising toward me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as
it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time, in years no more real than the ones
I was living. What did other people's deaths or a mother's love matter to me; what did his God or the
lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we're all elected by the same
fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also called themselves my brothers? Couldn't he
see, couldn't he see that? Everybody was privileged. There were only privileged people. The others
would all be condemned one day. And he would be condemned, too. What would it matter if he were
accused of murder and then executed because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral? Sala-mano's dog
was worth just as much as his wife. The little robot woman was just as guilty as the Parisian woman
Masson married, or as Marie, who had wanted me to marry her. What did it matter that Raymond
was as much my friend as Celeste, who was worth a lot more than him? What did it matter that Marie
now offeredher lips to a new Meursault? Couldn't he, couldn't this condemned man see . . . And that
from somewhere deep in my future . . . All the shouting had me gasping for air. But they were already
tearing the chaplain from my grip and the guards were threatening me. He calmed them, though, and
looked at me for a moment without saying anything. His eyes were full of tears. Then he turned and
disappeared. With him gone, I was able to calm down again. I was exhausted and threw myself on my
bunk. I must have fallen asleep, because I woke up with the stars in my face. Sounds of the countryside
were drifting in. Smells of night, earth, and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous peace of
that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide. Then, in the dark hour before dawn, sirens
blasted. They were announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me. For
the first time in a long time I thought about Maman. I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life
she had taken a "fiance," why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives
were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free
then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her. And I felt ready to
live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that
night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so
much like myself—so like a 122 brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy
again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a
large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 23
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***US Role is Key***


Gonzaga Debate Institute 24
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

US is Key to Peace in Sudan

US Has Ushered Sudan into a Near Peace


Scribner and Madison, 2004(John and Joe, Globe Newspaper,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/29/us_holds_key_to_peace_in_sudan/ ,
HL)
The Bush administration deserves credit for creating conditions for a serious peace process. Despite a parade
of initiatives over the years, no significant progress had been made until 2001 when President Bush
appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy. Congress also played a crucial role. With broad
bipartisan support, it passed the Sudan Peace Act in 2002. This legislation identified Sudan's government as
the perpetrator of acts of "genocide" and gave the president the carrots and sticks he needed to ensure
progress.
Captive women and children are subjected to ritual gang-rape. UN officials now use terms such as "war
crimes," "crimes against humanity," "reign of terror," and "ethnic cleansing" to describe the deeds of Bashir's
troops. The continuing enslavement of tens of thousands of black non-Muslims and Khartoum's persistent
denial of this "crime against humanity" is further indication that institutionalized racism and religious bigotry
have not been overcome. If these enormous obstacles to a lasting peace are overcome, it will be because of
continuing US engagement. The Bush administration must compel Khartoum to end all campaigns of terror.
It should also advance representative and secular constitutional government, in accordance with Bush's
declared commitment to encourage democracy. As long as Sudan's pro-democracy movement and substantial
religious and ethnic minorities are marginalized, peace will be very fragile indeed. President Bush should be
prepared to employ throughout the interim period the punitive measures provided by the Sudan Peace Act to
ensure that both sides honor their word. The eradication of slavery will require an effective monitoring
mechanism at the State Department. Without a strong US commitment to guarantee the six protocols, a
lasting peace in Sudan is likely to prove illusory.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 25
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

US Role is Key
Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)
The United States should impose strict sanctions against the Sudanese government until it reigns in the
Janjaweed, a group of allied Arab militias attacking people in the south. The administration has characterized
what is happening now in Sudan as ethnic cleansing rather than the genocide that many consider it to be.
Classifying it as genocide could impose legal obligations to intervene. As stretched as the U.S. military is
now, the intervention of U.S. peacekeeping troops is not a viable option. But the United States can prod the
U.N. Security Council to take action, including the use of troops. The world body needs to make clear that
the slaughter of innocent people will not be tolerated. Joseph Siegle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, who worked in south Sudan with World Vision, a humanitarian organization, said the Sudanese
government is duplicitous and will only respond when it's in its interest. The United States and the Security
Council need to signal that there will be penalties if the killing continues. The European Union and the
African Union also should be enlisted to stop the bloodshed. "The critical thing is to call for all countries to
break off relations with Sudan," said Robert Rotberg, a Harvard University professor and president of the
World Peace Foundation. That means the United States must press the rest of the world to ban air traffic to
Sudan and to not allow Sudanese aircraft to fly over any other country's air space. In short, the Sudanese
government needs to know it will be isolated by the world community if it does not end support for the
Janjaweed. The world largely stood by during the genocide in Rwanda. That's not a mistake that should be
made a second time.

Us is Ideal as Honest Broker for Sudan and Could Save Millions


Crocker and Crocker, 2004 (Bathsheba and Chester, International Herald Tribune,
http://www.iht.com/articles/524344.html, HL)
The stakes are huge: millions of lives have been lost in Sudan's intractable conflict. Sudan, which remains on
the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, is strategically important in the U.S. effort to
combat failed states and terrorism throughout the Horn of Africa and Red Sea region. A successful re-
engagement with this multireligious, Muslim majority society could give substance to the rhetoric about
America's desire for constructive relations with the Islamic world, while assuring that Sudan's millions of
non-Muslim citizens regain their rights. Implementing Sudan's complex, six-year transition agreement will
be far more difficult than negotiating it. Ultimately, the Sudanese people are responsible for sustaining their
peace. But the agreement will fly apart without sustained international attention. Peace will only have a
chance in Sudan if there is active U.S. leadership. The United States has the needed leverage, including
through the potential to lift sanctions and normalize diplomatic relations. It can also provide serious
resources and play a key role on the UN Security Council. The challenges in implementing Sudan's peace
accord cannot be overstated. Hatred and mistrust run deep among the Sudanese. Potential spoilers abound,
from armed militias and hardliners in both parties to meddlesome neighbors. Only the United States has the
mobilizing and coordinating capacity to make Sudan's complex, post-conflict reconstruction work.
Negotiating peace in Sudan has required years of intense work. Making it stick will be even more
demanding. It is a challenge worthy of American leadership.

UN Plans are to keep Troops Out but US Support Could Change All That
Peretz in 2004 (Martin, The New Republic, Pg.25, June 28, jec)
In the meantime, the United Nations itself is not anxious to put its personnel or declining prestige at risk--an
echo of its indifference to events in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide of epochal dimensions in
Rwanda. Much of this inaction is directly attributable to Kofi Annan. Right now, another vast genocide is
taking place in Sudan, with Muslims killing Christians and Arab Muslims killing African Muslims. The
United Nations has merely wrung its hands. There are roughly 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. When a rapacious mob entered the town of Bukavu, the blue helmets simply
dissolved into the bush. In both Sudan and the Congo, it would not take much to enforce a separation
between the warring bands. But who will put their men in harm's way for the sake of African lives? No one.
Certainly nothing will be done without the Americans. But, for the moment, the Americans are otherwise
engaged,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 26
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Racism Add On***


Gonzaga Debate Institute 27
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Racism Advantage
Sudan is Ignited in Hatred Based on Race
Knickmeyer in 2004 (Ellen, June 30, Seattle Post Intelligencer, accessed online, jec)
In Sudan, experts say similar racism is the spark setting fire to Darfur. Up to 80,000 black Africa villagers
are believed to have died, many slain by Arab Janjaweed nomads competing with them for a fertile zone
shrinking under desertification, and by a minority Arab government accustomed to keeping power by killing
opponents. With more than a million displaced, U.S. officials project a third of a million of Darfur's non-
Arab Africans will die by the end of the year. "You, the black women, we will exterminate you," Amnesty
International quoted one 20-year-old black African woman as telling them, speaking of the Janjaweed who
abducted the women of her village in September 2003 and raped them for days. With power and land at
issue, Sudan's central government "is stoking racial and ethnic animus more than it ever has been in Darfur
history," said Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College in Massachusetts, and one of the leading academic
experts on Sudan."It's the animating feature of the war ... on African tribal groups," Reeves said. In southern
Sudan, the common word for non-Arab Africans today among the Arab elite remains "abid," or slave. The
general word for non-Arab Africans in Darfur, in western Sudan, is "zurga." The word "means closer to
'nigger' than 'colored,'" Reeves said.

Despite an Identity Fueled Genocide, Physical Racial Distinctions Have all but Disappeared
Knickmeyer in 2004 (Ellen, June 30, Seattle Post Intelligencer, accessed online, jec)
Sudan long has been one of the anchors of the Arab-African slave trade. Its appetite for slaves remains such
that rebels in neighboring Uganda, a group calling itself the Lord's Resistance Army is alleged to trade
African children to the Sudanese for an automatic weapon each. Ironically, in Darfur and elsewhere,
intermarriage between Arab and non-Arab Africans over the centuries has become so common that physical
differences have ebbed or disappeared. The skin of the Arab Janjaweed militiamen is as dark as the African
villagers they hunt down. "They would say these are not real Muslims - these are pretend Muslims," said
Richard Cornwall, at the South Africa-based Institute for Strategic Studies. "Many generations of
intermarriage have ensured there's not really a physiological difference," Reeves said. Often, however, the
Janjaweed "clings to the notion of Arab racial identity. It's racism where there is no racial difference."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 28
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

A a stubborn barrier between Arabs, Africans


Associated Press 04 (http://www.ap.org/, Date accessed: July 5 2004, JD)
History shows slavery left bitter feelings between two peoples 11:55 AM CDT on Saturday, July 3, 2004
Associated Press DAKAR, Senegal – Strolling on a summer evening in a North African resort town, the
vacationing Senegalese businessman could have forgotten he was anything but a Muslim among Muslims, an
African among Africans. But a shouted insult from an Arab policeman set the black man straight: "Son of a
slave." Along ancient Saharan trade routes, 1,300 years of shared history that have mingled the faiths,
cultures and skin tones of Arabs and Africans has left another, more vicious legacy: Arab-African slavery
that has endured as long as the two peoples have been together, leaving black Africans fighting perceptions
of themselves as lesser beings, and of Arabs as the civilizing, conquering force. Today, the old roles are
playing out at their most extreme in Sudan's Darfur region, with murderous results: Arab horsemen clutching
AK-47s raze non-Arab African villages and drive off and kill the villagers, in what rights groups call an
ethnic cleansing campaign backed by Sudan's Arab-led government. To Pape Thierno Ndiaye, the
Senegalese businessman who spent the mid-1990s in Arab-dominated North Africa, the message was simply
that he was a lesser being than Arabs, and unwelcome among them. "It was like that all the time," Mr.
Ndiaye, now back home in Senegal, says of his time on the Arab-dominated northern edge of the Sahara, and
of the policeman's insult in the Morocco beach town of Agadir. "It was insults all the time – all of a sudden,
the problem of color had become an ordeal," Mr. Ndiaye said. In Sudan, experts say similar racism is the
spark setting fire to Darfur. As many as 80,000 black African villagers are believed to have died, many slain
by Arab Janjaweed nomads competing with them for a fertile zone shrinking under desertification, and by a
minority Arab government accustomed to keeping power by killing opponents. With more than a million
already displaced, a third of a million of Darfur's non-Arab Africans will die by the end of the year,
according to U.S. projections.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 29
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

We Must Publicly Renounce Racism to Deconstruct It


Beswick, 1990 (http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed320196.html, Date accessed July 5, JD)
In addition to deeper curricular remedies, it is important to declare a
public repugnance for racism. One such declaration, the Racism Free
Zone, has been effective in Lane County, Oregon, schools. Developed by
Clergy and Laity Concerned and modified from the Nuclear Free Zone
concept, this program begins with a formal day of celebration. A plaque
is prominently displayed that reads in part: We will not make
statements or symbols indicating racial prejudice. Freedom of speech
does not extend to hurting others. Racism will not be tolerated and
action will be taken to ensure this. White students acquire a feeling
of ownership for this zone of protection, and minority students report
a feeling of security and pride. Far more ambitious is Project Reach,
developed by the Arlington, Washington, School District (1986). This
four-phased experience takes mostly white communities through human
relations skills, cultural self-awareness, multicultural training, and
cross-cultural encounters. Students research their own heritage to
learn the fundamentals of culture; study other cultures through
specially prepared booklets on black, Asian, Mexican, and native
American heritages; and participate in field trips. Because Project
Reach was developed for mostly white communities, it has received some
national criticism for being too removed from practical racial
cooperation. But given the demographic realities, communities must
begin someplace. Teachers can build tolerance in early childhood,
says Barbara James Thompson (1989), by "role-playing a bus boycott,
choosing the unknown contents of a beautiful box and a dirty box, and
by encountering discriminatory signs in classroom activity." Such
object lessons point out the hidden values in the child's assumptions
and provide role-models worth emulating. Resources for teaching about
racism are listed by Samuel Totten (1989). These materials teach about
the "destructive effects of stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 30
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Confronting Racism will aid U.S. security


Scruggs-Leftwich 04 (http://www.gvnews.net/html/WorldReacts/alert32.html, Date accessed: July 5 2004,
JD)

I am trying desperately to connect the dots between the World Conference


Against Racism just concluded on Sept. 8 in Durban, South Africa, and the
dastardly Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the United States of America.
The specter of the deadly imploding concrete and steel of America's
economic and military superiority was unfathomable after experiencing at
Durban the stressful confrontation between nations ideologically--and
often geographically--polarized. In addition, it came on the heels of
tendentious displays of the raw power of the United States and other
industrialized nations in thwarting the conference's agenda of addressing
long-neglected Third World issues. The acts of human annihilation,
perpetrated by U.S. airplanes turned into situational weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of lunatics, instantly trivialized the race
conference's posturing, bickering and frequent fits of uncompromising
arrogance. The image of discord projected by many news organizations
covering the meeting with the unwieldy title of World Conference Against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was
fueled by Western nations' determination to have their own way and to
play only by their rules. In fact, the United States vacillated for
months about coming, ultimately to send a low-level delegation that left
five days before the conference ended. As long as this and petty
parliamentary moves by others succeeded in suppressing slavery and
reparations as topics for serious consideration, Western power ruled.
As long as it was possible for extremists on all sides--Arabs, Israelis
and Americans--to manipulate the Middle East into an untenable zero-sum
position, no nation could be expected to make true progress on slavery,
its lingering effects or its remedies. From Vision of Power to Symbol
of Vulnerability Yet, these heated confrontations somehow pale when
compared with the United States' utter vulnerability under a war-like
attack, or with the fragility of thousands of American lives,
collaterally consumed in a conflagration of hatred and fanatical rage.
But the dots do somehow connect in my mind. Among shifting images and
recollections, I see a link between the negotiating, collaborating,
reapprochement-seeking delegates at the conference--the majority of whom
seemed to be women from both the industrialized West and the Third World-
-and the allegedly "Third World" Kamikaze men who, in a matter of
moments, shook the foundations--literal, spiritual and figurative--of
America's deeply embedded sense of security. Loose cannon conservative
TV personality Laura Schlessinger has hastily assigned blame for our
vulnerability to security breeches by women in the military who, in her
opinion, don't belong there anyhow. To the contrary, an international
team of women planned, governed, managed, guided, mediated and finally
led to a conclusion the fragile World Conference Against Racism, complete
with a minimally acceptable, formal Conference Declaration and a Plan of
Action. Such diplomacy will, I believe, lead to more security for all
rich and poor nations alike. U.N. Commissioner Robinson Insists Racism
Must Be Discussed In fact, this experience suggests that we will need
increasingly more women at the boundaries between the United States, our
sworn enemies and the rest of the world if, in the months to come, we are
to prosecute with any sanity a campaign against specifically identified
groups of terrorists and their networks, to avenge the pain and
destruction caused by the attack. The Durban meetings would not have
gotten beyond the first preparatory conference had it not been for the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 31
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

tenacity of Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights
and secretary-general of the racism conference, who repeatedly insisted
that racism is a legitimate topic for discussion, and that a nation's
failure to show up is a part of the problem, and not a responsible
solution. This message was lost on the United States, which now must
seek alliance with some of the same governments that did consider racism
to be important and, in spite of differences and disclaimers, hung in
until the exhausting end. Others joined with High Commissioner Robinson,
hoping to keep the U.S. at the table and also to soothe the irritated
feelings of international representatives--governmental as well as
nongovernmental--who considered America's attitude insulting and
dismissive. Women like attorney Barbara Arnwine, chair of the drafting
committee, and attorney Adjoa Aiyetoro, chair of the African-African
Descendants Caucus, both Americans, and South Africa's Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, were a few of these others.
U.S. Must Now Seek Allies From So-Called Third World Nations Yet, it
will be from among many of the so-called Third World nations that the
United States will seek allies, collaborators, coalition partners--and
advice--as our government's top leaders try to move a retaliation agenda
forward and to reconfigure our strategy for assuring the United States
first-strike preeminence. My country--and it is, indeed, my country,
built and paid for with the very essence of my ancestors--has engendered
bad feelings across the globe. A blue-ribbon commission co-chaired by
former Senator Gary Hart and former Congressman Newt Gingrich recently
reported that America is viewed by a majority in the world as having a
bad attitude. The United States reneged on the Kyoto Protocol, intended
to control and manage global warming, and received a very negative review
of its six-year-overdue report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination. We are going to have a hard time building anti-
terrorism alliances with a number of countries affected by this behavior.
The connection between a raucous global gathering of people arguing
about ways to eliminate racism, which the United States rejected out of
hand, and the cross-hairs in which we Americans today perceive ourselves
to be, is more linear than not. The dots connect. We need allies, but we
need greater finesse and humanity in attracting them. Yvonne Scruggs-
Leftwich, Ph.D., a political scientist and policy analyst, is the
executive director and chief operating officer of the national Black
Leadership Forum Inc., headquartered in Washington, D.C. The forum is a
25-year-old confederation of civil rights and service organizations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 32
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Dismantling Racism is attained by understanding it


Meintjies 04(http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papmeint.htm, Date accessed: July 5 2004, JD)
The only way to dismantle this system is by working for increased
understanding in the society of the insidious and pervasive ways in which
racism functions. It calls for a willingness to re-examine what would be
regarded as normal and everyday. It presupposes opening up the subject of
racism - no longer isolating and alienating those who dare raise it. It
involves listening and creating spaces to hear the hurt, anger and
aspirations of those experiencing race oppression. It means dragging
racism from the hushed conversations and murmurs and silences into the
arena of public discussion. (It also means - especially in an
organisational context where black and white people are united in common
endeavour - black people providing themselves with tools to raise race
issues directly but in a building and forward-looking way. This might
involve engaging with fellow black people who: need to deepen their
understanding of the issue; lack self-esteem and struggle with
internalised oppression; constantly ride on the race issue not to
confront it but to avoid addressing personal difficulties such as
inefficiency, autocratic tendencies, lack of commitment and even
corruption). The temptation, however, is for those from the dominant
group to want to focus exclusively on some of the above issues (in
brackets) when talking of racism - it would also be much more comfortable
than facing issues cited in the previous paragraph - examining one's own
practice and the dominant culture for collusion and involvement with
racism.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 33
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The Battle to End Racism is Not Over. We Must Stand Up to every Opportunity to Fight It
By BETTY CAPLAN 01

The Anti-Racism- Anti-Slavery conference to take place in Durban at the


end of this month has already had unprecedented hype. Will it be a
repetition of the protest demos we recently witnessed in Genoa, Seattle
and Melbourne? Already, people with axes to grind are taking up
positions. The US has threatened not to participate if Zionism is to be
discussed as a form of racism. The question is: Who will set the
agenda? Will participants address the reality or merely get bogged down
in definitions? This is, in fact, what is behind the anti-World Trade
Organisation and G8 movements. Protesters believe theirs is the real
agenda. This month's New African magazine has a splendid section on the
subject, raising the issue of reparations. But we can predict that the
battle between the ex-colonial powers and the Third World will be joined
once again, each side claiming its rights. The First World believes that
what's done is done and reparations cannot be paid. Comparisons with Jews
have been made: Late in the day it may be, but survivors have been paid
reparations, most recently the Jews forced to work as slaves in Nazi
industries. This shows that, with the proper political will, it can be
done, though the fact that the beginnings of slavery are far further back
in time and that several countries were involved complicates the task
considerably. Africans suffer virtual slavery Nevertheless, it cannot
be up to the Western powers to tell Africans that it is time they stopped
complaining. Problems that have not been properly resolved block the way
to moving forward. We need to see the US and Europe acknowledge that
their present prosperity and wealth is due to the fruits of slave labour.
What needs to change most is the Western attitude, which patronises the
Third World and sees its own actions as beneficent and charitable.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 34
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Racism will devastate Society


Moser 97 (http://www.exodusnews.com/Religion/Religion005.htm Date accessed: July 5 2004 JD)
Racism is the most challenging issue confronting America. Racism is an
affront to human dignity, a cause of hatred and division, a disease that
devastates society. Notwithstanding the efforts already expended for its
elimination, racism continues to work its evil upon this nation. Aware of
the magnitude and the urgency of the issue, we, the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, speaking for the entire
U.S. Baha'i community, appeal to all people of goodwill to arise without
further delay to resolve the fundamental social problem of this country.
The oneness of humanity, the pivot round which revolve all the
teachings of the Baha'i Faith, is a statement of principle and an
assertion of the ultimate goal of human existence on the planet. More
than a century ago Bah'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith,
wrote: "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are
unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." The Word
of God as presented in the Baha'i writings offers compelling insights as
in the following examples: "Veiled in My immemorial being and in the
ancient eternity of my essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I
created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My
beauty." "All men have been created to carry forward and ever-advancing
civilization. The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act live the beasts of
the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are
forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the
peoples and kindreds of the earth." Having gone through the stages of
infancy and turbulent adolescence, humanity is now approaching maturity,
a stage that will witness "the reconstruction and the demilitarization of
the whole civilized world - a world organically unified in all the
essential aspects of its life..." The oneness of humanity is a
spiritual truth abundantly confirmed by science, implies an organic
change in the structure of present-day society. Recognition of this truth
compels the abandonment of all prejudices of race, color, creed, nation,
and class - of "everything which enables people to consider themselves
superior to others." "...It implies an organic change in the structure of
present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced.
The application of the spiritual principle of the oneness of humanity
to the life of the nation would necessitate and make possible vast
changes in the economic status of the non-white segments of the
population. Prejudice and discrimination have created a disparity in
standards of living, providing some with excessive economic advantage
while denying others the bare necessities for leading healthy and
dignified lives. The fundamental solution - the one that will reduce
violence, regenerate and focus the intellectual and moral energy of
minorities, and make them partners in the construction of a progressive
society - rests ultimately on the common recognition of the oneness of
humankind. Such an attitude needs to be grounded in a spiritual and moral
truth that all acknowledge and accept as their own and that, like the
oxygen that serves all equally, breathes life into their common effort to
live in unity and peace. Education in the principle of the oneness of
humanity is the shortest route out of poverty and prejudice. A national
program of education, emphasizing the values of tolerance, brotherhood,
appreciation for cultures other than one's own, and respect for
differences would be a most important step toward the elimination of
racism and, as a consequence, the bolstering of the economy. Healing
the wounds and building a society in which people of diverse backgrounds
live as members of one family are the most pressing issues confronting
Gonzaga Debate Institute 35
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

America today. Her peace, her prosperity, and even her standing in the
international community depend to a great extent on the resolution of
this issue. Blacks and Whites must understand that no real change will
come about without close association, fellowship, and friendship among
diverse peoples.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 36
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Harms Extensions***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 37
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Genocide
The US is Currently Unwilling to Classify the Sudan as a Genocide
Birchall 04(Jonathan, Financial Times Online, July 5, jec)
More than 800,000 people have been made homeless. Pro-government militias have systematically burned
villages and destroyed crops and wells. Up to 30,000 have been killed in the conflict, many of them civilians;
and there are fears that at least 300,000 more could die from resulting hunger and disease. By any measure,
the situation in Sudan's western Darfur region is a man-made catastrophe. But as the international community
steps up pressure on Sudan's government over the crisis, it is also struggling with a question of definitions:
should the targeting of the region's black African population by militia drawn largely from the local nomadic
Arab herders be classed as genocide? "These are innocent people being raped, murdered, forced into sexual
slavery and being submitted to other kinds of brutality," argued Donald Payne, a member of the US House of
Representatives, announcing a bid to persuade the US and the United Nations to invoke the international
convention on genocide over Darfur. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, disagrees. After visiting Sudan
last week, he talked of "some indicators, but certainly not a full accounting of all the indicators that lead to a
legal definition of genocide".

The Sudanese Ethnic Cleansing is Not a Genocide


Birchall 04(Jonathan, Financial Times Online, July 5, jec)
While the US was keeping the situation under review, Mr Powell said he was "more interested in taking care
of the people" than arguing over definitions. The 1948 genocide convention legally defines genocide as acts
"committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Richard Dicker, an expert on international law at Human Rights Watch, points out that the convention also
brings "the obligation to prevent and to punish" acts of genocide, which has in the past affected the readiness
with which Washington has been prepared to use the term. "In the case of the crisis in Kosovo, the use of the
term was encouraged by Washington to justify military intervention; in the case of Rwanda, when there was
no readiness to intervene, its use was discouraged," Mr Dicker said. For human rights and aid agencies
working to mobilise international pressure over Darfur, there have been agonised internal debates over
whether genocide should be invoked. Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have both
denounced "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur, but avoided the term genocide. Amnesty International has called for
the setting up of an international inquiry to examine charges of war crimes, "as well as allegations of
genocide". But Jean-Hervé Bradol, head of Médecins Sans Frontières, also said last week after returning
from visiting MSF projects in Darfur that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate, speaking instead of
"a mass campaign of repression directed against civilians". "Our teams have not seen evidence of the
deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres, but not of
attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group," he said on MSF's website.

Genocide is Happening it Darfur


Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)
Once again, Africa is being stained by the horror of genocide. In the western region of Sudan, in a place
called Darfur, 30,000 people have been murdered in a Sudanese government-supported mass killing. More
than a million have been driven from their homes. The global community should not stand idly by -- and it
did in Rwanda -- and tolerate mass murder. Recent NASA photos of the Darfur region show destruction in
nearly 400 villages. Widespread attacks camps for displaced persons have been reported. Worse still, the
window of opportunity to help 2 million Sudanese in need of aid in Darfur is quickly closing, said Andrew
Natsios, administrator of the Agency for International Development. The agency estimates that 350,000
people could die of disease and malnutrition over the next nine months. Natsios calls that estimate
conservative. The violence in Darfur is directed at the darker-skinned people of the region by the lighter-
skinned Arabs in the north. The purpose appears to be acquisition of land by means of annihilation. The
Bush administration did well in helping to broker a peace deal between the Islamic government of Sudan in
the north and Christian and animist rebels in the south. That ended a 21-year war in which 2 million people
lost their lives. But now another war has erupted, and it demands immediate action.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 38
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Systematic slaughter unfolds in Sudan


ZAVIS 7-10-04 (ALEXANDRA, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, Accessed online: 7-10-04, url:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Sudan%20Slaughter, srg)
As the world's attention was turned to crises in the Middle East, a slaughter has raged for 17 months in
Sudan's Darfur region. Arab gunmen on horses and camels, backed by bombers and helicopter gunships,
have razed hundreds of black African villages, killed tens of thousands and driven more than 1 million from
their homes. "They say they don't want to see black skin on this land again," said Issa Bushara, whose
brother and cousin were gunned down in front of their horrified families during an attack by the Janjaweed
militia. Now, with many more likely to die of hunger and disease in camps in Sudan and neighboring Chad,
international pressure is mounting on President Omar el-Bashir's government to end the carnage. U.S. and
U.N. officials, haunted by memories of inaction in Rwanda a decade ago, have made a series of highly
publicized visits to the region. This week, African leaders also called on Sudan to act. Even so, word of
more raids continues to filter through with the starving, exhausted and terrorized families that trickle every
day across the 370-mile border into Chad. More victims of the raids are dying now from hunger, thirst and
disease than in the killings, U.N. officials say. They have described the region as the world's worst
humanitarian crisis. We are late in Darfur. We have to admit that," U.N. Under-Secretary-General for
Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland said on a visit last week. He blamed government obstruction, the
remoteness of the area, a failure to get adequate funding and preoccupation with the Iraq war, which made
the world slow to respond to the unfolding disaster. If humanitarian workers can't reach the estimated 2
million in desperate need, the death toll could surge to 350,000 by the end of the year - a conservative
estimate, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The crisis developed from long-
standing tensions between nomadic Arab herders and their farming neighbors. It became violent after two
black African rebel groups took up arms in February 2003 over what they consider unfair treatment by the
government in faraway Khartoum in their struggle over political influence and resources in Darfur. The rebel
groups and the refugees accuse the Sudanese government of arming the mostly Arab Janjaweed, a name that
means "horsemen" in the local dialect. They point to systematic and coordinated attacks backed by Antonov
airplanes, helicopter gunships and pickup trucks. The government denies any complicity in the militia raids
and says the warring sides are clashing over the region's scarce water and usable land. Humanitarian Affairs
Minister Ibrahim Hamid Mahmoud conceded some abuses may have taken place in Darfur, but insisted there
was no "systematic, well-organized violence." "The major problem for humanitarian activities is the rebels,"
he said. Satellite photos acquired by USAID in June show that some 56,000 mud-brick houses with grass
roofs have been torched in nearly 400 Darfur villages. The Janjaweed also burn down trees, steal food and
cattle, and blow up wells and irrigation canals in a scorched-earth policy that human rights groups describe as
"ethnic cleansing." With few villages left, survivors escape the militias by hiding in nearby hills, foraging for
food in the trees and sneaking back at night to use the few functioning wells. But even this last refuge is
being overrun. Tous-a Abdel-Hadi's family survived a raid on their village only to lose three men when
Janjaweed fighters overran their camp in the West Darfur hills. "My son tried to hide in a cave, but they
found him there and shot him," the aging woman said, wiping away tears of grief and relief moments after
crossing a dried-up riverbed into Chad. "I wish he was with me now." In another attack, Janjaweed caught
three teenage girls, raped them and broke their legs, Abdel-Hadi's family said. Unable to travel, the girls
stayed behind in the hills while their extended families made the long and dangerous trek to the border.
Traveling by night and sleeping during the day, they took nine days to reach safety. When they finally set
foot in Chad, women in the group fell to their knees and wept. They were immediately surrounded by other
refugees, among the approximately 15,000 living in the sand under thorn trees on the outskirts of the desert
town of BahaiIn April, when the world marked 10 years since the 1994 slaughter that killed at least 500,000
in Rwanda, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that a new genocide could unfold in Sudan. Since
then, U.N. officials have shied away from such politically loaded terms, saying Janjaweed fighters appear to
include members of some of the same three main ethnic groups targeted in the raids. U.N. officials estimate
that between 15,000 and 30,000 people have been killed. But some analysts put the figure much higher.
Many victims were left where they fell, their families too frightened to stop to bury them. But rebel leaders
accuse the government of merely integrating Janjaweed fighters into local police and defense forces. U.N.
leaders say success in containing the violence and averting more deaths will depend on continued
international pressure and vigilance. "This is going to be a crisis for years to come," Egeland said. "We are
afraid that when the secretary-general is gone ... this crisis will be forgotten."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 39
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Darfur in Under Attack as the Worlds Governments Stand Idly By


Nwakanma 2004 (Obi July 10, Accessed online: 7-10-04, url:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/columns/c311072004.html, srg)
Another human tragedy is playing out in western Sudan. It is the tragedy of Dafur. The conflict in the Sudan
has been described as genocide. But we shall return to this. However, let me point out that what we see in
Dafur is another example of how Africans are made victims of an expansionist, and brutal external marauders
who have historically taken advantage of the inherent pacifism, and some might even say indolence, of the
Negroid people. Many Africans have focused singularly on the effects of the European conquest and
colonisation of Africa. And Africans have often forgotten that the history of Africa is the history of double
penetration: one from the East, and the other from the West. Although each form of these violent
penetrations of Africa remains the central basis of its historical instability, but a close study shows, that the
Eastern –– that is Arab - penetration of Africa in the last one thousand years remains the most violent. The
Arab government of President Omar el-Bashir had armed and sponsored Sudanese troops and Arab
militiamen called the Janjaweed to attack and destroy the pastoralist Fur, Massalit and Zagharwa group of the
Negroid people found in Western Sudan. A low intensity war had started in April 2003 over what has been
described as a struggle over land and resources, and by March 2004 thousands of displaced people in Dafur
were seeking refuge in neighbouring Chad. The Janjaweed entered villages and killed thousands of people,
while an estimated one million black people have fled their homes from attacks by the Arab militia or
Janjaweed. They killed the men, and systematically raped the women with the purpose, according to reports,
of impregnating them. In fact, according to a recent Human Rights watch report, “rape appears to be a feature
of most of the attacks in Dafur.” Even the concept of “Moslem brotherhood” here has been put to rest
because the people of Dafur whom the Arab Moslems kill, are almost all Sufi Moslems, and therein is the
irony: it speaks to the singular truth that the Arab conquest of Africa is a continuous objective which rides on
the false back of Islamic brotherhood; it is nothing but a racist movement, one whose implication is
emphasized with this situation in which Arab Muslim militias kill and rape the black African Muslims of
Dafur, whom they call slaves. This continuous violation of the rights of the black people is the open sore of a
continent which must be healed with adequate strategic action. The genocide in Dafur resembles so much of
the atrocities that took place in Biafra from 1967-1968, especially the massacres in places like Asaba and
Onitsha by a brutal, ill-trained horde armed by the Nigerian government to exterminate the Igbo. While the
rest of the world was mealy-mouthing about whether genocide was taking place or not in Biafra, and the
Gowon government was covering up a vast scale of atrocities, over three million people were dying, many of
them children and women, denied even the comfort of a morsel in death. The same silence pervaded the
genocide in Rwanda. Luckily, international attention has been directed to the Dafur situation with the recent
visit by US secretary of state, Colin Powell, and United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. The UN has
described what is going on in Dafur as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. “The ruined villages, the
camps overflowing with women and children, the fear of the people, should be a clear warning to us all ––
without action, the brutalities already inflicted on the civilian population of Dafur could prelude an even
greater humanitarian catastrophe –– a catastrophe that could destabilize the region.”

Unfortunately, UN Peacekeepers are at Crisis Levels and Can Ill Afford to Deploy Enough
Troops to Sudan to Effectively Stop the Violence and Help Internally Displaced Peoples

Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
The United Nations is facing a peacekeeping crisis. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations began
emitting distress signals months ago about the number of blue berets and blue helmets it will be expected to
muster this year -- up to 20,000 for missions in Ivory Coast, Haiti, and possibly Burundi and Sudan, and all at
a time when troop-contributing countries are under pressure from Washington to send soldiers to Iraq. If the
Burundi and Sudan missions become reality, the U.N. will have 45,000 peacekeepers deployed, the highest
number since the mid-1990s.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 40
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Junjaweed Actions are Verging on Genocide


Slavin in 2004 (Barbara, USA TODAY, pg. 1A, accessed on lexis, jec)
Secretary of State Colin Powell briefly visited Abu Shouk on Wednesday as part of a continuing effort by the
Bush administration to pressure the Sudanese government to crack down on the Janjaweed. U.S. officials
want aid workers to get broader access to Darfur and to ship in more food and medicine. But Leila and
thousands of other refugees who chased after Powell as he walked among them and mobbed his entourage in
100-degree heat did not know who he was -- only that he was someone important who might finally bring
help. "Ya esh," they chanted at him, using the Arabic term for "long life." Women in rainbow-hued native
dresses ululated -- a shrill cry that usually accompanies celebrations in this part of the world. But there is
little to celebrate in Darfur. More than a million people have been forced from their homes in a bitter
conflict over power and resources that also has ethnic and tribal roots. Powell's visit, the first by a secretary
of State to Sudan in 26 years, is the administration's most dramatic effort yet to find a solution to the
looming humanitarian catastrophe here. The Janjaweed are Arab militias who have driven non-Arab
villagers, mostly black farmers, off the land in Darfur in an ethnic-cleansing campaign that many human
rights groups say verges on genocide.

Darfur is Beginning to look Like Rwanda in 1994


Slavin in 2004 (Barbara, USA TODAY, pg. 1A, accessed on lexis, jec)
United Nations officials and human rights activists say Sudan's Arab government is letting its armed forces
back the Janjaweed. Government officials in Khartoum say the Janjaweed are outlaws and will be disarmed.
What isn't in dispute is that people in Darfur are dying in alarming numbers. Between 15,000 and 30,000
people have perished in the past 16 months. U.S. officials say 500,000 more may die if they can't go home or
if more aid doesn't arrive soon. Conditions at Abu Shouk, the site selected for Powell to see by the Sudanese
government, are vastly superior to horrific scenes of famine and squalor in other camps to the north and west.
Visiting a 'show camp' Some aid workers called Abu Shouk a "show camp" that was spruced up for Powell,
who was accompanied by Sudanese officials at all times. While there were no visible signs of famine here,
other camps are said to be heartbreaking. "The camp I went to was one of the better camps," Powell told
National Public Radio after his visit. "I'm sure there are camps out there that are awful and nowhere near
what I saw today. And I know there are people out there that I didn't see today who are in far more desperate
need." Powell spent only about 20 minutes here, cutting his visit short to escape an approaching sandstorm.
Afterward he told reporters that Abu Shouk -- near the town of Al-Fashir, about 400 miles west of the
Sudanese capital of Khartoum -- and more than 130 other camps in Darfur are not the solution to the crisis.
"These people want to go home. They need to go home," Powell said. "And they can't go home if it's not
safe." Powell and other senior members of the administration have voiced concerns that Darfur could
become another Rwanda. In that central African nation, nearly 1 million people were killed in ethnic violence
in 1994 as the world largely stood by. The administration is considering whether to formally declare the
Darfur crisis a genocide, as defined by a 1946 international convention.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 41
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Internally Displaced Peoples


Crisis in Sudan Threatens to Destabilize the Region
England 04(Andrew, Financial Times Online, July 6, jec)
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, denounced the "horrific situation" in western Sudan on Tuesday and
warned African leaders that the crisis threatened to destabilise the region. At the opening of the African
Union summit in Ethiopia, he said persistent conflicts were jeopardising the continent's hopes of beating
poverty, hunger and disease. Mr Annan, who visited Sudan's Darfur region last week, said the sights he had
witnessed should be "a clear warning to us all". He urged the leaders, including Omar Hassan al-Bashir,
Sudan's president, to address the root causes of insecurity and underdevelopment, which he said often lay
behind poor governance. Mr Annan's warning followed a recommendation by the AU's fledgling Peace and
Security Council to send an armed "protection force" to Darfur to enable refugees to return to their homes.

The AU to Send Peacekeepers to Solve Displacement Issues


England 04(Andrew, Financial Times Online, July 6, jec)
Sam Ibok, director of the 53-nation AU's peace and security department, said the mission had to be approved
by the leaders attending the three-day summit. He said the Sudanese government had agreed to the troops'
deployment. "That force is essentially to go in and create some kind of confidence so that refugees can
return [and] internally displaced persons can return," he said. The AU had approached Nigeria, Rwanda,
Tanzania and Botswana for troop contributions and expected the force to number about 300, Mr Ibok said.
Nigeria and Rwanda each had about 100 troops ready to deploy as soon as the mission was approved, he
added.

Sudan is Classified as the Worlds Worst Humanitarian Crisis


England 04(Andrew, Financial Times Online, July 6, jec)
Meanwhile, the UN said yesterday that UN workers and relief agencies in Darfur had reported further attacks
on aid convoys as well as further violence by pro-government Janjaweed militias. Sudan is facing the threat
of UN sanctions if it fails to deliver on promises to both Mr Annan and Colin Powell, US secretary of state,
to end the violence by its militias in Darfur and open the region up to aid. More than 1m people have been
made homeless by the violence in Darfur, where Arab militias allied to the government have been accused of
carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against African tribes in the region. UN officials describe the
situation as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. About 120,000 people have fled into neighbouring Chad.
The Darfur crisis is seen as a test for the AU, created two years ago to replace the largely ineffectual
Organisation of African Unity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 42
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Disease
If polio outbreak in Sudan not stopped it will result in largest epidemic in years, thousands
of children will suffer
World Health Organization 2004 (June 22, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2004/pr45/en/, srg)
Epidemiologists of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative today issued a stark warning that west and central
Africa is on the brink of the largest polio epidemic in recent years. The warning follows confirmation today
that a child was paralyzed on 20 May by polio in the Darfur region of the Sudan, a country which had not
seen the disease in more than three years. The virus is closely linked genetically to poliovirus endemic to
northern Nigeria, which has spread through Chad in recent months. Epidemiological data show that
transmission of wild poliovirus continues to accelerate at an alarming rate in the region. In addition to the re-
infection of the Sudan, five times as many children in west and central Africa have been paralyzed by polio
so far in 2004 compared to the same period in 2003. 197 children have been paralyzed in Nigeria, following
the suspension of polio immunization campaigns in northern Nigeria late last year. "There is no question that
the virus is spreading at an alarming pace," said communicable disease expert Dr David Heymann, the World
Health Organization's Representative for Polio Eradication. "The fact that the Sudan is now re-infected is
concrete evidence of the need to support a massive immunization response right across west and central
Africa." Heymann stressed the re-infection of the Sudan is the latest setback to the strong progress Africa had
achieved in eradicating polio. "At the beginning of 2003, only two countries in sub-Saharan Africa were
polio-endemic. Today, however, Africa accounts for nearly 90% of the global polio burden, with children
now paralyzed in ten previously polio-free countries across the continent." Epidemiologists fear that a major
epidemic this autumn (during the polio 'high season') would leave thousands of African children paralyzed
for life. Children are particularly vulnerable in west and central African countries, surrounding Nigeria, as
less than half of children in the region are routinely immunized against a series of diseases, including polio.
In response to this threat, they recommended plans to hold massive, synchronized immunization campaigns
across 22 African countries in October and November, aiming to reach 74 million children.

Darfur Violence Poses Health Risk for Sudan's Children


VOA News 2004, (July 10, Accessed online: 7-10-04 url: http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=
222C7314-E422-4DCB-9B0D6D1E8A9FD9D5, srg)
U.N. agencies say violence in Sudan's troubled Darfur region has left health workers unable to protect
500,000 children who need to be immunized against measles. The U.N. Children's Fund and the World
Health Organization say medical teams have vaccinated two million children in Darfur refugee camps, where
measles can be deadly, but many more who need health care are out of reach, due to the continuing violence.
Janjaweed Arab militias have been driving black African villagers off their land in Darfur, in what U.S. and
U.N. officials have described as a campaign of ethnic cleansing supported by the Sudanese government.
(VOA photo - P. Nunan) U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said this week that an agreement had been
reached to disarm the Sudanese militias accused of carrying out atrocities, but other U.N. officials said Friday
that armed men were still attacking civilians and humanitarian workers in Darfur. The United States is
seeking U.N. sanctions against those responsible for the violence, but Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa
Ismail says such a move would only weaken his government's efforts to resolve the crisis.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 43
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Topicality Answers***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 44
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan is a UN Peacekeeping Mission


The UN has Initiated Peacekeeping for the Sudan
Heinlein 04 (Peter, Epoch Times, June 12 accessed online,jec)
The U.N. Security Council has authorized the initial phase of what is expected to become a peacekeeping
mission for southern Sudan. The council also used the occasion to urge an end to a separate conflict in
western Sudan. The Security Council unanimously approved Secretary-General Kofi Annan's proposal to
send a U.N. advance team to Sudan. The team's three-month mission will be to assess peacekeeping needs in
the southern part of the country, where the government and rebels have committed themselves to ending
Africa's longest-running civil war. In a report issued this week, Secretary General Annan Expressed
satisfaction that, in his words, "the Sudanese peace process has come a long way in recent months after years
of false dawns." At the same time, however, he noted continuing violence in some parts of the south, in
particular in the Upper Nile region and in a separate conflict in the remote western Darfur region. He
described conditions in Darfur as "catastrophic" and said a settlement of that conflict is fundamental to the
success of a future U.N. role in Sudan.

The Sudan is a UN Peacekeeping Priority


Heinlein 04 (Peter, Epoch Times, June 12 accessed online,jec)
U.N. and British Security Council representatives underscored the need for greater attention to Darfur, where
pro-government Muslim militias are driving out black African residents in what U.N. officials have called a
"scorched-earth policy." British Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said the international community must pay
greater attention to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. "We should take particular recognition of the situation
in Darfur and ensure that all of us and the humanitarian agencies play our part to avert any humanitarian
catastrophe in that area," he said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 45
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan Peacekeeping Increases UN Credibility


Sudan is an Opportunity to Increase Credibility for the US, the UN and the AU
Strategic Forecasting July 2,2004 ( accessed online 7-3-04 at www.stratfor.com, jec)
The crisis in the Darfur region in western Sudan has gained international recognition after being allowed to
fester for more than a year with the recent arrival of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary-
General Kofi Annan. Both held out the possibility of international action -- including the possible
deployment of peacekeepers to the region. The time the Darfur crisis was allowed to deepen before any
substantive international action was considered is a testament to its low priority among international policy
makers. The renewed interest by the United States and the United Nations shows officials are beginning to
recognize the potential to use the crisis for their own foreign policy needs within and beyond Africa.
Throughout Africa's colonial and Cold War history, conflicts were often used by world powers to further
their own national interests. Despite the humanitarian issues in Darfur -- including hundreds of thousands of
black Africans being driven from their homes and allegations of ethnic cleansing -- this conflict is no
different, and provides an opportunity for the United States, the United Nations and the fledgling African
Union to benefit from ending the crisis.

Sudan is a Credibility Boon for the United Nations


Strategic Forecasting July 2,2004 ( accessed online 7-3-04 at www.stratfor.com, jec)
For the United Nations, a peacekeeping operation in Darfur would help to revitalize an organization in
danger of becoming irrelevant in the wake of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. In those
theaters, the United Nations has been pre-empted by the United States and NATO and has been given a token
role on the sidelines as an election-monitoring body. U.N. involvement in Africa -- in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Cote d'Ivoire in particular -- also has been criticized for its inaction in the face of
continued militant activity. If the United Nations can successfully deploy a peacekeeping and/or cease-fire
monitoring team to Darfur under the U.N. flag, it will have another opportunity to prove its relevance on the
world stage. The problem will become finding countries willing to supply the troops.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 46
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Politics***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 47
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 1/4


1 non unique- the US is already taking a public stand that the killings in Sudan need to stop. No reason why,
if plan happened, the poltical or public reaction would be anymore dramatic.

2no link – No evidence indicates that Bush’s popularity has anything to do with his position in Sudan

3 No Impact – The negative process of calculation is just another tool of international relations to avoid our
infinit responsibility to the other and they should be rejected for it.
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p107,jec)
This infinite and dissymmetrical economy of sacrifice is opposed to that of the scribes and pharisees, to the
old law in general, and to that of heathen ethnic groups or gentiles (goyim); it refers on the one hand to the
Christian as against the Judaic, on the other hand to the Judeo-Christian as against the rest. It always
presupposes a calculation that claims to go beyond calculation, beyond the totality of the calculable as a
finite totality of the same. There is an economy, but it is an economy thai integrates the renunciation of a
calculable remuneration, renunciation of merchandise or bargaining [marcbandage], of economy in the sense
of a retribution that can be measured or made symmetrical. In the space opened by this economy of what is
without measure there emerges a new teaching concerning giving or alms that relates the latter to giving back
or paying back, a yield [rendement] if you wish, a profitability [rentabilitf] also, of course, but one that
creatures cannot calculate and must leave to the appreciation of the father as be who sees in secret. Starting
from Chapter ft of the same Gospel, the theme of justice is remarked upon if not marked out explicitly, or it
is at least appealed to and named as that which must be practiced without being marked or remarked upon.
One must be just without being noticed for it. To want to be noticed means wanting recognition and payment
in terms of a calculable salary, in terms of thanks [remerciarient] or recompen.se. On the contrary one must
give, alms for example, without knowing, or at least by giving with one hand without the other hand
knowing, that is, without having it known, without having it known by other men, in secret, without counting
on recognition, reward, or remuneration. Without even having it known to oneself. The dissociation between
right and left again breaks up the pair, the parity or pairing, the symmetry between, or homogeneity of, two
economies. In fact it inaugurates sacrifice. But an infinite calculation supersedes the finite calculating that
has been renounced. God the Father, who sees in secret, will pay back your salary, and on an infinitely
greater scale.

4.Preventing Genocide Will Provide Political Cover on Foreign Policy for Bush
Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
The last time a US secretary of State visited Sudan was 1978, when Jimmy Carter's envoy, Cyrus Vance,
stopped to refuel his plane. But in a sign of Sudan's growing significance, Colin Powell arrived Tuesday for
a high-profile two-day visit. The trip is the latest evidence of a major shift in US policy toward the Muslim-
led state that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The visit is primarily aimed at halting the suffering and
violence in Sudan's western region of Darfur, home to the world's worst humanitarian crisis. But analysts
say it may also fulfill other White House goals. If the Bush team can bring Sudan back into the family of
nations, as it did this week with Libya, it would gain a diplomatic victory for the war on terror. It could also
fire up its Christian-conservative base by securing a peace deal in Sudan's other war, a 21-year conflict
between the Muslims in the north and the largely Christian south. And it could keep critics from having
another issue with which to pillory its foreign policy if it can prevent a repeat of Rwanda's 1994 genocide in
Sudan. "People are starting to use the term genocide" in connection with Darfur, says Jennifer Cooke of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington. "That accusation, especially in an
election year, and particularly after this administration has put so much effort" into a north-south peace
agreement, "is not something they want to deal with." Furthermore, she says, if they can strengthen ties with
Sudan's government, "they could make the case that, 'Our strong confrontation against terror has been
productive not only in Iraq, but we've also brought some rogue states back into the fold.' "
Gonzaga Debate Institute 48
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 2/4

4 Not Competitive in our framework Our advocacy in the 1AC is that there are costs to be bore by
accepting our infinite responsibility and that those costs are irrelevant in a question of ethics
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. xiv
This also means that I am not only answerable for what I initiated in a project or commitment of my will. I
am responsible for the situation in which I find myself, and for the existence in which I find myself. To be
responsible is always to have to answer for a situation that was in place before I came on the scene.
Responsibility is a bond between my present and what came to pass before it. In it is effected a passive
synthesis of time that precedes the time put together by retentions and protentions. I am responsible for
processes in which I find myself, and which have a momentum by which they go on beyond what I willed or
what I can steer. Responsibility cannot be limited to the measure of what I was able to foresee and willed. In
fact real action in the world is always action in which the devil has his part, in which the force of initiative
has force only inasmuch as it espouses things that have a force of their own. I am responsible for processes
that go beyond the limits of my foresight and intention, that carry on even when I am no longer adding my
sustaining force to them and even when I am no longer there. Serious responsibility recognizes itself to be

responsible for the course of things beyond one’s own death. My death will mark the limit of my force
without limiting my responsibility. There is in this sense an infinity that opens in responsibility, not as a
given immensity of its horizons, but as the process by which its bounds do not cease to extend — an
infinition of infinity. The bond with the alterity of the other is in this infinity. I am answerable before the
other in his alterity responsible before all the others for all the others. To be responsible before the other is to
make of my subsistence the support of his order and his needs. His alterity commands and solicits, his
approach contests and appeals; I am responsible before the other for the other. I am responsible before the
other in his alterity, that is, not answerable for his empirical and mundane being only, but for the alterity of
his initiatives, for the imperafive appeal with which he addresses me. I am responsible for the responsible
moves of another, for the very impact and trouble with which he approaches me. To be responsible before
another is to answer to the appeal by which he approaches. It is to put oneself in [their] his place, not to
observe oneself from without, but to bear the burden of his existence and supply for its wants. I am
responsible for the very faults of another, for his deeds and misdeeds. The condition of being hostage is an
authentic figure of responsibility.

5 cross apply the New Republic evidence in the 1AC. Even our administration acknowledges that we cannot allow
another Rwanda. We confront our numbness and solve back for harms in the disadvantage and the 1AC.

6 Prioritize your act of protest- The internal links of the disadvantage are absurd. They always are. People are dying
in Sudan as we speak. Use the ballot as a means to express solidarity with those who wish to stop this violence. The
larger the calculative impact to this argument the more reason to vote affirmative
The Utterance of Our Infinite Responsibility is the First Step Toward Achieving Peace. We
Must Act Even When Calculation Suggests it is Imprudent
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p60-4,jec)
Just as no one can die in my place, no one can make a decision, what we call "a decision," in my place. But
as soon as one speaks, as soon as one enters the medium of language, one loses that very singularity. One
therefore loses the possibility of deciding or the right to decide. Thus every decision would, fundamentally,
remain at the same time solitary, secret, and silent. Speaking relieves us, Kierkegaard notes, for it "translates"
into the general (113).4 The first effect or first destination of language therefore involves depriving me of, or
delivering me from, my singularity. By suspending my absolute singularity in speaking, I renounce at the
same time my liberty and my responsibility. Once I speak I am never and no longer myself, alone and
unique. It is a very strange contract—both paradoxical and terrifying—that binds infinite responsibility to
silence and secrecy. It goes against what one usually thinks, even in the most philosophical mode. For
common sense, just as for philosophical reasoning, the most widely shared belief is that responsibility is tied
to the public and to the nonsecrct, to the possibility and even the necessity of accounting for one's words and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 49
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline3/4
actions in front of others, of justifying and owning up to them. Here on the contrary it appears, just as
necessarily, that the absolute responsibility of my actions, to the extent that such a responsibility remains
mine, singularly so, something no one else can perform in my place, instead implies secrecy. But what is also
implied is that, by not speaking to others, I don't account for my actions, that I answer for nothing \que je tie
reponde de rien] and to no one, that I make no response to others or before others. It is both a scandal and a
paradox. According to Kierkegaard, ethical exigency is regulated by generality; and it therefore defines a re-
sponsibility that consists of speaking, that is, of involving oneself sufficiently in the generality to justify
oneself, to give an account Pg 60 of one's decision and to answer for one's actions. On the other hand, what
does Abraham teach us, in his approach to sacrifice? That far from ensuring responsibility, the generality of
ethics incites to irresponsibility. It impels me to speak, to reply, to account for something, and thus to
dissolve my singularity in the medium of the concept. Such is the aporia of responsibility: one always risks
not managing to accede to the concept of responsibility in the process of forming it. For responsibility (we
would no longer dare speak of "the universal concept of responsibility") demands on the one hand an
accounting, a general answering-for-onesclf with respect to the general and before the generality, hence the
idea of substitution, and, on the other hand, uniqueness, absolute singularity, hence nonsubstitution,
nonrepetition, silence, and secrecy. What I am saying here about responsibility can also be said about
decision. The ethical involves me in substitution, as does speaking. Whence the insolence of the paradox: for
Abraham, Kierkegaard declares, the ethical is a temptation. He must therefore resist it. He keeps quiet in
order to avoid the moral temptation which, under the pretext of calling him to responsibility, to self-
justification, would make him lose his ultimate responsibility along with his singular-ity, make him lose his
unjustifiable, secret, and absolute responsibility before God. This is ethics as "irresponsibilization," as an
insoluble and paradoxical contradiction between responsibility in general and absolute responsibility.
Absolute responsibility is not a responsibility, at least it is not general responsibility or responsibility in
general. It needs to be exceptional or extraordinary, and it needs to be that absolutely and par excellence: it is
as if absolute responsibility could not be derived from a concept of responsibility and therefore, in order for it
to be what it must be it must remain inconceivable, indeed unthinkable: it must therefore be irresponsible in
order to be absolutely responsible. "Abraham cannot speak, because he cannot say that which would explain
everything . . . that it is an ordeal such that, please note, the ethical is the temptation" (115). The ethical can
therefore end up making us irresponsible. It is a temptation, a tendency, or a facility that would sometimes
have to be refused in the name of a responsibility that doesn't keep account or give an account, neither to
man. to humans, to society, to one's fellows, or to one's own. Such a responsibility keeps its secret, it cannot
and need not present itself. Tyrannically, jealously, it refuses to present itself before the violence that consists
of asking for accounts and justifications, summonses to appear before the law of men. It declines the
autobiography that is always auto-justification, egodkee. Abraham presents bimself\ of course, but before
God, the unique, jealous, secret God, the one to whom he says "Here I am." But in order to do that, he must
renounce his family loyalties, which amounts to violating his oath, and refuse to present himself before men.
He no longer speaks to them. That at least is what the sacrifice of Isaac suggests {it would be different for a
tragie hero such as Agamemnon). In the end secrecy is as intolerable for ethics as it is for philosophy or for
dialectics in general, from Plato to Hegel: The ethical as such is the universal; as the universal it is in turn the
disclosed. The single individual, qualified as immediate, sensate, and psychical, is the hidden. Thus his
ethical task is to work himself out of his hiddenness and to become disclosed in the universal. Every time he
desires to remain in the hidden, he trespasses and is immersed in spiritual trial from which he can emerge
only by disclosing himself. Once again we stand at the same point. If there is no hiddenness rooted in the fact
that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, then Abraham's conduct cannot
be defended, for he disregarded the intermediary ethical categories. But if there is such a hiddenness, then we
face the paradox, which does not allow itself to be mediated, since it is based precisely on this: the single
individual as the single individual is higher than the universal. . . . The Hegelian philosophy assumes no
justified hiddenness, no justified incommensurability. It is, then, consistent for it to demand disclosure, but it
is a little bemuddled when it wants to regard Abraham as the father of faith and to speak about faith. (82,
translation modified—DW) 62 In the exemplary form of its absolute coherence, I legel's philosophy
represents the irrefutable demand for manifestation, phe-nomenalization, and unveiling; thus, it is thought, it
represents the request for truth that inspires philosophy and ethics in their most powerful form.s. There are no
final secrets for philosophy, ethics, or politics. The manifest is given priority over the hidden or the secret,
universal generality is superior to the individual; no irreducible secret that can be legally justified (fonde en
Gonzaga Debate Institute 50
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 4/4


droit says the French translation of Kierkegaard)—and thus the instance of the law has to be added to those
(if philosophy and ethics: nothing hidden, no absolutely legitimate secret. But the paradox of faith is that
intenority remains "incommensurable with exterioritv" ((>')). No manifestation can consist in rendering the
interior exterior or show what is hidden. The knight of faith can neither communicate to nor be understood by
anyone, she can't help the other at all (71). The absolute duty that obligates her with respect to God cannot
have the form of generality that is called duty. If I obey in my duty towards God (which is my absolute duty)
only in terms of duty, I am not fulfilling my relation to God. In order to fulfill my duty towards God, I must
not act out of duty, by means of that form of generality that can always he mediated and communicated and
that is called duty. The absolute duty that binds me to Cod himself, in faith, must function beyond and
against any duty I have. "The duty becomes duty bv being traced back to God, but in the duty itself I do not
enter into relation to God" (68). Kant explains that to act morally is to act "out of duty" and not only "by
conforming to duty." Kierkegaard sees acting "out of duty," in the universalizahle sense of the law, as a
dereliction of one's absolute duty. It is in this sense that absolute duty (towards God and in the singularity of
faith) implies a sort of gift or sacrifice that functions beyond both debt and duty, beyond dutv as a form of
debt. This is the dimension that provides for a "gift of death" which, beyond human responsibility, beyond
the universal concept of duty, is a response to absolute duty.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 51
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan is a Win for Bush


A Small Troop Commitment Could be a Huge Political Win for Bush
New Republic July5,2004 ( pg.7, accessed online)
And, despite all its moralistic talk, few in the Bush administration have ever shown much enthusiasm for
using the U.S. military to save African lives. But we can offer logistical and airlift support. And, if even a
fraction of the 2,000 American troops currently stationed in nearby Djibouti were transferred to Darfur, they
would have a dramatic psychological impact, encouraging other countries to volunteer more troops and
showing Khartoum that the world's only superpower will no longer stand idly by. Remember, some 200
American ground troops helped end the violence in Liberia last summer. As we editorialized last week
("Were We Wrong?" June 28), one of the great moral dangers of America's intervention in Iraq is that it will
undermine America's ability--and its will--to prevent ethnic cleansing and mass murder in other parts of the
globe. We are now confronting that danger in Darfur. If President Bush wants to show the world that his
moral rhetoric was sincere in Iraq, he now has his chance, in Sudan.

US is Needed in the South of Sudan


Crocker and Crocker, 2004 (Bathsheba and Chester, International Herald Tribune,
http://www.iht.com/articles/524344.html, HL)
While bloody mayhem continues in Sudan's western province of Darfur, Sudan's government and the rebel
Sudan People's Liberation Movement have signed accords in Kenya that clear the way for a comprehensive
agreement on ending 40 years of civil war in the south of the country. The United States, as the primary
midwife of an African and European-backed peace effort, could achieve a bold vision for peace, opening a
new chapter in a devastated land that has known little but war since gaining independence from Britain in
1956. For a U.S. administration in need of a foreign policy victory, this would be a big prize.

Stopping the Violence on Sudan Re-energize the Base for the Election
Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
Such a deal would end Africa's longest-running civil war. It would also be a trophy the White House could
hand to its Christian-conservative base, which became outraged over northern Arabs kidnapping and
enslaving southern Christians during the war. And it would enable the US to proceed with lifting sanctions
against Sudan and restoring formal diplomatic ties, which the US did on Monday with Libya, another
Muslim country with past ties to terrorism. At one point in January, a north-south deal was so close that
Sudanese leaders from both sides began applying for visas to go to the White House for a signing ceremony.
But recently, southern rebels have said they won't join with Sudan's government if it's involved in genocide
in Darfur. Human rights and other liberal-leaning groups have begun exerting pressure on the US to deal
with growing abuses in Darfur. Amid 10th-anniversary commemorations of the Rwanda genocide in April,
the chorus became stronger. Politically, the Darfur issue is "easy for Bush, since he wins from the left and the
right," says Robert Rotberg, an Africa scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 52
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan Costs No Political Capital

Preventing Genocide Will Provide Political Cover on Foreign Policy for Bush
Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
The last time a US secretary of State visited Sudan was 1978, when Jimmy Carter's envoy, Cyrus Vance,
stopped to refuel his plane. But in a sign of Sudan's growing significance, Colin Powell arrived Tuesday for
a high-profile two-day visit. The trip is the latest evidence of a major shift in US policy toward the Muslim-
led state that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The visit is primarily aimed at halting the suffering and
violence in Sudan's western region of Darfur, home to the world's worst humanitarian crisis. But analysts
say it may also fulfill other White House goals. If the Bush team can bring Sudan back into the family of
nations, as it did this week with Libya, it would gain a diplomatic victory for the war on terror. It could also
fire up its Christian-conservative base by securing a peace deal in Sudan's other war, a 21-year conflict
between the Muslims in the north and the largely Christian south. And it could keep critics from having
another issue with which to pillory its foreign policy if it can prevent a repeat of Rwanda's 1994 genocide in
Sudan. "People are starting to use the term genocide" in connection with Darfur, says Jennifer Cooke of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington. "That accusation, especially in an
election year, and particularly after this administration has put so much effort" into a north-south peace
agreement, "is not something they want to deal with." Furthermore, she says, if they can strengthen ties with
Sudan's government, "they could make the case that, 'Our strong confrontation against terror has been
productive not only in Iraq, but we've also brought some rogue states back into the fold.' "

The Bush Administration has Long Been Committed to Peace in Sudan


Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
The US motives for engaging in the Darfur crisis may not be entirely altruistic, observers say, but the Bush
team's passion about Sudan also helps ensure that serious relief may actually arrive for Darfur's at-risk
masses. In comments just ahead of the trip, Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International
Development, who was traveling with Mr. Powell, said up to 1 million Sudanese refugees could die this year
due to government-supported ethnic cleansing. In a measure of the administration's commitment on the
issue, Mr. Natsios took the unusual step last week of using satellite images to highlight the destruction of
some 300 villages by Arab Janjaweed militias, which are apparently backed by Sudan's government. The
Janjaweed have been killing, raping, and robbing mainly black villagers, who are ethnically - and perhaps
politically - connected to two rebel groups that began an antigovernment struggle in 2003. Another US
official, war-crimes ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper, also said recently that the US had found "indicators
of genocide" in the region, which is about the size of Texas. The United Nations says that 30,000 people have
died so far and 1 million have been displaced. Prodded by the Bush team, Sudan's government and southern
Christian rebels have been inching toward a comprehensive peace deal for about two years. The war broke
out in 1983 after the south took up arms against Khartoum. Insurgents are looking for more equitable
treatment of southerners and a share of the country's oil wealth. Negotiators are currently meeting in Kenya
to work out details on peacekeeping and demobilization of troops. Another round of talks is set for later this
year.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 53
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Sudan a Win for Bush

Stopping the Violence on Sudan Re-energize the Base for the Election
Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
Such a deal would end Africa's longest-running civil war. It would also be a trophy the White House could hand to
its Christian-conservative base, which became outraged over northern Arabs kidnapping and enslaving southern
Christians during the war. And it would enable the US to proceed with lifting sanctions against Sudan and restoring
formal diplomatic ties, which the US did on Monday with Libya, another Muslim country with past ties to terrorism.
At one point in January, a north-south deal was so close that Sudanese leaders from both sides began applying for
visas to go to the White House for a signing ceremony. But recently, southern rebels have said they won't join with
Sudan's government if it's involved in genocide in Darfur. Human rights and other liberal-leaning groups have
begun exerting pressure on the US to deal with growing abuses in Darfur. Amid 10th-anniversary commemorations
of the Rwanda genocide in April, the chorus became stronger. Politically, the Darfur issue is "easy for Bush, since
he wins from the left and the right," says Robert Rotberg, an Africa scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge,
Mass.
Preventing Genocide Will Provide Political Cover on Foreign Policy for Bush
Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01)
The last time a US secretary of State visited Sudan was 1978, when Jimmy Carter's envoy, Cyrus Vance,
stopped to refuel his plane. But in a sign of Sudan's growing significance, Colin Powell arrived Tuesday for
a high-profile two-day visit. The trip is the latest evidence of a major shift in US policy toward the Muslim-
led state that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The visit is primarily aimed at halting the suffering and
violence in Sudan's western region of Darfur, home to the world's worst humanitarian crisis. But analysts
say it may also fulfill other White House goals. If the Bush team can bring Sudan back into the family of
nations, as it did this week with Libya, it would gain a diplomatic victory for the war on terror. It could also
fire up its Christian-conservative base by securing a peace deal in Sudan's other war, a 21-year conflict
between the Muslims in the north and the largely Christian south. And it could keep critics from having
another issue with which to pillory its foreign policy if it can prevent a repeat of Rwanda's 1994 genocide in
Sudan. "People are starting to use the term genocide" in connection with Darfur, says Jennifer Cooke of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington. "That accusation, especially in an
election year, and particularly after this administration has put so much effort" into a north-south peace
agreement, "is not something they want to deal with." Furthermore, she says, if they can strengthen ties with
Sudan's government, "they could make the case that, 'Our strong confrontation against terror has been
productive not only in Iraq, but we've also brought some rogue states back into the fold.' "
Gonzaga Debate Institute 54
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Uniqueness

Bush Will Win the Election, Wartime 'Hawks' Always Do


Cavanaugh, 2004 (Tim, Web editor at Reason magazine, Accessed online 7-8-04, url:
http://www.rppi.org/wartimehawks.shtml, srg).
If John Kerry is serious about defeating George W. Bush in the US presidential election next November, I have
some advice for him, courtesy of my daughter. Thanks to the American Museum of the Moving Image's online
exhibit "The Living Room Candidate," I've found the perfect one-minute entertainment for a small child: The
once-famous "I Like Ike" TV commercial for Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 campaign features a black and
white cartoon parade led by a smiling, banner-waving elephant, marching to the infectious, policy-free anthem:
"You like Ike, I like Ike, Everybody likes Ike for President ..." This spot never fails to make my kid (not yet, to my
knowledge, a declared Republican) laugh, dance, wave her hands and demand repeat viewings. The obvious lesson: If you want to win, get
a campaign spot that appeals to a 2-year-old. It's just one of the many weaknesses of the Kerry campaign that the candidate seems incapable
of this sort of common touch. In recent weeks, commentators have predicted Kerry's doom for a number of reasons: because he seems like a
snob; because his Roman Catholicism appears insufficiently zealous; because his daughter wore a revealing dress at the Cannes film
festival; because he's from America's Northeast; and because he speaks French. But I've got another reason why Kerry doesn't have a prayer
in November. My reason is neither infallible nor earthshaking, and it's based on one of those "iron laws of history" that have a bad habit of
melting away once you notice them. But it has considerable support when one looks at the history of US presidential
elections. Call it the Alamo Principle: When troops are in the field, in sufficient enough numbers for the nation
to consider itself "at war," the candidate who looks more convincingly hawkish will always win. It doesn't
matter how controversial, hopeless, or misguided the given war is (and all three adjectives could plausibly be
applied to the Iraq war). It doesn't matter if large segments or even a majority of the population are not
persuaded that the costs of the war are worth paying. It doesn't even matter whether the candidate's hawkishness
is real or merely an effect of style and spin. American voters refuse to admit, or even consider, battlefield
defeat. Thus Bush, who has managed to sell himself as the hawkish candidate on both the war in Iraq and the
"war on terrorism" (though it's often difficult to tell how or where his and Kerry's positions on the two differ),
has an edge that is more significant than the slight lead Kerry now enjoys in most polls; and even more
significant than indications, in a recent USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll, that a majority of Americans now
consider the invasion of Iraq a mistake. Anybody who believes Kerry can win as an anti-war candidate needs to
cite a single wartime instance in American history where an anti-war candidate has won.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 55
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Substantive Solvency
Gonzaga Debate Institute 56
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Militias Solve
UN Forces Face Logistical Barriers that Private Companies Can Provide
Gantz June 8, 2004 ( Peter, accessed online at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/108671907146.htm ,
Peter H. Gantz is Peacekeeping Associate with Refugees International, and is Executive Coordinator of the
Partnership for Effective Peace Operations, jec)
UN peace operations also face serious obstacles in the area of logistical support. The Administration has not
yet detailed its plans to enhance capacity in this area, but the need is clear. Troops have deployed without
appropriate clothing and gear for the climate, without weapons and/or ammunition, and without functioning
transport. The UN needs airlift capacity to get troops to the area of operation, and aerial support to monitor
large spaces effectively. The U.S., the United Kingdom, and other countries use private contractors for many
logistical support needs. The UN could benefit from this practice as well.

Privatized Peacekeeping has a Promising Future


Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
In the meantime, Brooks is advocating for greater transparency among private mercenary firms. His
association has a code of conduct for its members, and Brooks says that his firms would welcome impartial
observers to monitor their employees' behavior. A lot of issues remain to be worked out before the United
Nations accepts private peacekeepers, Singer wrote last June in Policy Review. But whereas 10 years ago
the notion would have been considered absurd, it is now a "real prospect." "Obviously, such proposals hold
great promise, which explains the enthusiasm for them," Singer wrote. "But before the international
community leaps into the privatization revolution, it would do well also to consider its perils.... These
challenges are certainly better resolved before peacekeeping is turned over to the private market."

Privatized Peacekeepers Are Not in the Status Quo and Represent a Significant Savings to
the United Nations
Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
Last month, thinking that peace talks in Nairobi, Kenya, might finally yield an end to Sudan's 20-year civil
war, Doug Brooks got on the telephone and started calling his contacts at private military companies. What
would it cost, he wanted to know, to stage an effective peacekeeping operation in Sudan, a vast African
country that is one-quarter the size of the United States? The answer came back: for one year, taking
advantage of the treeless terrain to use a combination of high-tech aerial surveillance equipment and a
relatively low number (3,000) of U.N. blue-helmet troops, $30 million. Forty million dollars, if the firms
handled the peacekeeping payroll. This most likely represents significant savings. Although the United
Nations has issued no cost estimate for a Sudan mission, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has proposed
spending $418 million on a 5,600-man mission to Burundi, a small Central African nation about the size of
Maryland. "The practical reality is, the United Nations is probably going to try and do Sudan itself without
using as much private support as we'd like to provide,"

UN Peacekeeping Numbers are in Crisis


Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
The United Nations is facing a peacekeeping crisis. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations began
emitting distress signals months ago about the number of blue berets and blue helmets it will be expected to
muster this year -- up to 20,000 for missions in Ivory Coast, Haiti, and possibly Burundi and Sudan, and all at
a time when troop-contributing countries are under pressure from Washington to send soldiers to Iraq. If the
Burundi and Sudan missions become reality, the U.N. will have 45,000 peacekeepers deployed, the highest
number since the mid-1990s.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 57
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Intervention is necessary to stop genocide in the Darfur—we must not allow a repeat of
Rwanda
The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 16, 2004 [l/n]
The lesson of the ghastly genocide in Rwanda a decade ago is that international indifference kills. Rwanda's
vast tragedy must not be allowed to repeat itself in Sudan. In Rwanda, U.N. peacekeepers beat a shameful
retreat as Hutu tribesmen began their systematic slaughter of rival Tutsis in 1994. The United States, burned
in Somalia, turned a blind eye to Rwanda despite, we now know, the Clinton administration's certain
knowledge that genocide was in prospect. No one else -- not the great powers, not the United Nations, not
Europe, not the feckless African Union -- stirred to intervene, or even to protest seriously. The result: An
estimated 800,000 ethnic Tutsis were hacked and bludgeoned to death while the world did nothing. In
Sudan today, an increasingly brutal conflict in the remote western region of Darfur threatens a Rwanda-scale
tragedy. In what is currently Africa's worst humanitarian crisis, perhaps 30,000 ethnic African Sudanese have
been killed, 100,000 forced into exile in neighboring Chad and 1 million have been displaced from their
home villages. Sudan's predominantly Arab government is waging a scorched-earth campaign against a
rebellion rooted in the black African population of the Darfur region. A United Nations human rights team
reports that Sudan's government and its Arab militias are implementing a policy of "rape, pillage, torture,
murder and arson in villages and towns across Darfur." The New York-based Human Rights Watch accuses
Sudan's government of "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan marked the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide in April with an urgent
plea. "The international community cannot stand idle," Annan said, as evidence mounts of genocide in Sudan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 58
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Militias Solve

Despite Public Dismissal, the UN Considers Private Peacekeepers Viable


Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
Yet privatized peacekeeping has caught the interest of top U.N. officials in the past and still does, even though
public endorsement of it is perilous. Annan has said that during the 1994 Rwanda crisis, when he was the U.N.
undersecretary general for peacekeeping, he considered hiring a private firm; U.N. member nations were too
spooked then by the memory of the slaughter in Somalia to send in their own troops. The now-defunct South
African firm Executive Outcomes said it could have had troops on the ground in 14 days. In the end, Annan decided
that "the world may not be ready to privatize peace." Avoiding new genocides is frequently invoked as a reason to
use mercenaries, who, for the right price, could be deployed quickly in a crisis. But mercenaries are talked about for
less dire peacekeeping missions as well. Doug Brooks sees involving the better private firms -- those with proven
records of good service and behavior -- in U.N. peacekeeping operations as an opportunity to do the right thing.
"The reality is, the West has pretty much abrogated its responsibility for supporting U.N. operations with boots on
the ground in places they don't care about. So in Congo, Liberia, you're not going to see many Western troops
getting involved, and that's a shame," he says. "If the biggest, richest, best-equipped militaries do not participate, it's
really ridiculous to expect a mission to succeed."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 59
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

International Intervention Solves


A third party intervention and holistic approaches are the only way to solve social conflicts
Byrne, Carter and Senehi, 2002(Summer of 2002, Sean, Neal, Jessica, International and
comparative Law Journal, Professor of conflict, Assistant professor of political science, Assistant
professor in the dept. of analysis and resolution, DCK)
Effective intervention by external third parties necessitates a holistic and interactive approach that transforms
underlying structural inequalities and subjective dynamics that tear individuals, groups, communities and
nations apart. The primary purpose of the special issue is to explore the theoretical underpinnings and
practical implications of Social Cubism. In this endeavor, the authors provide rich theoretical material for the
practitioner and scholar to consider when analyzing the social forces that interact to escalate social conflicts.
The student of social conflicts are also provided insightful observations from the authors personal
experiences in the field to more fully understand the dynamics of successes and failures of conflict
intervention in social conflicts. The contributors also use the case-study method using the Social Cube
analytical device to provide prescriptive insights to explain social conflict, and, how it might be resolved.
The articles also explored the lessons learned about the causes of social conflict in ethnic, community, and
workplace. Finally, the articles also draw together Social Cubism with conflict resolution, and peacemaking.
The papers use case studies to explore efforts at resolution in ethnic, organizational, and community based
social conflicts.

A perfect genocidal response is one of multiple policies and to prosecute those who
committed such crimes to all of society
Drumbl, 2000(Mark A., November, New York Law Review, Assistant prof. at William H.
Bowen School of law, DCK)
Postgenocidal policies are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a singular focus on one method - whether trials or
truth commissions - may yield suboptimal results. Rather, policymakers should be open to redressing
genocidal violence through blended responses and an admixture of policies. By exploring how social
geographies may impact upon the effectiveness of trials and other rule-of-law devices, this Article aims to
provide a road map for legal policymakers. This road map is especially important as the international
community begins to address genocidal violence and ethnically based persecution in places such as Kosovo,
n16 East Timor, n17 and Chechnya. n18 Foremost, however, this Article addresses the Rwandan violence.
[*1227] [*1228] Although it may seem straightforward to suggest that legal responses must be contextual
because each genocide is different, the simplicity of this argument may have been lost on many international
lawyers. In fact, this contextual approach to redressing genocidal violence diverges from the Kantian
deontology of international criminal law. n19 This deontological approach, which is au courant among
international lawyers, posits that trials of selected individuals (preferably undertaken at the international
level) constitute the favored and often exclusive remedy to respond to all situations of genocide and crimes
against humanity. n20 Growing from its roots in the Nuremberg and Tokyo [*1229] Tribunals, n21 as well
as the 1948 Genocide Convention, n22 this deontological view currently blooms in the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC), n23 in the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) n24 and Rwanda (ICTR), n25 and in attempts to develop an international tribunal for
Cambodia. n26
Gonzaga Debate Institute 60
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Delaying Our Intervention is a Death Sentence to Sudanese


Reeves 04 (Eric, Genocide in Sudan, May 31, In These Times)
To date the response of the international community has been schizophrenic. U.N. officials and others refer to
these realities as "ethnic cleansing," "crimes against humanity" and a "scorched-earth campaign" that has
produced "the world's greatest humanitarian crisis." And senior U.N. officials have condemned the "systematic"
denial of humanitarian access to the areas in which African tribal peoples live. But with the U.N. Commission
on Human Rights having failed to act, it is no surprise that Khartoum has twice denied a U.N. humanitarian
assessment team, led by U.N. Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs Egeland, access to Darfur. The regime
calculates that with an international community that is apparently unconcerned it will pay no price for their
atrocities in Darfur. This belief has only been encouraged by the refusal of the U.N. Security Council to take
up Darfur in a serious way. European countries seem content merely to have supported the resolution in
Geneva that declared: "The [U.N.] Commission [on Human Rights] expresses its solidarity with the Sudan in
overcoming the current situation." This is no time for inconsequential "solidarity." The rainy season begins in
May and will quickly render many roads impassable. Pre-positioned food, medicine, well-drilling equipment
and shelter supplies are totally inadequate. The rains will not only make transport immensely more difficult, but
water-borne diseases like cholera will spread rapidly. The U.N. already has reported an outbreak of meningitis
"above the epidemic threshold" in a refugee camp in Chad; outbreaks of measles -- a potentially fatal disease in
weakened populations -- also have been reported. The political reality of the situation dictates that leadership
must come from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. But while floating the notion of humanitarian intervention
in Darfur on the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, Annan has yet to make concrete proposals for either the
resources or the mandate that would guide an intervention. The U.N.'s failure to act ensures that hundreds of
thousands of Darfurians will die in the coming months, as the projected mortality rates climb beyond the
"catastrophic" range in June.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 61
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

A paradigm of guilt and shame must be realized to see the problems that violence is an act
against the other and that not a state of violence, but at the individual level justice must be
prioritized versus all of the nation state violence since the individuals suffer and the state
just changes
Drumbl, 2000(Mark A., November, New York Law Review, Assistant prof. at William H.
Bowen School of law, DCK)
Part II argues that dualist postgenocidal societies, even those with very high levels of public complicity, are
well-suited to benefit from restorative justice approaches. In a restorative justice paradigm, criminal violence
is viewed primarily as an injury to individuals and communities, and only secondarily as an injury to the state
or international order. Under this paradigm, the purpose of legal intervention is to promote peace in local
communities by repairing injury, encouraging atonement, promoting rehabilitation, and, eventually,
facilitating reintegration. The restorative justice literature makes an important distinction between guilt and
shame. Whereas guilt arises from externally imposed judgment, shame emerges from internal
acknowledgment that what one did was blameworthy. Shame may be a particularly effective reintegrative
device in the close-knit living patterns of dualist postgenocidal societies. Shame also may be effective in
situations such as Rwanda's where there were such high levels of complicity. Whereas criminal trials are
designed to expose and punish deviant behavior, restorative justice initiatives may be more effective in
promoting accountability for mass violence that was not perceived as deviant at the time and may still not be
universally perceived as deviant after the fact. Instead of permitting an accused to shield his or her personal
accountability behind the finding of not-guilty (or, if guilt is found, behind the assumption that the court
determining guilt is politically motivated, dispensing only victor's justice), restorative approaches oblige
genocidal participants to face survivors and victims' families, see the effects of their acts, and make amends
for the harms. This Part operationalizes the restorative justice paradigm by considering the implementation of
a truth commission and reintegrative community-based mediation n30 in Rwanda.

Truth commission of international law decrease the need to the other and that a being no
longer must act to save the “other” person, the systematic need to help the other becomes
deconstructed via international truth laws
Drumbl, 2000(Mark A., November, New York Law Review, Assistant prof. at William H.
Bowen School of law, DCK)
Truth commissions may deconstruct "otherness" and identify why it was constructed in the first place. The
focus on retributive justice in Rwanda may have resulted in little attention being paid to mental health
issues. This leaves unaddressed the important need to treat depression in postgenocidal Rwanda: Prunier
finds that Rwanda is populated by the bapfuye buhagazi (the "walking dead"). n229 Despite the public
nature of the genocidal violence, there is very little generally accepted truth in Rwanda as to what exactly
happened from April to July 1994. n230 In this regard, a truth commission could [*1271] help establish an
historical narrative of what happened as well as why it happened; n231 after this record is established,
Rwandan society then could be better positioned to render a moral evaluation of the genocide. n232 Inquiry
by a truth commission, which could operate conjunctively [*1272] with gacaca proceedings, should involve
Rwandan survivors and aggressors. It should also involve the international actors who enabled or facilitated
the atrocities. n233 Prominent on the list of those international actors are successor regimes to the colonial
powers that introduced ethnicity as a destructive agent in Rwandan politics, current governments that
supported the genocidal regime, n234 and international organizations that stood idly by while atrocities were
committed.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 62
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Justice/Genocide Module***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 63
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Obligation to the Other


As bystanders to Ethnic Cleansing,we have an Obligation to Recognize Atrocity and Do
Everything in our Power to Stop It
Arne Johan Vetlesen, Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo, July 2000, Journal of Peace Research,
“Genocide: A Case for the Responsibility of the Bystander,” p. 529-530
Considering the material I have presented from Bosnia, is there one lesson in particular that needs to be
learned here? I believe there are three important lessons. The first is that the bystander is the one who decides
whether the harm wrought by the aggressor is permitted to stand unrectified or not. The bystander who reacts
with non-reaction, with silence in the face of killing, helps legitimize that very killing. When nothing is done
in the face of what is unfolding, and when what unfolds is, beyond doubt, killing of a genocidal nature, the
message to the agent as well as to the direct victim is that such killing may continue. Knowing, yet deciding
not to act when action would have been possible, entails complicity — that is to say, on general grounds, it
counts as moral complicity (Linger, 1996), though we need to inquire further to settle the question of strict
legal — meaning punishable — complicity. I return to this below. The second lesson is that there is every
reason not to downplay but instead take extremely seriously any statement — be it oral or written, broadcast
in the mass media or published in journals and books — about specific groups if such statements will
contribute to actions which will rob such groups of their humanity and right to live under decent conditions,
to allude to Hegel, discourses of misrecognition are likely to constitute a phase of ideological preparation for
the carrying out of a politics of enforced removal, humiliation, and perhaps eventually downright annihilation
of the abused individuals. Deeds follow upon words. Generally speaking, due among other things to their
comprehensive reading, traveling, and contacts abroad, intellectuals in different countries, although outsiders
to such developments within a given state (region), have a duty to sound the alarm bell upon learning about
the spreading of hate speech. This is especially true in cases where the hate speech is authorized by the
authorities, and even more so if the authorities are undemocratic or downright totalitarian. Although we still
await the first indictment of journalists on the charge of incitement to genocide in the former Yugoslavia,
Rwanda represents a historic precedent. In 1995, Ferdinand Nahimana, a well-known historian who served as
the director of the most popular Rwandan radio station, RTLM, was arrested and delivered to the Arusha
tribunal, where he will have to answer to the charge of 'incitement to genocide'. It is now an established view
that this radio station, in the two months in the spring of 1994 when up to one million Rwandans were
slaughtered, had one single aim: to incite the Hutu masses to exterminate their Tutsi neighbors (Gutman &
Rieff, 1999:192). The third lesson is that the failure to act when knowledgeable about ongoing genocide
corrupts the bystander — the more so the greater his or her potential for acting. Not only are the victims
those people falling prey to slaughter, but also the individual bystanders who decides to remain inactive and
allow what is happening to continue. Ever since Hugo Grotius's De Jure Belli ac Pacis from 1625 (the treatise
inspiring the principles behind humanitarian intervention to this day), a central criterion to justify the use of
force is that the crime must be excessively cruel so as to shock the society of mankind. Every one of us is an
embodiment of the society thus able to be shocked, to be morally outraged at what befalls other human
beings — even if it be those unknown and far off. The idea is that we inflict evil upon ourselves — and not
only upon the victims slaughtered — when we willfully remain passive bystanders.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 64
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

“Solvency” is irrelevant. It is our Obligation to speak out


Eric Reeves 03( Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, 12-30)
It is intolerable that the international community continues to allow what all evidence suggests is genocide. For
surely if we are honest with ourselves we will accept that the term "ethnic cleansing" is no more than a dangerous
euphemism for genocide, a way to make the ultimate crime somehow less awful. As Samantha Power has cogently
observed, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" gained currency in the early 1990s as a way of speaking about the atrocities
in the Balkans---"as a kind of euphemistic halfway house between crimes against humanity and genocide" (page
483, "'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide"). But linguistic half-measures are not enough
when the question is whether an "ethnical [or] racial group" is being destroyed "in whole or in part"---"as such"
(from the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).
The present realities in Darfur must urgently be rendered for the world to see and understand---fully, honestly, and
on the basis of much greater information than is presently available. In turn, these realities must guide a
humanitarian effort that will not allow Khartoum's claim of "national sovereignty" to trump the desperate plight of
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians caught up in a maelstrom of destruction and displacement. That no such
efforts are presently being undertaken---Ambassador Vraalsen declared (December 8, 2003) that humanitarian
operations in Darfur have "practically come to a standstill"---is of the gravest concern.
Indeed, the logic of the situation is so compelling that one can only surmise that the failure of the international
community even to speak of the possibility of a humanitarian intervention in Darfur derives from some morally
appalling failure of nerve, and an unwillingness to roil the diplomatic waters with a peace agreement so close
between Khartoum and the SPLM/A. But this latter concern represents exactly the wrong way to view both Darfur
and its relation to the last major issue outstanding in the present peace negotiations between Khartoum and the
south, viz. the status of the three contested areas of Abyei, the Nuba Mountains, and Southern Blue Nile. For unless
the international community shows its concern for the various marginalized peoples of Sudan, peace will be only
very partial and ultimately unsustainable.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 65
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

We Must Acknowledge Genocide to Solve


International Action-Acknowledging the Genocide – is Key to Solve
Chiahemen 2004 (Fanen U.N. Wire) http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040617/449_24984.asp, LL
Sudan needs to reconcile itself to the multiplicity of its cultures and religions if it is to end the crisis in the
western Darfur region and avoid future internal conflicts, a panel of Sudan experts said yesterday, noting that
ethnic cleansing is well underway in Darfur and needs to be halted by international pressure. With its mix of
African and Arab Muslims, as well as a small population of mostly Christian Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians
and Italians, Sudan is a multiethnic, multireligious country, and issues of multiplicity need to be solved on a
national level, former Darfur governor Ahmed Diraige said yesterday at a forum on the Sudan crisis at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "Unless the issue of multiplicity is solved, Sudan
will always be in trouble," he said. An acknowledgement of the country's multiethnic makeup would give
way to the sharing of political power and wealth and an end to the hegemony by the ruling Arab elite that has
sparked conflict by the agitated, disfranchised black African population, such as the people of Darfur,
Diraige said. "[The people of] Darfur want to be incorporated into the government; they want recognition of
their presence," Diraige said. Because "Darfur is a microcosm of the Sudan," he added, "if we solve the
whole problem of the Sudan, then we can solve the problems of Darfur." Diraige and the other two panelists,
U.N. representative on internally displaced persons Francis Deng and John Prendergast, special adviser to the
president of the International Crisis Group, said the conflict in Darfur is at a critical stage and the world
needs to act now rather than squabble over whether what is taking place in Darfur can be labeled genocide.
"What the government [of Sudan] has done more than satisfies the definition of genocide," Prendergast said,
arguing that with the government having driven an ethnic cleansing campaign, the second phase of genocide
was now being carried out "in full force," whereby starvation and disease are being used to "finish the job."
"It's a choice whether we want 350,000 people to die in the next six months," Prendergast said, adding that
there should be "a multilateral condemnation" of the government of Sudan, which has used food and
starvation as a weapon against the people of Darfur. Prendergast called the tactics that have been used by the
Sudanese government "more brutal than most of the ... top 20 great violators of human rights in the last
century," and said he was "flabbergasted" that there was no U.N. human rights monitor in Sudan. He said
those seeking to end the suffering in Sudan need to focus simultaneously on famine prevention, the reversal
of ethnic cleansing and peacemaking. He also called for a mechanism of accountability for those who have
carried out and supported the violence. Diraige pressed for the use of a military force such as NATO to help
with humanitarian operations as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo. Reiterating the need for action, Deng
said that while he was impressed by the level of concern around the world for Darfur, he felt the world was
experiencing guilt for allowing the Rwandan genocide to take place, in which about 800,000 people were
killed. The crisis in Darfur "has been happening in other parts of Sudan for decades," Deng said. "This outcry
is soothing our conscience."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 66
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Justice Is Key to Reconciliation


Justice is crucial to rule of law and reconciliation
Alison Des Forges director of a Human Rights Watch research project on the Rwandan genocide and Eric
Gillet, March 1999, http://www.igc.org/hrw/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-05.htm
Justice, important in any orderly society, is arguably even more essential in a society that has suffered the
trauma of a genocide. The guilty must be found guilty—and found guilty of crimes that they actually
committed. Condemning a person for one crime even if he is in fact responsible for another allows a
perpetrator to go unpunished and raises doubts among those who know that the judgment was wrong. To
allow the innocent to be wrongly accused or, even worse, to find them guilty of crimes they did not commit
makes the judicial process appear to be nothing more than politically-driven, organized reprisals. Without
justice, there is no relief—psychological and material—for the victims and there is no hope of reconciliation
for the society. The proper prosecution of the genocide could permit the Rwandan state both to end impunity
and to lay the foundation for the rule of law. These trials offer an opportunity to establish the independence
of the judicial system from political influence and to set the courts on the path of respect for the rights of all
citizens, whether victims, accused, or neither..

Justice key to prevent culture of impunity


Alison Des Forges director of a Human Rights Watch research project on the Rwandan genocide and Eric
Gillet, March 1999, http://www.igc.org/hrw/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-05.htm
There must be justice for the genocide, political murders, and other violations of human rights in Rwanda in
1994. The guilty must be punished and prevented from inflicting further harm. The innocent must be freed
from unjust assumptions about their culpability and, if they are jailed, they must be released. Demanding
justice is morally and legally right and it is also politically sound. Without justice, there can be no peace in
Rwanda, nor in the surrounding region. This truth, widely acknowledged in 1994, has become even clearer in
the four years since: insurgents, including some responsible for the 1994 genocide, and RPA soldiers are
killing and will keep on killing civilians until they become convinced that such a course is futile and costly.
Establishing the responsibility of individual Hutu is also the only way to diminish the ascription of collective
guilt to all Hutu. The unexamined and incorrect assumption that all Hutu killed Tutsi, or at least actively
participated in the genocide in some way, has become increasingly common both among Rwandans and
outsiders. Fair trials, as well as other mechanisms for discovering the truth, such as missions of inquiry, can
help establish a record of the events of 1994 that is credible to all Rwandans and thus useful in promoting
reconciliation, distant though that prospect may be.

It is not enough to remember. We must choose to be active in our remembrance. Affirm the
resolution as a means of active remembrance.
Samuel Totten professor of Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education & Health at the University of
Arkansas, and William Parsons, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, 1997, Century of
Genocide, Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, p. xxxix
. . . it is easy to call for the prevention of genocide. In fact, far too often in [books] of this sort, as well as at
commemorative ceremonies for the victims and survivors, well-intentioned people almost perfunctorily re-
call Santayanas admonition, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Through its
repeated use, this finely wrought and powerful notion has become not much more than a cliche. The past
must be remembered, yes; but humanity must go beyond merely remembering a particular genocidal act.
Inherent in authentic remembrance is vigilance and action. More often than not, remembrance has been bereft
of such crucial components
Gonzaga Debate Institute 67
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Justice Is Key to Reconciliation


Effective execution of justice and rule of law is key to durable reconciliation
Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa, Ambassador to the United States, The Republic of Rwanda Spring 1999, Syracuse
Journal of International Law and Commerce
The second priority is determining how to deal both with the legacy of genocide and trying to build the rule
of law within our country because it is the culture of impunity, the absence of the rule of law that
progressively created the pattern of human rights abuses, leading finally to genocide. Even if genocide had
not occurred in Rwanda in 1994, the challenges of ensuring the fundamental rights of the citizens and
building governance based on the rule of law would still have been daunting tasks. Genocide has made this
task more complex and many times more difficult. With over 130,000 genocide suspects in overcrowded
prisons, insufficient human, material and financial resources in the infant justice system established in the
aftermath of the genocide of 1994, the challenge of justice calls for originality and innovation in handling
matters related to justice. However, there are no shortcuts for there can be no genuine and durable
reconciliation without eradicating the culture of impunity and institutionalizing the rule of law in our national
life.

Justice is key
Cyprian Fisiy, Senior Social Scientist and Leader of the Social Development Team in the Africa Region of the
World Bank, April, 1998, African Studies Review, p. 23-24
These shortcomings of the judicial system come at a point where the underlying networks and social fibers
that hold Rwanda society together have been destroyed by the genocide. Neighbors killed each other, even if
they were supervised by the militia or radical units of the army. As a consequence, this genocide has
produced a fragmented and an atomized society where individual members are intensely suspicious of each
other. It is in this context of lack of trust that the justice system is expected to withhold from daily social
interaction those individuals who epitomize the genocide and who can become easy targets of revenge, if
justice is not seen to have been meted out. To provide the basis of any peaceful coexistence, an operational
judicial system must be seen to be meting out justice if it is to quench the overwhelming desire for justice
and rebuild trust following these massacres. The post-conflict situation, characterized by inadequate judicial
capacity, has led to a state of insecurity for Hutu groups arising from the following practices. The
presumption of guilt. For most refugees and returning there is the constant threat of arrest based on the
assumption that they are guilty of massacres: otherwise they would have been killed during the genocide.
This is a total reversal of the universal principle that the onus of proof is always on the prosecution not on the
defendant, to prove the accused guilty. In this context, any denunciation of a returning refugee leads to
his/her immediate arrest by either the burgomaster, tile army, or what is left of the gendarmerie and the
police force. Fear of arrest The fear of being arrested on the basis of presumed guilt is at the origin of tile
widespread insecurity report- ed by most people returning lo their home communes. At the time of my field
trip in 1995, the random nature of arrests in the home communes accounted for the failure of "operation
retour." It was not the fear of trial for crimes that kept people in the camps; rather it is the randomness of
arrest without trial that subverted any genuine efforts to encourage people lo return to their home communes
until they were forced hack home by the outbreak of war in Zaire. Disputes over occupied property The old
refugees, or the refugees from the 1959 period, had occupied vacant houses in both urban and rural areas,
especially Ryumba, Kigali, and Kibungo, in anticipation of their eventual relocation and rehabilitation.
Available evidence at the time suggested that despite the government's commitment to ensure that all
property was returned to their lawful owners, the procedure for such restitutio in integrum was not very
effective. In the four communes I visited, those seeking to gel back their property had to confront the new
residents with their claim. Any returnee who vigorously pursued a claim for the restitution of his property
easily engendered a counter accusation of genocide by the new beneficiary of the property. The uncertainty
that attended the recovery of property was a major cause of insecurity in Rwanda.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 68
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Justice Is Key to Reconciliation


Justice is key to prevent re-legitimization of genocidaires
Alex Destexhe, president of the International Crisis Group, 2000, Africa Opposing Viewpoints, p. 111-112
The perpetrators of genocide should permanently lose any legitimacy as rulers of their people. They should
be outlawed by the international community and brought to trial for their crimes. In the case of Rwanda, no
attempt should be made to negotiate with those responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis: they are not only
directly responsible for this worst possible crime against humanity but also for the exodus from Rwanda and
the catastrophic events in Goma which followed. When the Allied forces won victory in 1945, there was
never any question of providing a role for the Nazi party in the new Germany, nor of considering just how
small a fraction of the population it really represented. The Nazis were banned outright and the authors of
genocide then, as should happen in Rwanda today, lost any right to participate in public life. . . . There is an
urgent need for national reconciliation in Rwanda, but this must not be at the expense of justice, otherwise
the opposite effect will be produced and the murderers reinstated. In Germany, at the end of the war, the
Nazis and the democrats did not sit down together to discuss reconciliation. Likewise the international
community should now give its support exclusively to the new, mainly RPF, government which is the
legitimate government of Rwanda today. Its legitimacy does not come from the ballot box, but from its
victory over a racist regime and its stated intention of working towards national reconciliation between the
different groups and parties. But at the beginning of 1995, it seemed that the worst possible scenario was
being realised with the FAR rallying huge numbers of refugees to take up the combat once again and 'finish
off the job'. The slogan 'the Tutsis took 25 years to return with 200,000 refugees but we will only need a few
weeks with two million to draw on' has been widely heard. Renewal of the conflict will simply lead the
international community once again to justify its reasons for not getting involved: the (new) civil war, the
RPF minority in the face of the 'reality of the Hutu majority'. And the genocide will be lost sight of,
consigned to the history books.

Justice is key to peace


John Prendergast, US Peace Institute's Coordinator for Africa Activities and David Smock, Executive Fellow
at US Institute of Peace, September 15, 1999, “Postgenocidal Reconstruction: Building Peace in Rwanda and
Burundi,” http://www.usip.org/oc/sr/sr990915/sr990915.html
The issue of justice for those accused of participating in the genocide is one of the most politically charged
issues in the Great Lakes today. Roughly 130,000 people are detained in Rwanda as a result of being accused
of participating in the genocide. Establishing accountability and breaking the cycle of impunity are key to
creating conditions for peace and stability, so timely and transparent justice for those that stand accused is
vital. In the five-plus years since the genocide, the foundation of the justice system has been rebuilt and
nearly 1,000 people have been tried for genocide and crimes against humanity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 69
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

We Must Understand Genocide


We must seek to understand genocide to prevent future genocides and break down racist
stereotypes
David Newbury, Professor at the University of North Carolina, April 1998, African Studies Review,
“Understanding Genocide,” p. 76-77
It is important to understand these processes for several reasons. First, the scale of the human tragedy overwhelms
us: it compels us to attend to the plight of millions of people, many of them innocent victims, some of them true
heroes and heroines (though unrecognized), and a few culpable of some of the worst crimes against humanity.
Each of these categories consists of people we need lo know more about, for they are all indicative of the
character of the world in which we live—and have helped create. Furthermore, the conditions that provoked these
catastrophes are largely still present; the experiences and losses of the past few years in (central Africa., for
example, have vastly complicated and intensified relations into the future, in all three countries. If we ever hope to
understand the next thirty years in this region, therefore, a good place to start is by understanding these three.
What is most shocking, perhaps, is that those most responsible for perpetrating these crises—and for perpetuating
them still today—were not only a few isolated sociopaths, but often common people reacting to the conditions
around them in horrifying fashion. In other words, with but few changes they could have been us, or family
members to us, or people we know. To note that is not to exonerate those responsible or turn them into innocent
victims of circumstances. Instead it is to make it all the more necessary lo understand such issues, where political
ambition and class differences escalate into killings of the most unimaginable sort. There is a second reason we
need to understand these issues, however, and that relates not to "them" but to "us"; it raises questions not only
about our understanding but about our assumptions. This is a region not well known in the west, but one
nonetheless enveloped in a century of powerful imagery—ranging from the "Heart of Darkness" to tile "Noble
Savage." In other words, it is an area that outsiders feel they "know" well. (consequently, these events have often
been misunderstood—and the reporting on them has sometimes reinforced and extended the stereotypes which
many outsiders carry about the people and cultures of this region (and of Africa as a whole). So we need to
address these issues directly, for not to address them is to leave the stereotypes intact. A careful examination of
the reporting is often instructive in this regard. One such stereotype is the assumption that Africans live in
isolation from the rest of the world, that such catastrophes are simply the local manifestations of social collapse. In
fact, as will be discussed below, there were many ways in which outside forces affected the people of this region, not least by
arming state governments; indeed the record suggests that outside factors have exacerbated, not contained, conflict. In
addition, it is often assumed in the west that ethnic conflict emerges in the absence of a strong state—that powerful state
structures are necessary to contain the murderous tendencies of its citizens. Perhaps in some cases that is true. But in Central
Africa, stale power has more often provoked conflict than prevented it; in the case of the genocide, state power was part of the
problem, not the solution. A further assumption is that these tragedies result from a social pathology associated with
"tribalism," a situation in which people are irrevocably and eternally in confrontation with each other; therefore,
there is no hope for any alteration in such patterns. In fact, in Rwanda people of diverse ethnic identities have
lived interspersed for centuries. While no political system is without conflict, past conflict in Rwanda was more
often between dynasties of the same ethnic group than between different ethnic groups. In some cases these
conflicts were expressed in ethnic terms, but one must be careful not to confuse the cause of a conflict with the
form it look: when fighting did occur, it did so because the antagonists were in competing dynasties, not because
they were from different ethnic groups; these were political conflicts not ethnic conflicts. There is a third reason,
even broader still, why we need to understand these events: because although they occurred in Central Africa, the
conditions that produced them could be, and to some degree have been, reproduced in other areas as well. So we
need to see this not as something historically unique, but as part of a set of political and human relations in
situations where large numbers of people are denied access to resources essential to a dignified life but are
provided easy access to instruments of destruction. In the case of Rwanda, as in Germany in the 1930s and Bosnia of the
1980s, those who sought to consolidate their power did so by attributing the hardships of the people to an identifiable (and
accessible) scapegoat: a group to serve as target. With that in mind, it becomes possible to mobilize people on such a scale that
the group redefines its own morality. For genocide, if "everyone" from one group is involved, then killing others becomes not
only acceptable but necessary: in the eyes of the ideologues, to be a member of that social category it becomes necessary to
participate in the process—there are strong parallels here with "patriotism" in the West, where dissent is often seen as treason.
It is only the uncommonly courageous that reject such group mentality: what is extraordinary, and humbling, is how many
Rwandans did so in 1994. protecting those targeted and refusing to kill, even at great risk to themselves and their families.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 70
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

We Must Understand Genocide


Thorough Investigations of Genocide are Key to Dispel Myths and Prevent Future
Genocides
David Newbury, Professor at the University of North Carolina, April 1998, African Studies Review,
“Understanding Genocide,” p. 95-97
The genocide was a defining event in Rwandan history. The intensity of its horror was compelling for outside
observers as well as all consuming for those within the country. Therefore, it is easy to focus on the event
and on the individuals, as our sole entry to explaining genocide. But to understand the history of the trauma
we need also to understand wider processes at work. Otherwise we are likely to see this only as
individualized evil and the work of evil individuals; in fact, western publications often focused on just such
themes. However, there is more. There is a history of genocide, and to understand it we need to go beyond
scenarios of "evil incarnate" or "primordial tribal warfare": just as we seek to understand the Holocaust
through the history of the rise of the Third Reich, we need to place the events of the genocide within broader
human experience. For even if we can never fully understand how this could happen in a moral sense, we can
nonetheless struggle to understand how it came about. That is what I have tried to do here; to understand
some of the processes at work in the genocide, rather than to focus on the horror of the events—not to excuse
these actions and actors hut to understand how frail is our humanity. To be sure, individuals have choices,
and the choices made here carried with them horrendous consequences; indeed one of the saddest
conclusions to emerge from the genocide is that it was part of a rational plan, not an irrational event. But the
choices we face—like the ones that they faced—are not entirely of our own making. Rather we operate
within cultural, economic, political, and personal circumstances that mold our perceptions of those choices,
that structure our goals, that color our social relations—and that condition our perceptions of others. The
important element to emerge from such an inquiry is the contingent nature of our perceptions: our actions are
molded powerfully by our personal and collective perceptions of the immediate context. The four features
noted above—ethnicity, material influences, ecology, and gender—can therefore also he seen as contingent,
changing features of our experienced world, not rigid static "cultural givens." Each is constructed within the
evolving patterns of the changing context of the day. So in addition to seeing these four themes as factors in
the genocide, understanding genocide also moves us to a new understanding of these issues themselves, as
subject to manipulation, and as malleable in their interaction, not fixed in isolation. In Rwanda of the 1990s,
these four elements all were in flux. as they often are elsewhere as well. In every society, people live
together, marry, trade, and pray with their neighbors, yet there are moments when ethnicity, race, religion,
class, or gender fragment society. People work within their material worlds; yet the economic structures that
determine their well-being (and sometimes their being) are often beyond their ability fully lo influence or
control. People struggle to provide for their daily lives (or to maximize their short-run profits); yet they
sometimes do so at the expense of the ecological foundations on which their children and successors will
depend for their well-being. And people devise such institutions as family structures to protect them as
individuals and provide for a younger generation, but in so doing they often establish new forms of domestic
power and define separate gendered experiences. In short, these features—ethnicity, material elements,
ecology, and gender—were all important elements to the murderous social currents in Rwanda in the 1990s.
But they are not unique to Rwanda. The paradoxes associated with them are embedded in all social
formations—including our own. How such factors interact, and how people react to them—among other
features—is how history emerges. So to many westerners Rwanda may seem distant, both geographically and
culturally. But when we distance ourselves and attribute the genocide to "evil devils" or "uncivilized
primitives" we simply excuse (as well as illustrate) our own ignorance. An alternative approach to
disaster—for out-side observers as well as internal victims—would be to seek understanding. Not to explain
these elements away (and thus to allow the perpetrators to duck responsibility). Instead we can try to perceive
more clearly—although always incompletely—the conditions that lead us to act as we do. For although we
may never fully explain human history, we can never avoid coming to grips with it, and therefore we need to
seek to understand it. Looked at in this light, it is possible that the genocide was not only a defining moment
in Rwandan history; it might also be an indicator of larger human history.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 71
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Narratives Key to Remembering/Remembering Key


We must recount what happened in Rwanda or risk forgetting
Robert Press, Visiting Professor of African History at Principia College, 1999, The New Africa: Dispatches from a
Changing Continent, p. 227
I find it hard to explain why I think it is so important for people to be familiar with the genocide in Rwanda,
a tiny African country other- wise not of much global importance. The alternative—not knowing what
happened there—seems to me tantamount to saying that it does not matter. Certainly, no one can say the
murder of one million lives is not important, but anyone can pay it little heed. I have a better appreciation of
the magnitude of the tragedy when I focus on the importance of each life lost in Rwanda. Each person was an
individual; most had a family, with the same dreams of prosperity and healthy, educated children as any one
of us. All who were killed were part of that greater family of man. Everyone who died on a hill or in the
streets of Rwanda was just as important as anyone else. The genocide in Rwanda showed the worst side of
human nature. By contrast it underlines the need for the opposite behavior, that of love and understanding. In
the midst of the killing in Rwanda, there were many heroes, otherwise ordinary people who risked their lives
to save others. A closer look at what happened in Rwanda, and why, may also shed light on what the role of
outside governments should be in cases of mayhem. Most governments avoided sending troops to Rwanda to
try to stop the killings. Four years later, in 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton would admit the United States
and others had not done enough to try to stop the genocide. I believe the United States and the rest of the
international community had a moral obligation—and, under the UN charter, a legal one—to try to stop the
genocide
Gonzaga Debate Institute 72
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Assuming Responsibility Key to Prevent Future Genocide


Assuming responsibility and helping others is key to prevent future genocides
Ervin Staub, Professor of Psychology at the Trauma, Research, Education and Training
Institute at the University of Massachusetts, 1989, The Roots of Evil, p. 86-88, p. 277
Starting with common everyday acts and moving on to acts requiring greater sacrifice while producing
greater benefits, helping others can lead to genuine concern and a feeling of responsibility for people. To
reduce the probability of genocide and war, helping must be inclusive, across groups lines, so that the
evolving values of caring and connection ultimately include all human beings. We devalue those we harm
and value those we help. As we come to value more highly the people we help and experience the
satisfaction inherent in helping, we also come to see ourselves as more caring and helpful. One of our goals
must be to create societies in which there is the widest possible participation in doing for others.

We must assume responsibility for the welfare of others to prevent group violence
Ervin Staub, Professor of Psychology at the Trauma, Research, Education and Training
Institute at the University of Massachusetts, 1989, The Roots of Evil, p. 86-88, p. 239-240
People do not see themselves as bystanders (or perpetrators). They notice some events but not others. They
process some events they notice while actively removing themselves from others.* How they respond
depends on their motives, values, and aims. Frequently, they are inhibited by fear. But frequently they are so
resocialized that they do not oppose, even in their hearts, the perpetrators' aims. This has great "therapeutic"
value, because it eliminates or short-circuits guilt, sympathetic distress, and fear. At times, the bystanders'
aims include protecting victims or helping people in need. Do witnesses to the mistreatment of other people
have an obligation to act? All groups teach values, some of which have an imperative quality to which
members are held strictly accountable. But societies do not normally require or expect their members to
endanger their lives or sacrifice themselves for the persecuted, especially for people defined as enemies of
their own society. We do know, however, that victims are often innocent. We should hold up the ideal of
effort and sacrifice in behalf of people in extreme need or danger. At times this requires great courage - an
important component of moral character. To avoid the catastrophes of group violence, people often need to
act at an early stage, which requires a feeling of responsibility and often the social and moral courage to
deviate, but normally not physical courage. Living in highly interdependent social groups, the well-being of
all requires that people feel responsible for the welfare of others. We can expect people to engage with the
world as responsible actors in shaping their im- mediate circumstances as well as the broader social order.
We can expect them to see themselves as agents of human welfare, the welfare of others as well as their own.
In sum, we can expect that people will observe and make efforts to inhibit the mistreatment of members of
their society - or of human beings anywhere. Thus, bystanders do have obligations. For these obligations to
be fulfilled, certain social conditions must be created, and members of society must be socialized in certain
ways (I will discuss this in Part IV). In the meantime, we must educate people about the "bystander role": the
insidious effects and moral meaning of passivity and the psychological processes by which people distance
themselves from those in need.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 73
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Bystanders Influence Genocide


Inaction is a choice-bystanders have an obligation to act
Arne Johan Vetlesen, Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo, July 2000, Journal of Peace Research,
“Genocide: A Case for the Responsibility of the Bystander,” p. 523
To repeat, not all bystanders are equal. In particular, with regard to the question of complicity raised above,
some bystanders carry greater responsibility than others. It we continue to confine ourselves to bystanders in
the present tense, i.e. to bystanders to contemporary, ongoing events, it is clear that some bystanders will lie
closer to the event than others, ‘Closer' does not have to denote spatiallv closer; it may denote closeness by
virtue of professional assignment as well, or by virtue of one's knowledge as an intellectual. Indeed, the
spatial notion of responsibility and it’s proper scope is hopelessly out of tune with the moral issues prompted
by acts facilitated by context-transcending modern technology (Jonas, 1979). Today, ethics in world politics
must take the form of a deterritorialization of responsibility (Campbell & Shapiro. 1999). Is degree of
responsibility directly proportionate to degree of closeness to the event? The answer will hinge on how we
conceptualize not only agency but responsibility as well. To clarify what is at stake here, some distinctions
made by Larry May in his book Sharing Responsibility may be helpful. A famous quote from Edmund Burke
sets the stage for Mays discussion: ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to
do nothing. May goes on to observe that just as a person's inaction makes him or her at least partially
responsible for harms that he or she could have prevented, so collective inaction of a group of persons may
make the members of that group at least partially responsible for harms that the group could have prevented.
(1992:105) He then defines 'collective omission' as the failure of a group that collectively chooses not to act.
by contrast, 'collective inaction' refers to the failure to act of 'a collection of people that did not choose as a
group to remain inactive but that could have acted as a group’ (1992:107). The latter case of collective
inaction is particularly salient with respect to what May speaks of as ‘putative groups’, in which ‘people are
sometimes capable of acting in concert but in which no formal organization exists and, as a result there is no
decision-making apparatus (1992:109). The fundamental premise informing May’s discussion is that ‘once
one is aware of the things that once could do, and one then does not do them, then lack of action is something
one has chosen
Gonzaga Debate Institute 74
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Bystanders Influence Genocide


Bystanders are connected to any ongoing genocide-censure can stop it, inaction encourages
it
Ervin Staub, Professor of Psychology at the Trauma, Research, Education and Training
Institute at the University of Massachusetts, 1989, The Roots of Evil, p. 86-88
Bystanders, people who witness but are not directly affected by the actions of perpetrators, help shape society
by their reactions. If group norms come to tolerate violence, they can become victims. Bystanders are often
unaware of, or deny, the significance of events or the consequences of their behavior. Since these events are
part of their lifespace, to remain unaware they employ defenses like rationalization and motivated
misperception, or avoid information about the victims' suffering. Bystanders can exert powerful influence.
They can define the meaning of events and move others toward empathy or indifference. They can promote
values and norms of caring, or by their passivity or participation in the system they can affirm the
perpetrators."8 Research on helping in emergencies has shown that, when a number of people are present,
responsibility is diffused, and each person is less likely to help.39 Another consequence is what Bibb Latane
and John Darley call pluralistic ignorance 40 People tend to inhibit expressions of feeling in public. In an
emergency, the fact that all bystanders are hiding their feelings may lead them all to believe that there is no
need for concern and nothing need be done. Hiding reactions is also common when suffering is inflicted by
agents of society on members of a minority. As I have noted, psychological research shows that a single
deviation from group behavior can greatly diminish conformity.41 In emergencies the likelihood of helping
greatly increases when one bystander says the situation is serious or tells others to take action.42 When a
society begins to mistreat some of its members, resistance by bystanders, in words and action, will influence
others and inhibit the personal changes that would result from passivity. Even the behavior of governments
can be strongly affected by bystanders - individuals, groups, or other governments. Repeatedly when they
faced substantial opposition, the Nazis backed away. They did not persist, for example, when Bulgaria
(where the people protested in the streets) refused to hand over its Jewish population or when, within
Germany, relatives and some institutions protested the killing of the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and
others regarded as genetically inferior.43 Public protest in the United States greatly affected the war in
Vietnam. Amnesty Inter- national groups have freed political prisoners all over the world simply by writing
letters to governments. A lack of protest can confirm the perpetrators' faith in what they are doing. Hitler saw
the lack of response both in Germany and in the outside world to the persecution of Jews as evidence that the
whole world wanted what only he had the courage to do. A refusal to cooperate can raise questions in the
minds of perpetrators. According to Helen Fein, resistance in Denmark, Italy, and Bulgaria raised doubts in
the minds of some Nazi functionaries in those countries.44 Perpetrators may question not only whether they
can get away with it, but also whether what they are doing is right. Why then are bystanders so often passive
and silent? Sometimes silence results from fear, but that is not the whole explanation. Everywhere people
tend to accept a definition of reality provided by "experts," their government, or their culture. Lack of
divergent views, just-world thinking, and their own participation or passivity change bystanders' perception
of self and reality so as to allow and justify cruelty.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 75
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Genocide Minimalization Bad


Their act of minimization is revisionist and is a for m of assault on the victims yet again
Samuel Totten professor of Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education & Health at the University of
Arkansas, and William Parsons, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, 1997, Century of
Genocide, Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, p. xxi-xxii
It is also, to say the least, disconcerting that we live in a world in which certain parties and nations perpetuate
the denial of certain genocides that have occurred. Such denial runs the gamut from those who refuse to
acknowledge the issue of genocide due to the discomfort the subject causes them, to those who distort history
for personal or political gain, to those who deny and distort out of sheer ignorance and/or hate. Scholars often
arrive at different historical interpretations, but those who purposely distort the historical record and
disregard vast amounts of historical documentation know exactly the game they play. As every attorney
knows, it is often easier to create doubt and win than it is to prove what actually took place. Indeed, such
deniers, minimizers, and obfuscators (Hawk, 1988, p. 151) seem to gain a satisfaction from the fact that they
drain the energy and limited resources of legitimate scholars in genocide studies who are compelled to
repudiate the distortions in order to keep the historical record intact. By minimizing or distorting a particular
genocide, deniers assault survivors one more time. In fact, one of the key rationales for including accounts by
survivors and other eyewitnesses in this volume is to send a mes-sage to all doubters that no matter how hard
the deniers try to manipulate history, accounts of the genocide will be heard and remembered.

Remembrance isn’t enough: we must act on that memory


Samuel Totten professor of Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education & Health at the University of
Arkansas, and William Parsons, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, 1997, Century of
Genocide, Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, p. xxxix
. . . it is easy to call for the prevention of genocide. In fact, far too often in [books] of this sort, as well as at
commemorative ceremonies for the victims and survivors, well-intentioned people almost perfunctorily re-
call Santayanas admonition, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Through its
repeated use, this finely wrought and powerful notion has become not much more than a cliche. The past
must be remembered, yes; but humanity must go beyond merely remembering a particular genocidal act.
Inherent in authentic remembrance is vigilance and action. More often than not, remembrance has been bereft
of such crucial components. As Elie Wiesel has eloquently and powerfully stated; "Memory can be a
graveyard, but it also can be the true kingdom of man." The choice is before humanity. (Totten, 1991b, pp.
334-335)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 76
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Genocide Education Good


The affirmative project is valuable: motivating public opinion and calling for government
action is key to prevent genocide
Samuel Totten professor of Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education & Health at the University of
Arkansas, and William Parsons, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, 1997, Century of
Genocide, Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, p. xxxii-xxiii
Those working on the issue of genocide need to begin to undertake similar efforts against the crime of
genocide. More specifically, they need to begin to initiate campaigns against genocide with an eye toward
influencing international public opinion as well as the decisions and actions of governmental organizations.
They also need to establish themselves as a main source of documentation for investigating the perpetration
of genocide. As it now stands, most individuals and organizations dealing with the issue of genocide are
putting more time into working on the scholarly examination of genocide (including issues of intervention
and prevention) rather than the actual intervention or prevention of genocide. There are, though, several
major exceptions to this rule, and among the most notable are the Ger- man-based Gesellschaft fur Bedrohte
Volker (Society for Threatened Peoples), the London-based International Alert: Standing International
Forum on Ethnic Conflict, Genocide and Human Rights (IA), the Denmark-based International Work Group
for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), and the Washington, D.C.-based Refugees International (Rl).

We must educate on our personal responsibility to stop the genocidal mentality


Samuel Totten professor of Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education & Health at the University of
Arkansas, and William Parsons, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, 1997, Century of
Genocide, Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, p. xxxvii
We agree with Whitaker that it is crucial for schools at all levels across the globe to teach their students about
the causes and ramifications of genocide as well as each persons responsibility for acting in a moral manner
when human rights infractions (including genocide) rear their ugly- heads. As for the goal of Holocaust and
genocide education, Israel Charny (1993) makes the perspicacious point that the goal "must be to make
awareness of Holocaust and genocide part of human culture, so that more and more people are helped to
grow out of killing and from being accomplices to killers, or from being bystanders who allow the torture and
killing of others" (p. 3). In essence, the sort of study that we advocate is one that is immersed in both the
cognitive and the affective (beliefs, values, and feelings) domains. More specifically, it is one that (1)
engages the students in a study of accurate and in-depth information, ideas, and concepts, (2) contextualizes
the history, (3) avoids simple answers co complex history, (4) and addresses issues of personal and societal
responsibility both from a historical as well as a contemporary perspective. (For a more in-depth discussion
of such concerns, see Parsons and Totten's (1991) "Teaching and Learning about Genocide: Questions of
Content, Rationale, and Methodology," and Totten's (1991a) "Educating about Genocide: Curricula and
Inservice Training.")
Gonzaga Debate Institute 77
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The Holocaust Requires Vigilance Against Future Genocide

The lesson of the Holocaust requires us to be vigilant against evil and the possibility of
future genocides
Alan Rosenbaum, professor of philosophy at Cleveland State University, 1996(Is the Holocaust Unique? p.
7)
In this editor's opinion, one of the universal lessons that Holocaust study aspires to teach involves, above all
else, the honest consideration about how we ought to respond in the future when confronted with unqualified
evil. If "evil" means the use of a maleficent power to deliberately destroy the physical, cultural, or spiritual
being of an individual human being or a people, 5 then, in the wake of the Holocaust, we must forthrightly
acknowledge its presence and resist a modern cultural bias to blur the distinction between good and evil.
Second, our deepest sense of moral redemption demands unequivocal resistance to the workings of evil in
any feasible manner; or at the very least to make the doers of evil accountable for their actions. Finally, the
enduring significance implicit in sustained teaching or preaching of contempt and hatred for others who
differ from ourselves or, in a word, to satanize others simply because they are and not for what they may
have done, will lead, we now know, under a conducive mix of circumstances) to a policy of relentless
persecution and even extermination.'6 For there is certainly an abiding wisdom in the recognition that the
Holocaust has seared into the collective historical consciousness of humanity a new, indefeasible standard of
evil. In other words, it may be that George Santayana's trite ad- monition about remembering the past as a
way of not condemning ourselves to repeating it might also occasion among future genocidists a recollection
of bar- baric Nazi methods for more efficiently destroying their enemies. So we must be ever vigilant about
the warning signs of a possible turn toward genocide. In light of these many lessons, only thus may we
salvage our humanity and reaffirm the fundamental values at the heart of our civilization: respect for
individual human life, dignity, and freedom; for human rights; and for a just rule of law.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 78
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence


There is no reason the Holocaust can stand outside other historical events: Holocaust Uniqueness claims stand to
deny the atrocities suffered by other peoples
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
170-171
Yet even if the field of genocide studies must necessarily remain one in which many questions will always go
unanswered, there is no question at all regarding at least one matter: that the pre-twentieth-century
destruction of native peoples at the hands of European invaders—from Australia to the Americas and else-
where—frequently resulted in population collapses proportionately much higher than those experienced by
any group, including Jews, during the Holocaust. Moreover, not only were proportionate losses routinely
much higher among indigenous peoples (up to 100 percent in many cases—that is, total extermination—and
between 90 and 95 percent generally), but the gross number of people destroyed by what I have elsewhere
called the "American Holocaust" exceeded by many times over the number of Jews who died under the Nazis
and, indeed, was even greater than the number of people of all nations killed worldwide during the entire duration of the
Second World War. Even in specific locales—central Mexico and the Andes in particular—the deaths of culturally and
ethnically distinct indigenous people in the wake of the European invasions vastly exceeded the mortality figures for
Jews during the Holocaust, both in terms of proportional population loss and overall numbers killed.'6 Most of these facts
had become well known by the early 1980s, and thus quantitative criteria quietly began disappearing from the writings of
proponents of the Jewish uniqueness argument. To be sure, they did not go away easily. Although acknowledging that, in
general, mortality rates or counts could no longer be used as sufficient measures unto themselves to establish uniqueness,
some proponents of the uniqueness argument continued to resort to quantification, but only selectively, when it worked to
their advantage in establishing differences between the sufferings of Jews and others. Thus, for instance, Lucy
Dawidowicz, in The Holocaust and the Historians, used the numerical difference between the deaths of Jews
in the Holocaust and the deaths of Japanese civilians following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki as one way of dismissing the possibility that the nuclear destruction of hundreds of thousands of
Japanese lives might be termed genocide. 7 When the subjects of comparison are different, however— that
is, when discussing other populations that experienced a numerically and proportionately larger loss of life,
such as certain huge communities in sixteenth- century Mesoamerica—Jewish uniqueness proponents, of
course, now reject any use of quantitative criteria.'8 Other writers have used the absence of complete
extermination among a comparison group, such as Armenians, Gypsies, and Native Americans) as a way of
denying that genocide was actually perpetrated against the respective non-Jewish group. Michael R. Marrus,
for example, distinguishes the suffering of the Armenians from that of the Jews as arising in part from the
fact that "however extensive the murder of Armenians . . . killing was far from universal." And, he notes, "the
fact is that many thousands of Armenians survived within Turkey during the period of the massacres."
Yehuda Bauer concurs, noting that neither the Armenian nor the Gypsy genocides were comparable to the
experience of the Jews because "in neither case was the destruction complete." Adds Steven T. Katz: though
the mass killing of New England's Pequot Indians was no doubt lamentable (and it is true, he concedes, that
their government-sanctioned white killers did act "with unnecessary severity"), at most the destruction of the
Pequots can be described as "cultural genocide" since, after all, "the number killed probably totaled less than
half the entire tribe." 19 This, to say the least, is a peculiar bit of historical reasoning—since Europe's Jews
themselves were far from totally exterminated by the Nazis,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 79
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence


Every genocide is unique: attempts to fix the primacy of the Holocaust are facetious
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
190-191
In fact, the entire process of seeking grounds for Jewish victim uniqueness is one of smoke and mirrors. Uniqueness
advocates begin by defining genocide (or the Holocaust or the Shoah) in terms of what they already believe to be
experiences undergone only by Jews. After much laborious research it is then "discovered"—mirabile dictu—that
the Jewish experience was unique. If, however, critics point out after a time that those experiences were not in fact
unique, other allegedly unique experiences are invented and proclaimed. If not numbers killed, then how about
percentage of population destroyed? If not efficiency or method of killing employed, how about perpetrator
intentionality" Ultimately, as we have seen, such insistent efforts extend to the point of frivolousness, as one after
an- other supposedly significant criterion is found to have been either nonexistent or shared by others. Of course,
those other groups could, if they so chose) do precisely the same thing. It might well and logically be asserted by
American Indians, for instance, that for the word "genocide" to be properly applicable in describing mass
destruction in which there were at least some survivors, a minimum of, say, 90 percent of the victim group would
have to be wiped out. Is this an arbitrary criterion? Perhaps, although it could certainly be argued that short of total
extermination (the only "pure" definition of genocide) 90 percent is a reasonable and round figure that identifies real
genocide and prohibits the indiscriminate use of the word in comparatively "insignificant" cases of mass
killing—say, the roughly 65 percent mortality rate suffered by European Jews during the Holocaust. Were it pointed
out that this figure is self-serving, since by its standard only American Indians and some other indigenous peoples
would be characterized as victims of genocide) it would be easy to demonstrate that the 90 percent criterion is no
more self-serving—and no more arbitrary—than those criteria put forward over the years (and time after time found
wanting) by advocates of Jewish uniqueness. But in fact both cases are examples of cultural egotism driving
scholarship before it. As Stephen Jay Gould has described its equivalent in the work of would-be scholars on another
topic: "They began with conclusions, peered through their facts, and came back in a circle to the same conclusions,"
a matter of "advocacy masquerading as objectivity."68 The fact that Gould was writing of nineteenth-century
scientists bent on proving the superiority of their race over others just makes the citation more apt, as we shall see
momentarily. And finally, as for restricting use of the word "holocaust" to references having to do with the
experience of Jews under the Nazis, that copyright was filed at least three centuries too late. Although "The
Holocaust," in what has become conventional usage, clearly applies exclusively to the genocide that was perpetrated
by the Nazis against their various victims, "holocaust" in more general parlance, as a term to describe mass
destruction or slaughter, belongs to anyone who cares to use it. It is a very old word, after all, and as the Oxford
English Dictionary points out, apart from previous uses that may have been applied to violent assaults on
specific peoples, it was used in this way by Milton in the seventeenth century as well as by Ireland's Bishop George
Berkeley in 1732—to describe the Druids' brutal treatment of free-thinkers. And yet the Jewish experience in the
Holocaust was unique. In certain ways. Just as the Armenian genocide was. Just as the genocide against the Gypsies
was. Just as the many genocides against the native peoples of the New World were. And just as, more recently, the
genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere have been—despite the fact that Steven Katz,
ever obsessed with his Jewish uniqueness idee fixe, crassly has dismissed the killing in Bosnia as a mere "population
transfer supported by violence" and has described the massive slaughter of up to a million people in Rwanda as "not
genocidal" but simply a struggle for "tribal domination."69 Some of these horrendous purges killed more people
than others. Some killed higher percentages of people than others. Some were carried out with highly advanced
death technology harnessed to coldly bureaucratic planning. Others resulted from crude weapons of war, purposeful
mass starvation, enslavement, and forced labor. Some were proudly announced by their perpetrators. The intentions
of other mass killers were never publicly made known or have been lost to history. There are, of course, numerous
other ways in which individual genocides differed, and on this or that specific point many of them no doubt have
been "unique" For no two events, even though they commonly may be acknowledged to fall within a single large
classification, are ever precisely alike
Gonzaga Debate Institute 80
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence


Focusing on th Singularity of the Holocaust Destroys Other’s Collective Memories
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
192
Uniqueness advocates do not, of course, represent, by any means, the whole of Jewish scholarship on the
Holocaust or on genocide. Indeed, if anything, they are something of a cult within that scholarly
community—though a cult quite skilled at calling attention to itself and one with powerful friends in high
places. In contrast, for example, Princeton historian Arno J. Mayer, a self-described "unbelieving yet
unflinching Jew whose maternal grandfather died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp," writes critically
of "the dogmatists who seek to reify and sacralize the Holocaust" and of "the exaggerated self-centeredness"
of the unique- ness proponents, "which entails the egregious forgetting of the larger whole and of all other
Victims."700000 Similarly, Israel W. Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and
Genocide in Jerusalem, rebukes what he calls the "leaders and 'high priests' of different cultures who insist on
the uniqueness, exclusivity, primacy, superiority, or greater significance of the specific genocide of their
people," adding elsewhere: I object very strongly to the efforts to name the genocide of any one people as the
single, ultimate event, or as the most important event against which all other tragedies of genocidal mass
death are to be tested and found wanting. . . . For me, the passion to exclude this or that mass killing from the
universe of genocide, as well as the intense competition to establish the exclusive "superiority" or unique
form of any one genocide, ends up creating a fetishistic atmosphere in which the masses of bodies that are
not to be qualified for the definition of genocide are dumped into a conceptual black hole, where they are
forgotten. Indeed, it is partly in response to these lamentable tendencies of the uniqueness "high priests" that
Charny recently has constructed a sophisticated, and inclusive rather than exclusive, generic typology of
genocides.

Holocaust uniqueness scholars deny the suffering of other victims of genocide and mimic
the thought of the Holocaust deniers
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
198-199
The willful maintenance of public ignorance regarding the genocidal and racist horrors against indigenous
peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations of the Western Hemisphere) including the United
States—which contributes to the construction of a museum to commemorate genocide only if the killing occurred half a
world away—is consciously aided and abetted and legitimized by the actions of the Jewish uniqueness
advocates we have been discussing. Their manufactured claims of uniqueness for their own people are after
all synonymous with dismissal and denial of the experience of others—others much weaker more oppressed and
in far more immediate danger than they. Further—and this would be ironic were it not so tragic—in their denial of
genocide victim status to other groups Jewish uniqueness advocates almost invariably mimic exactly the
same pattern of assertions laid out by the antisemitic historical revisionists who deny Jewish suffering in the
Holocaust: The number of people killed is said to be exaggerated the deaths that did occur are labeled as provoked or
wartime casualties most of the victims are claimed to have succumbed to natural causes such as disease there is alleged to
be no evidence of official intent to commit genocide and so on. In this way narcissistic false claims of uniqueness are
joined with brutal racist denials of the sufferings of others becoming two sides of the same debased coin. But as
uniqueness proponents never tire of reminding anyone who will listen, denial encourages more violence against those
who truly are its victims. Jews suffered horrendously during the reign of the Third Reich—to say nothing of the
millennium of oppression and exile and pogrom that led inexorably toward the Holocaust—and so all people
of conscience must be on guard against Holocaust deniers who, in many cases, would like nothing better than to
see mass violence against Jews start again. By that same token, however, as we consider the terrible history and
the ongoing campaigns of genocide against the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere and other
peoples elsewhere, there no longer is any excuse for maintaining the self-serving masquerade of Jewish
genocide uniqueness—the endlessly refined and revised deception that serves equally to deny the sufferings of others
and thus, in murderous complicity with both past and present genocidal regimes, to place those terribly damaged others
even closer to harm's way. It is a moral issue. And a serious one. As Elie Wiesel has said: "Now we know. Henceforth we
shall be responsible. And accomplices."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 81
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Uniqueness Advocates Obscure Suffering


The claims of historical uniqueness constitute cultural violence that denies the dignity and
self worth of other group’s identity and allows for the repetition of genocide
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
196-197
For a government with the blood of genocide on its hands—such as Turkey or the United States—to deny the
presence of that blood is disgraceful enough. But in certain ways it is worse, because it is so gratuitous, for
former victims of genocide to befriend such nations and promote their lies purely in the interest of pre-
serving one's own fabricated self-image as history's Victim of victims. For whether it is Israeli government
officials conspiring with the Turkish government to conceal the Armenian genocide or Jewish-American
Holocaust scholars ridiculing the idea that Native Americans were or are victims of genocide, the dam- age
and the dangers are the same. The damage done by such actions is what international peace scholar Johan
Galtung has called "cultural violence": the systematic degradation and denial of a group's sense of dignity or
self-worth and the concealment (by "normalization" of their reduced status) of past and ongoing direct and
structural violence that they have suffered. Building on a previously elaborated typology of "direct violence"
(straightforward maiming and killing) and "structural violence" (the institutionalization of gross inequality),
Galtung demonstrates some of the ways in which cultural violence resides and operates in the intellectual and
symbolic infrastructures of certain societies. (For instance, in their manufactured and self- serving but
subsequently taken-for-granted history and ideology that use the socially constructed notion of a group's
allegedly inborn degeneracy to legitimize continuing direct and structural violence against it.) As Galtung
puts it: "Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right—or at least not wrong.”
Jews, of course, have long suffered from all three types of .violence, and few better examples exist of
attempted cultural violence than the ongoing actions today of neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. "The general
public tends to accord victims of genocide a certain moral authority," observes Deborah Lipstadt, adding, in a
good capsule description of one of the things that cultural violence does: "If you de- victimize a people you
strip them of their moral authority"—and you thereby make more acceptable whatever the amount of their
past or present suffering that you cannot simply conceal.87 Lipstadt understands this quite well, of course,
precisely because she sees discussion of genocide as a competitive endeavor and de- votes much of her work
to devictimizing and thus stripping of their possible moral authority any and all victim groups other than
Jews. In addition to the damage that is inherent in the cultural violence of genocide denial, there is the matter
of the future dangers that it promotes. As Roger Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton recently have
written regarding the continuing denial of the Armenian holocaust: Where scholars deny genocide, in the
face of decisive evidence that it has occurred, they contribute to a false consciousness that can have the most
dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is: murderers did not really murder; victims were not really
killed; mass murder requires no confrontation, no reflection, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way
scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate human crime. More than that,
they encourage—indeed invite—a repetition of that crime from virtually any source in the immediate or
distant future., that is By closing their minds to truth, such scholars contribute to the deadly psychohistorical
dynamic in which unopposed genocide begets new genocides.88 This, of course, is one of the great and
justified fears that Jews long have har- bored regarding the threat of Holocaust denial—that it invites
repetition of anti- Jewish mass violence and killing. But when advocates of the allegedly unique suffering of
Jews during the Holocaust themselves participate in denial of other historical genocides—and such denial is
inextricably interwoven with the very claim of uniqueness—they thereby actively participate in making it
much easier for those other genocides to be repeated. And, in the case of genocides against the native peoples
of the Americas, not to be repeated but to continue. As, indeed, they are at this very moment. For never,
really, have they stopped.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 82
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurance

The claim to historical uniqueness serves as a racist dismissal of the suffering of other
people
David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p.
193-195
If, then, the claimed historical uniqueness of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust serves an important
function in a theocratic state that perceives itself as under siege—the function served by all "life-sustaining
lies," in Karl Jaspers's phrase—it is a falsehood for which others have had to pay a very high priced" For
implicit in—indeed, essential to—the notion of the uniqueness and incomparability of the Jews' genocidal
suffering is the concomitant trivialization or even outright denial of the genocidal suffering of others, since
those others (Armenians, Gypsies, Native Americans, Cambodians Rwandans, and more) by plain and
unavoidable definition are un-Chosen beings whose deaths, in the larger scale of things, simply don't matter
as much. And this is racist, just as the diminution or denial of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust is
antisemitic. This, of course, is a grave and solemn matter despite the fact that on occasion the transparent superficiality
of uniqueness supporters in dealing with non-Jewish peoples is almost comical. Yehuda Bauer, for example, is fond of
pretending to be a scholar who has studied the claim that genocide was carried out against the native peoples of the
Americas, specifically, he says, "the Pierce Nez" Indians—when in fact there are not now and never have been any such
people. Presumably he means the Nez Perce people of the American Northwest, whose noses, incidentally, were not
pierced and whose Westernized name apparently is a corruption of the French nezpres. In any case, the Nez Perce people
never have been known by any- one, save Professor Bauer, as "Pierce Nez," and to refer to them as such demonstrates the
same level of serious scholarly concern for and knowledge of the topic at hand as would someone, say, claiming to be
writing Jewish history who couldn't spell the word "Jew." Clearly, one should avoid declaiming in feigned seriousness on
the historical experiences of people whose very name one does not know. For to treat the Nez Perce and others in this
way is only to confirm Jean Baudrillard's insight that "the deepest racist avatar is to think that an error about earlier
societies is politically or theoretically less serious than a misinterpretation of our own world. Just as a people that
oppresses another cannot be free, so a culture that is mistaken about another must also be mistaken about itself."8
Deborah Lipstadt provides another variant on this sort of thing when she de- cries a statement by a Holocaust denier who
makes claims for moral comparability between the United States internment of Japanese-American citizens during the
Second World War and the Nazi "internment" of Jews. She is quite correct in rejecting this comparison, of course
(Manzanar and Tule Lake were outrages, to be sure, but they were not Treblinka or Sobibor), but in doing so she
contends that, however improper it was to intern the Japanese, the attempted comparison breaks down because "the Jews
had not bombed Nazi cities or attacked German forces in 1939."82 No, but neither did those Americans of Japanese
ancestry who were interned by the U.S. government bomb American cities or attack American forces. Indeed, by
equating Japanese-American citizens with the armed forces of the nation of Japan, Lipstadt betrays in herself the very
same racist sentiment that led the United States to intern Americans of Japanese ancestry in the first place. And then there
is the case of Rabbi Seymour Siegel, former professor of ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary and executive
director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. When asked if room might be made on the council for a representative
of the Romani, or Gypsy, people who had suffered so horrendously under the Nazis—side by side, in the same death
camps and gas chambers and ovens as the Jews—Siegel described such a proposal as "cockamamie" and ex- pressed
doubt that the Gypsies even existed as a people.83 If such examples of intellectual or moral malfeasance, demonstrating
at best willful ignorance and racist disdain for the non-Jewish group whose sufferings allegedly are being compared with
the Jewish experience, are legion among up- holders of the Jewish uniqueness persuasion—and they are—further
evidence of callous scorn for and organized denial of the sufferings of others are even more insidious. For example, for
many years now the Turkish government has employed an extraordinary range of strong-arm tactics to
prevent international recognition of the Armenian genocide. It is understandable, if still detestable that
perpetrator governments would deny their own complicity in mass murder. It is quite another thing, however,
for a group that itself has been terribly victimized by an extermination campaign to collaborate with a
historically murderous state in denying that state's documented participation in genocide.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 83
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Infinite Responsibility Module***


Gonzaga Debate Institute 84
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The Aff. is the Ultimate Demand


Responsibility to the Other is ultimate demand –We Must Embrace This Ethic
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy,
Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 11
Neither my consciousness nor my instincts are sufficient to the excessive demand the other places on me.
They are cut to the quick. Yet shattered as shattered, a fission, a “despite-myself,” for’ no one is good

voluntarily,” says Levinas the subject rises to the occasion, subjected to the most passive passivity, saying

“Here I am.” The crux of ethics lies in the non- encompassable yet non-indifferent relation between the
“better” and “being.” It is a relation like no other, “a distance which is also proximity,” Levinas wrote in
1946, which is not a coincidence or a lost union, but signifies all the surplus or all the goodness of an
“—

original sociality.” Responsibility in proximity with the other is “more precious than the fact of being
given.”1 It is also more demanding.
The relationship of responsibility constitutes modern subjectivity and is the position which
can establish successful ends to violence
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy,
Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 11-12
As such, the ethical relation escapes thematization. To reduce it to a theme, a principle, a being, an arch6,
was the mistake of onto-theology. To let being flow in the poetry of language, in its gift giving, its play, is
also to turn from the ethical exigency to the ontological exigency, for being wants only to persevere in being.
Ethics occurs — to return positively to Socrates — across the hiatus of dialogue, not in the content of
discourse, in the continuities or discontinuities of what is said, but in the demand for response. “It is better,”
Socrates said, “to suffer evil than to do it.” Socrates didn’t realize that he could not prove this point, even
though it was in effect while he spoke. The responsibility to respond to the other is, for Levinas, precisely the
inordinate responsibility, the infinite responsibility of being-for-the-other before oneself— the ethical
relation. What is said lie dit] can always be unsaid, re-said or revised it is the saying [le dire] of it, the

intrusion it effects, the interruption it inserts into continuities, as well as the passivity it calls forth, beneath
identity, that accomplishes the priority and anteriority of ethics. The only alterity sufficiently other to
provoke response, to subject the subject to the subjection of response which for Levinas is subjectivity itself,

and the meaning of meaning, the event of ethics — is the absolute alterity of the other person encountered in
the excessive immediacy of the face-to-face.

Responsibility spills over the I is responsible even for the responsibility of others-this solves
the ethic of violence
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and
Infinity, 1985, pg. 98-99
Perhaps, but that is his affair. One of the fundamental themes of Totality and Infinity about which we have
not yet spoken is that the intersubjective relation is a non-symmetrical relation. In this sense, I am
responsible for the Other without waiting for reciprocity, were I to die for it. Reciprocity is his affair. It is
precisely insofar as the relationship between the Other and me is not reciprocal that I am subjection to the
Other and I am “subject” essentially in the same sense. It is I who support all. You know that sentence in
Dostoyvsky: “We are all guilty of all and for all men before all, and I more than the others.” This is not
owing to much or such a guilt which is really mine, or to offenses that I would have committed; but because I
am responsible for total responsibility which answers for all the others and for all in the others, even for their
responsibility. The I always has one responsibility more than all the others.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 85
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Infinite Responsibility Solves for Violence


Responsibility for the other can solve violence
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. 15
Responsibility for the other, in its antecedence to my freedom, its antecedence to the present and to
representation, is a passivity more passive than all passivity, an exposure to the other without this exposure
being assumed, an exposure without holding back, exposure of exposed-ness, expression, saying. This
exposure is the frankness, sincerity, veracity of saying. Not saying dissimulating it self and protecting itself
in the said, just giving out words in the face of the other, but saying uncovering itself, that is, denuding itself
of its skin, sensibility on the surface of the skin, at the edge of the nerves, offering itself even in suffering —
and thus wholly sign, signifying itself. Substitution, at the limit of being, ends up in saying, in the giving of
signs, giving a sign of this giving of signs, expressing oneself. This expression is antecedent to all
thematization in the said, but it is not a babbling or still primitive or childish form of saying. This stripping
beyond nudity, beyond forms, is not the work of negation and no longer belongs to the order of being.
Responsibility goes beyond being. In sincerity, in frankness, in the veracity of this saying, in the
uncoveredness of suffering, being is altered. But this saying remains, in its activity, a passivity, more passive
than all passivity, for it is a sacrifice without reserve, without holding back, and in this non-voluntary the

sacrifice of a hostage designated who has not chosen himself to be hostage, but possibly elected by the Good,
in an involuntary election not assumed by the elected one. For the Good can not enter into a present nor be
put into a representation. But being Good it redeems the violence of its alterity, even if the subject has to
suffer through the augmentation of this ever more demanding violence.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 86
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Responsibility Creates Effective Politics


Responsibility is all encompassing and infinite it transcends death in that it has no limit
and establishes a basis for effective politics. Case Turns are Irrelevant.
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. xiv
This also means that I am not only answerable for what I initiated in a project or commitment of my will. I
am responsible for the situation in which I find myself, and for the existence in which I find myself. To be
responsible is always to have to answer for a situation that was in place before I came on the scene.
Responsibility is a bond between my present and what came to pass before it. In it is effected a passive
synthesis of time that precedes the time put together by retentions and protentions. I am responsible for
processes in which I find myself, and which have a momentum by which they go on beyond what I willed or
what I can steer. Responsibility cannot be limited to the measure of what I was able to foresee and willed. In
fact real action in the world is always action in which the devil has his part, in which the force of initiative
has force only inasmuch as it espouses things that have a force of their own. I am responsible for processes
that go beyond the limits of my foresight and intention, that carry on even when I am no longer adding my
sustaining force to them and even when I am no longer there. Serious responsibility recognizes itself to be

responsible for the course of things beyond one’s own death. My death will mark the limit of my force
without limiting my responsibility. There is in this sense an infinity that opens in responsibility, not as a
given immensity of its horizons, but as the process by which its bounds do not cease to extend — an
infinition of infinity. The bond with the alterity of the other is in this infinity. I am answerable before the
other in his alterity responsible before all the others for all the others. To be responsible before the other is to
make of my subsistence the support of his order and his needs. His alterity commands and solicits, his
approach contests and appeals; I am responsible before the other for the other. I am responsible before the
other in his alterity, that is, not answerable for his empirical and mundane being only, but for the alterity of
his initiatives, for the imperafive appeal with which he addresses me. I am responsible for the responsible
moves of another, for the very impact and trouble with which he approaches me. To be responsible before
another is to answer to the appeal by which he approaches. It is to put oneself in [their] his place, not to
observe oneself from without, but to bear the burden of his existence and supply for its wants. I am
responsible for the very faults of another, for his deeds and misdeeds. The condition of being hostage is an
authentic figure of responsibility.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 87
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Responsibility Solves Egoism


Generosity to the other ad a recognition of equivalence can break through egoism
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, 1969, pg. 75-76
It is in generosity that the world possessed by me-the world open to enjoyment-is apperceived from a point of
view independent of the egoist position. The “objective” is not simply the object of an impassive
contemplation. Or rather impassive contemplation is defined by gift, by the abolition of inalienable property.
The presence of the Other is equivalent to this calling into question of my joyous possession of the world.
The conceptualization of the sensible arises already from this incision in the living flesh of my own
substance, my home, in this suitability of the mine for the Other, which prepares the descent of the things to
the rank of possible merchandise. This initial dispossession conditions the subsequent generalization by
money. Conceptualization is the first generalization and the condition for objectivity. Objectivity coincides
with the abolition of inalienable property—which presupposes the epiphany of the other. The whole problem
of generalization is thus posed as a problem of objectivity. The problem of the general and abstract idea
cannot presuppose objectivity as constituted: the general object is not a sensible object that would, however,
be thought in an intention of generality and ideality. For the nominalist critique of the general and abstract
idea is not yet overcome thereby; it is still necessary to say what this intention of ideality and generality
signifies. The passage from perception to the concept belongs to the constitution of the objectivity of the
perceived object. We must not speak of an intention of ideality investing perception, an intention in which
the solitary being of the subject, identifying itself in the same, directs itself toward the transcendent world of
the ideas. The generality of the Object is correlative with the generosity of the subject going to the Other,
beyond the egoist and solitary enjoyment, and hence making the community of the goods of this world break
forth from the exclusive property of enjoyment.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 88
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Recognizing Responsibility is a Sign of Love


Infinite responsibility is a sign of hospitality of kindness as opposed to order-it solve the
infinite nature of all beings
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, 1969, pg. 26-27
The idea of infinity is not an incidental notion forged by a subjectivity to reflect the case of an entity
encountering on the outside nothing that limits it, overflowing every limit, and thereby infinite. The
production of the infinite entity is inseparable from the idea of infinity, for its precisely in the disproportion
between the idea of infinity and the infinity of which it is the idea that this exceeding of limits is produced.
The idea of infinity is the mode of being, the infinition, of infinity. Infinity does not first exist, and then
reveal itself. Its infinition is produced as revelation, as a positing of its idea in me. It is produced in the im
probable feat whereby a separated being fixed in its identity, the same, the I, nonetheless contains in itself
what it can neither contain nor receive solely by virtue of its own identity. Subjectivity realizes these
impossible exigencies—the astonishing feat of containing more than it is possible to contain. This book will
present subjectivity as welcoming the Other, as hospitality; in it the idea of infinity is consummated. Hence
intentionality, where thought remains an adequation with the object, does not define consciousness at its
fundamental level. All knowing qua intentionality already presupposes the idea of infinity, which is
preeminently non-adequation.

War and Peace both presume that which is otherwise than totality that transcend order the
relationship with that outside the limit of thought is crucial to stopping static violence
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority,
1969, pg. 221-222
This foundation of pluralism does not congeal in isolation the terms that constitute the plurality. While
maintaining them against the totality that would absorb them, it leaves them in commerce or in war. At no
moment are they posited as causes of themselves-which would be to remove from them all receptivity and all
activity, shut them up each in its own interiority, and isolate them like the Epicurean gods living in the
interstices of being, or like the gods immobilized in the between-time of art, left for all eternity on the edge
of the interval, at the threshold of a future that is never produced, statues looking at one another with empty
eyes, idols which, contrary to Gyges, are exposed and do not see. Our analyses of separation have opened
another perspective. The primordial form of this multiplicity is not, however, produced as war, nor as
commerce. War and commerce presuppose the face and the transcendence of the being appearing in the face.
War can not be derived from the empirical fact of the multiplicity of beings that limit one another, under the
pretext that where the presence of the one inevitably limits the other, violence is identical with this limitation.
Limitation is not of itself violence. Limitation is conceivable only within a totality where the parts mutually
define one another. Definition, far from doing violence to the identity of the terms united into a totality,
ensures this identity. The limit separates and unites in a whole. The reality fragmented into concepts that
mutually limit one another forms a totality by virtue of that very fragmentation. As a play of antagonistic
forces the world forms a whole, and is deducible or should be deducible, in a completed scientific thought,
from one unique formula. What one is tempted to call antagonism of forces or of concepts presupposes a
subjective perspective, and a pluralism of wills. The point at which this perspective converges does not form
a part of the totality. Violence in nature thus refers to an existence precisely not limited by an other, an
existence that maintains itself outside of the totality. But the exclusion of violence by beings susceptible of
being integrated into a totality is not equivalent to peace. Totality absorbs the multiplicity of beings, which
peace implies. Only beings capable of war can rise to peace. War like peace presupposes beings structured
otherwise than as parts of a totality.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 89
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Responsibility is a Form of Resisting Domination


Responsibility and the link to the Stranger provide a basis for challenging and resisting
systems of domination
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, 1969, pg. 39-40
‘‘ ,,The collectivity in which I say “you” or we is not a plural of the “I.” I, you—these are not individuals of a
common concept. Neither possession nor the unity of number nor the unity of concepts link me to the
Stranger [l’Etranger], the Stranger who disturbs the being at home with oneself [le chez soi]. But Stranger
also means the free one. Over him I have no power.** He escapes my grasp by an essential dimension, even if
I have him at my disposal. He is not wholly in my site. But I, who have no concept in common with the
Stranger, am, like him, without genus. We are the same and the other. The conjunction and here designates
neither addition nor power of one term over the other. We shaIl try to show that the relation between the
same and the other—upon which we seem to impose such extraordinary conditions—is language. For
language accomplishes a relation such that the terms are not limitrophe within this relation, such that the
other, despite the relationship with the same, remains transcendent to the same. The relation between he same
and the other, metaphysics, is primordially enacted as conversation,f where the same, gathered up in its
inpeity as an “I,” as a particular existent unique and autochthonous, leaves itself. A relation whose terms do
not form a totality can hence be produced within the general economy of being only as proceeding from the I
to the there, as a face to face, as delineating a distance in depth—that of conversation, of goodness, of
Desire—irreducible to the distance the synletic activity of the understanding establishes between the diverse
terms, there with respect to one another, that lend themselves to its synoptic peration. The I is not a
contingent formation by which the same and ie other, as logical determinations of being, can in addition be
reflected ‘it hin a thought. It is in order that alterity be produced in being that a “thought” is needed and that an
I is needed. The irreversibility of the relation can be produced only if the relation is effected by one of e
terms as the very movement of transcendence, as the traversing of this distance, and not as a recording of, or
the psychological invention of this movement. “Thought” and “interiority” are the very break-up of being
and the production (not the reflection) of transcendence. We know this relation only in the measure that we
effect it; this is what is distinctive about it. Alterity is possible only starting from me. Conversation, from the
very fact that it maintains the distance between me and the Other, the radical separation asserted in
transcendence which prevents the reconstitution of totality, cannot renounce the egoism of its existence; but
the very fact of being in a conversation consists in recognizing in the Other a right over this egoism, and
hence in justifying oneself. Apology, in which the I at the same time asserts itself and inclines before the
transcendent, belongs to the essence of conversation. The goodness in which (as we will see further)
conversation issues and from which it draws signification will not undo this apologetic moment. The breach
of totality is not an operation of thought, obtained by a simple distinguishing of terms that evoke one another
or at least line up opposite one another. The void that breaks the totality can be maintained against an
inevitably totalizing and synoptic thought only if thought finds itself faced with an other refractory to
categories. Rather than constituting a total with this other as with an object, thought consists in speaking. We
propose to call “religion” the bond that is established between the same and the other without constituting a
totality. But to say that the other can remain absolutely other, that he enters only into the relationship of
conversation, is to say that history itself, an identification of the same, cannot claim to totalize the same and
the other. The absolutely other, whose alterity is overcome in the philosophy of immanence on the allegedly
common plane of history, maintains his transcendence in the midst of history. The same is essentially
identification within the diverse, or history, or system. It is not I who resist the system, as Kierkegaard
thought; it is the other.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 90
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Personal Testimony Solves


Testimony can reveal the infinite and the original relationship of responsibility
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and
Infinity, 1985, pg. 106-107
I am going to tell you a peculiar feature of Jewish mysticism. In certain very old prayers, fixed by ancient
authorities, the faithful one begins by saying to God “Thou” and finishes the proposition thus begun by
saying “He,” as if, in the course of this approach of the “Thou” its transcendence into “He” supervened. It is
what in my descriptions I have called the “illeity” of the Infinite. Thus, in the “Here I am!” of the approach of
the Other, the Infinite does not show itself. How then does it take on meaning? I will say that the subject who
says “Here I am!” testifies to the Infinite. It is through this testimony, whose truth is not the truth of
representation or perception, that the revelation of the Infinite occurs. It is through this testimony that the
very glory of the Infinite glorifies itself. The term “glory” does not belong to the language of contemplation.

Ethical testimony can reveal the gaps of knowledge and the positive character of the
infinite
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and
Infinity, 1985, pg. 108
Ethical testimony is a revelation which is not a knowledge. Must one still say that in this mode only
‘testifies’ to the Infinite, to God, about which no presence or actuality is capable of testifying. The
philosophers said there is no present infinite. What may pass for a “fault” of the infinite is to the contrary a
positive characteristic of it — its very infinity. In Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence I wrote this: “The
subject, or the other in the Same, insofar as the Same is for the other, testifies to the Infinite, of which no
theme, no present, is capable. Here the difference is absorbed in the measure that proximity is made closer
and through this very absorption stands out gloriously and always accuses me more. Here the Same, in its
bearing as Same, is more and more extended with regard to the other, extended up to substitution as hostage,
in an expiation which coincides in the final account with the extraordinary and diachronic reversal of the
Same into the other in inspiration and psychism.” I mean that this way in which the other or the Infinite
manifests itself in subjectivity is the very phenomenon of “inspiration,” and consequently defines the psychic
element, the very pneumatic of the psychism.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 91
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Moral Force (Good)


Moral force can create change-its empirically warranted. We solve the impact to the
Disadvantage
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy,
Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 12-14
Radical alterity figures in Levinas’ thought not as a flaw, an ignorance, an obscurity, a childishness, a
laziness or a deferral, but as the non-thematizable charge through which ethics commands. “What oughtto
be” the subject’s response to the Other relates to “what is” being, essence, manifestation, phenomenon,
— — —

identity not by some subtle or crude conversion into “what is,” but by haunting it, disturbing it, raising it to

a moral height of which it is not itself capable. The alterity of the other raises the subject in a severe
responsibility which bears all the weight of the world’s seriousness in a non-indifference — with no
ontological basis — for the other. When in the late 1930s the British colonial administrators asked Gandhi
what he expected from his annoying non-violent agitation, the Mahatma replied that he expected the British
would quit India. They would quit India on their own because they would come to see they were wrong.
Moral force is a scandal for ontological thinking, whether that thinking is gently attuned to being or imposing
its subjective will. The power of ethics is entirely different from the power of identities, whether poetic or
political, whether knowledge or administration. It escapes and judges the synthesizing, centralizing forces.
Ethics is forceful not because it opposes power with more power, on the same plane, with a bigger army,
more guns, a finer microscope or a grander space program, but rather because it opposes power with what
appears to be weakness and vulnerability but is responsibility and sincerity. To the calculations of power,
ethics opposes less than power can conquer. With their lathi sticks the British occupational police struck their
opponents, hurt them dreadfully, but at the same time they were hitting their own injustice, their own
inhumanity, and with each blow non-violently received were taught a moral lesson. Not that they were
necessarily taught a lesson: ethics is not ontology, it is not necessary, one can kill. Moral force, however, the
proximity of the face-to-face, the height and destitution of the other’s face, is the ever patient counterbalance
to all the powers of the world, including nuclear power. Moral force is not stronger than the powers of being
and essence, the totalizing, synthesizing powers, it is better, and this is its ultimate strength.

Critique can begin the process of moving towards infinity because it is based on the
unrepresentable-the challenge-the infinite
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority,
1969, pg. 27
To contain more than one’s capacity does not mean to embrace or to encompass the totality of being in
thought or, at least, to be able to account for it after the fact by the inward play of constitutive thought. To
contain more than one’s capacity is to shatter at every moment the framework of a content that is thought, to
cross the barriers of immanence—but without this descent into being reducing itself anew to a concept of
descent. Philosophers have sought to express with the concept of act (or of the incarnation that makes it
possible) this descent into the real, which the concept of thought interpreted as a pure knowing would
maintain only as a play of lights. The act of thought—thought as an act —would precede the thought thinking
or becoming conscious of an act. The notion of act involves a violence essentially: the violence of transi-
tivity, lacking in the transcendence of thought. For the transcendence of thought remains closed in itself
despite all its adventures—which in the last analysis are purely imaginary, or are adventures traversed as by
Ulysses: on the way home. What, in action, breaks forth as essential violence is the surplus of being over the
thought that claims to contain it, the marvel of the idea of infinity. The incarnation of consciousness is
therefore comprehensible only if, over and beyond adequation, the overflowing of the idea by its ideatum,
that is, the idea of infinity, moves consciousness. The idea of infinity (which is not a representation of
infinity) sustains activity itself. Theoretical thought, knowledge, and critique, to which activity has been
opposed, have the same foundation. the idea of infinity, which is not in its turn a representation of infinity,
the common source of activity and theory.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 92
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Language Alone Opens the Possibility of a Relationship With the


Other
Language opens up the possibility of an empty universal relationship with the other
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority,
1969, pg. 72-73
But to make of the thinker a moment of thought is to limit the revealing function of language to its
coherence, conveying the coherence of concepts. In this coherence the unique I of the thinker volatilizes. The
function of language would amount to suppressing “the • other,” who breaks this coherence and is hence
essentially irrational. A curious result: language would consist in suppressing the other, in making the other
agree with the same! But in its expressive function language precisely maintains the other—to whom it is
addressed, whom it calls upon or invokes. To be sure, language does not consist in invoking him as a being
represented and thought. But this is why language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object
relation: the revelation of the other. In this revelation only can language as a system of signs be constituted.
The other called upon is not something represented, is not a given, is not a particular, through one side
already open to generalization. Language, far from presupposing universality and generality, first makes
them possible. Language presupposes interlocutors, a plurality. Their commerce is not a representation of the
one by the other, nor a participation in universality, on the common plane of language. Their commerce, as
we shall show shortly, is ethical.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 93
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Engaging the Face 1/1


Engaging the face can begin ethical pecularity and deal with humanity-gender modified
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and
Infinity, 1985, pg. 86-87
E.L.: The face is signification, and signification without context. I mean that the Other, in the rectitude of his
face, is not a character within a context. Ordinarily one is a “character”: a professor at the Sorbonne, a
Supreme Court justice, son of so-and-so, everything that is in one’s passport, the manner of dressing, of
presenting oneself. And all signification in the usual sense of the term is relative to such a context: the
meaning of something is in its relation to another thing. Here, to the contrary, the face is meaning all by
itself. You are you. In this sense one can say that the face is not “seen”. It is what cannot become a content,
which your thought would embrace; it is uncontainable, it leads you beyond. It is in this that the signification
of the face makes it escape from being, as a correlate of a knowing. Vision, to the contrary, is a search for
adequation; it is what par excellence absorbs being. But the relation to the face is straightaway ethical. The
face is what one cannot kill, or at least it is that whose meaning consists in saying: “thou shalt not kill.”
Murder, it is true, is a banal fact: one can kill the Other; the ethical exigency is not an ontological necessity.
The prohibition against killing does not render murder impossible, even if the authority of the prohibition is
maintained in the bad conscience about the accomplished evil — malignancy of evil. It also appears in the
Scriptures, to which the humanity of man is exposed inasmuch as it is engaged in the world. But to speak
truly, the appearance in being of these “ethical peculiarities” — the humanity of [human]man —is a rupture
of being. It is significant, even if being resumes and recovers itself.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 94
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

***Derrida***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 95
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Calculation Bad

Recognition of Our Responsibility Transcends Calculability. Your Disadvantages


Shouldn’t be a Factor In Recognizing Infinite Responsibility
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p107,jec)
This infinite and dissymmetrical economy of sacrifice is opposed to that of the scribes and pharisees, to the
old law in general, and to that of heathen ethnic groups or gentiles (goyim); it refers on the one hand to the
Christian as against the Judaic, on the other hand to the Judeo-Christian as against the rest. It always
presupposes a calculation that claims to go beyond calculation, beyond the totality of the calculable as a
finite totality of the same. There is an economy, but it is an economy thai integrates the renunciation of a
calculable remuneration, renunciation of merchandise or bargaining [marcbandage], of economy in the sense
of a retribution that can be measured or made symmetrical. In the space opened by this economy of what is
without measure there emerges a new teaching concerning giving or alms that relates the latter to giving back
or paying back, a yield [rendement] if you wish, a profitability [rentabilitf] also, of course, but one that
creatures cannot calculate and must leave to the appreciation of the father as be who sees in secret. Starting
from Chapter ft of the same Gospel, the theme of justice is remarked upon if not marked out explicitly, or it
is at least appealed to and named as that which must be practiced without being marked or remarked upon.
One must be just without being noticed for it. To want to be noticed means wanting recognition and payment
in terms of a calculable salary, in terms of thanks [remerciarient] or recompen.se. On the contrary one must
give, alms for example, without knowing, or at least by giving with one hand without the other hand
knowing, that is, without having it known, without having it known by other men, in secret, without counting
on recognition, reward, or remuneration. Without even having it known to oneself. The dissociation between
right and left again breaks up the pair, the parity or pairing, the symmetry between, or homogeneity of, two
economies. In fact it inaugurates sacrifice. But an infinite calculation supersedes the finite calculating that
has been renounced. God the Father, who sees in secret, will pay back your salary, and on an infinitely
greater scale.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 96
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Calculation Rejects the Ethic of Love that is Necessary to Transcend Violence. The
Increased Risk of the Disad is Only a Warrant for Affirming the Plan
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p107,jec)
Such an economic calculation integrates absolute loss. It breaks with exchange, symmetry, or reciprocity. It
is true that absolute subjectivity has brought with it calculation and a limitless raising of the stakes within the
terms of an economy of sacrifice, but this is by sacrificing sacrifice understood as commerce occurring
within finite bounds, There is merces, wages, merchandizing if not mercantilism; there is payment, but not
commerce if commerce presupposes the finite and reciprocal exchange of wages, merchandise, or reward.
The dissymmetry signifies that different economy of sacrifice in terms of which Christ, still talking about the
eye, about the right and the left, about breaking up a pair or pairing up, will say a little later: Ye have heard
that it hath been said, An eye for an eye (oculum pro oculo I ophtbalmon ants opbthalmou), and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil (non resistere malo I ml mtistenai to ponero): but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (5: 38-39) Does this commandment
reconstitute the parity of the pair rather than breaking it up, as we just suggested? No it doesn't, it interrupts
the parity and symmetry, for instead of paying back the slap on the cheek (right check for left cheek, eye for
eye), one is to offer the other cheek. It is a matter of suspending the strict economy of exchange, of payback,
of giving and giving back, of the "one lent for every one borrowed," of that hateful form of circulation that
involves reprisal, vengeance, returning blow for blow, settling scores. So what are we to make of this
economical symmetry of exchange, of give and take and of paying back that

Confronting Our Obligation to the Other Forces Us Out of Hiding and Into Faith
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p63,jec)
Thus his ethical task is to work himself out of his hiddenness and to become disclosed in the universal. Every
time he desires to remain in the hidden, he trespasses and is immersed in spiritual trial from which he can
emerge only by disclosing himself. Once again we stand at the same point. If there is no hiddenness rooted in
the fact that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, then Abraham's conduct
cannot be defended, for he disregarded the intermediary ethical categories. But if there is such a hiddenness,
then we face the paradox, which does not allow itself to be mediated, since it is based precisely on this: the
single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal. . . . The Hegelian philosophy assumes
no justified hiddenness, no justified incommensurability. It is, then, consistent for it to demand disclosure,
but it is a little bemuddled when it wants to regard Abraham as the father of faith and to speak about faith.
(82, translation modified—DW) 62 In the exemplary form of its absolute coherence, I legel's philosophy
represents the irrefutable demand for manifestation, phe-nomenalization, and unveiling; thus, it is thought, it
represents the request for truth that inspires philosophy and ethics in their most powerful form.s. There are no
final secrets for philosophy, ethics, or politics. The manifest is given priority over the hidden or the secret,
universal generality is superior to the individual; no irreducible secret that can be legally justified (fonde en
droit says the French translation of Kierkegaard)—and thus the instance of the law has to be added to those
(if philosophy and ethics: nothing hidden, no absolutely legitimate secret. But the paradox of faith is that
intenority remains "incommensurable with exterioritv" ((>')). No manifestation can consist in rendering the
interior exterior or show what is hidden. The knight of faith can neither communicate to nor be understood by
anyone, she can't help the other at all (71). The absolute duty that obligates her with respect to God cannot
have the form of generality that is called duty. If I obey in my duty towards God (which is my absolute duty)
only in terms of duty, I am not fulfilling my relation to God. In order to fulfill my duty towards God, I must
not act out of duty, by means of that form of generality that can always he mediated and communicated and
that is called duty. The absolute duty that binds me to Cod himself, in faith, must function beyond and
against any duty I have. "The duty becomes duty bv being traced back to God, but in the duty itself I do not
enter into relation to God" (68). Kant explains that to act morally is to act "out of duty" and not only "by
conforming to duty." Kierkegaard sees acting "out of duty," in the universalizahle sense of the law, as a
dereliction of one's absolute duty. It is in this sense that absolute duty (towards God and in the singularity of
faith) implies a sort of gift or sacrifice that functions beyond both debt and duty, beyond dutv as a form of
debt. This is the dimension that provides for a "gift of death" which, beyond human responsibility, beyond
the universal concept of duty, is a response to absolute duty. 63
Gonzaga Debate Institute 97
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE OTHER


Our Responsibility to the Other Demands an Accounting- Plan is An
Opportunity to Recognize Our Failure to Account for the Other Throughout History
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, ,jec)
That far from ensuring responsibility, the generality of ethics incites to irresponsibility. It impels me to speak,
to reply, to account for something, and thus to dissolve my singularity in the medium of the concept.
Such is the aporia of responsibility: one always risks not managing to accede to the concept of responsibility
in the process of forming it. For responsibility (we would no longer dare speak of "the universal concept of
responsibility") demands on the one hand an accounting, a general answering-for-oneself with respect to the
general and before the generality, hence the idea of substitution, and, on the other hand, uniqueness, absolute
singularity, hence nonsubstitution, nonrepetition, silence, and secrecy.

Our Obligation to the Other Transcends All Other Ethics


Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, pg 68,jec)
Duty or responsibility binds me to the other, to the other as other, and ties me in my absolute singularity to
the other as other. God is the name of the absolute other as other and as unique (the God of Abraham denned
as the one and unique). As soon as I enter into a relation with the absolute other, my absolute singularity
enters into relation with his on the level of obligation and duty. I am responsible to the other as other, I
answer to him and I answer for what I do before him. But of course, what binds me thus in my singularity to
the absolute singularity of the other, immediately propels me into the space or risk of absolute sacrifice.
There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be
bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility (what Kierkegaard calls the ethical
order). I cannot respond to the call, die request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing
die other other, die other others. Every other (me) is every (bit) other [tout autre at tout outre], every one else
is completely or wholly other. The simple concepts of alterity and of singularity constitute the concept of
duty as much as that of responsibility. As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty, are
condemned a priori to paradox, scandal, and aporia. Paradox, scandal, and aporia are themselves nothing
other than sacrifice, the revelation of conceptual thinking at its limit, at its death and finitude. As soon as I
enter into a relation with the other, with the gaze, look, request, love, command, or call of the other, I know
that I can respond only by sacrificing ethics, that is, by sacrificing whatever obliges me to also respond, in
the same way, in the same instant, to all the others. I offer a gift of death, I betray, I don't need to raise my
knife over my son on Mount Moriah for that. Day and night, at every instant, on all the Mount Moriahs of
this world, I am doing that, raising my knife over what I love and must love, over those to whom I owe
absolute fidelity, incommensurably. Abraham is faithful to God only in his absolute treachery, in the betrayal
of his own and of the uniqueness of each one of them, exemplified here in his only beloved son68
able to opt for fidelity to his own, or to his son, unless he were to betray the absolute other: God, if you wish.
Let us not look for examples, there would be too many of them, at every step we took. By preferring my
work, simply by giving it my time and attention, by preferring my activity as a citizen or as a professorial and
professional philosopher, writing and speaking here in a public language, French in my case, I am perhaps
fulfilling my duty. But I am sacrificing and betraying at every moment all my odier obligations: my
obligations to the other others whom I know or don't know, the billions of my fellows (without mentioning
the animals that are even more other others than my fellows), my fellows who are dying of starvation or
sickness. I betray my fidelity or my obligations to other citizens, to those who don't speak my language and
to whom I neither speak nor respond, to each of those who listen or read, and to whom I neither respond nor
address myself in the proper manner, that is, in a singular manner
Gonzaga Debate Institute 98
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Narrative of Barrtleby’s Prefence


Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, pg 74,jec)
Incapable of making a gift of death, incapable of sacrificing what he loved, hence incapable of loving and of
hating, he wouldn't give anything anymore. Abraham says nothing, but his last words, those that respond to
Isaac's question, have been recorded: "God himself will provide the lamb for the holocaust, my son." If he
had said "There is a lamb, I have one" or "I don't know, I have no idea where to find the lamb," he would
have been lying, speaking in order to speak falsehood. By speaking without lying, he responds without re-
sponding. This is a strange responsibility that consists neither of responding nor of not responding. Is one
responsible for what one says in an unintelligible language, in the language of the other? But besides that,
mustn't responsibility always be expressed in a language that is foreign to what the community can already
hear or understand only too well? "So he does not speak an untruth, but neither does he say anything, for he
is speaking in a strange tongue" (119). In Melville's "Hartleby the Scrivener," the narrator, a lawyer, cites Job
("with kings and counselors"). Beyond what is a tempting and obvious comparison, the figure of Bartleby
could be compared to Job—not to him who hoped to join the kings and counselors one day after his death,
but to him who dreamed of not being born. Here, instead of the test God makes Job submit to, one could
think of chat of Abraham. Just as Abraham doesn't speak a human language, just as he speaks in tongues or
in a language that is foreign to every other human language, and in order to do that responds without
responding, speaks wichout saying anything either true or false, says nothing determinate that would be
equivalent to a statement, a promise or a lie. in the same way Bartleby's "I would prefer not to" takes on the
responsibility of a response without response. It evokes the future without either predicting or promising; it
utters nothing fixed, determinable, positive, or negative. The modality of this repeated utterance that says
nothing, promises nothing, neither refuses or accepts anything, the tense of this singularly insignificanC
statement reminds one of a nonlanguage or a secret language. Is it not as if Bartleby were also speaking "in
tongues"? But in saying nothing general or determinable, Bartleby doesn't say absolutely nothing. / would
prefer not to looks like an incomplete sentence. Its indeterminacy creates a tension: it opens onto a sort of
reserve of incompleteness; it announces a temporary or provisional reserve, one involving a proviso. Can we
not find there the secret of a hypothetical reference to some indecipherable providence or prudence? We don't
know what he wants or means to say, or what he doesn't want to do or say, but we are given to understand
quite clearly that be would prefer not to. The silhouette of a content haunts this response. If Abraham has
already consented to make a gift of death, and to give to God the death that he is going to put his son to, if he
knows that he will do it unless God stops him, can we not say chat his disposition is such that he would,
precisely, prefer not to, without being able to say to the world what is involved? Because he loves his son, he
would prefer that God hadn't asked him anything. He would prefer that God didn't let him do it, that he would
hold back his hand, that he would provide a lamb for the holocaust, that the moment of this mad decision
would lean on the side of nonsaerifice, once the sacrifice were to be accepted. He will not decide not to, he
has decided to, but he would prefer not to. He can say nothing more and will do nothing more if God, if the
Other, continues to lead him towards death, to the death that is offered as a gift. And Bartleby's "1 would
prefer not to" is also a sacrificial passion that will lead him to death, a death given by the law, by a society
that doesn't even know why it acts the way it does.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 99
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Revealing Our Secret- That we are Complicit in Genocides –is Our Best Chance at
Transcending Selfishness and Embracing the Other
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, pg 113-116,jec)
the truth is shown to possess the very structure of what occurs every day. Through its paradox it speaks of the
responsibility required at every moment for every man and every woman. At the same time, there is no
longer any ethical generality that does not fall prey to the paradox of Abraham/ At the instant of every
decision 6. This is the logic of an abjection made by Lcviim to Kierkegaard: "for Kierkegaard, ethics
signifies the general. Fur him, the singularity of the self would he lost under a rule valid for all; the generality
can ncithtr contain nor express (he secret of the self. However, it is not at all certain thai the ethical is to !>c
found where he Icioks for it. Ethics as the conscience of a responsibility towards the other . . . does not lose
one in the generality, far from it, it singvilari/.es. it posits one as a unique individual, as the Self. ... In
evoking Mjraham he describes the meeting with God as occurring is here subjectivity is raised to the level of
the religious, that is to say above ethics. But one can posit the contrary: the attention Abraham pays to the
voice that brings him back to the ethical order by forbidding him to carry out the human sacrifice, is the most
intense moment nf the drama. . . . It is there, in the ethical, that there is an appeal to the uniqueness of the
sub|ect and sense is given to life in defiance of death" (Emmanuel l.evinas, Noras prtiprcs IMontpellier: Fata
Morgana. 19761, 113; my translation, DW). Lcvinas's criticism doesn't prevent him from admiring in
Kierkegaard "something absolutely new" in 78 and through the relation to every other (one) as every (bit)
other, every one else asks us at every moment to behave like knights of faith. Perhaps that displaces a certain
emphasis of Kierkegaard's discourse: the absolute uniqueness of jahweh doesn't tolerate analogy; we are not
all Abrahams, Isaacs, or Sarahs either. We are not Jahweh. But what seems thus to universalize or
disseminate the exception or the extraordinary by imposing a supplementary complication upon ethical
generality, that very thing ensures that Kierkegaard's text gains added force. It speaks to us of the paradoxical
truth of our responsibility and of our relation to thegift of death of each instant. Furthermore, it explains to us
its own status, namely its ability to be read by all at the very moment when it is speaking to us of secrets in
secret, of illegibility and absolute undccipherabil-ity. It stands for Jews, Christians, Muslims, but also for
everyone else, for every other in its relation to the wholly other. We no longer know who is called Abraham,
and he can no longer even tell us. Whereas the tragic hero is great, admired, and legendary from generation
to generation, Abraham, in remaining faithful to his singular love for every other, is never considered a hero.
He doesn't make us shed tears and doesn't inspire admiration: rather stupefied horror, a terror that is also
secret. For it is a terror that brings us close to the absolute secret, a secret that we share without sharing it, a
secret between someone else, Abraham as the other, and another, God as the other, as wholly other. Abraham
himself is in secret, cut off both from man and from God. But that is perhaps what we share with him. Rut
what does it mean to share a secret? It isn't a matter of knowing what the other knows, for Abraham doesn't
know anything. It isn't a matter of sharing his faith, for the latter must remain an initiative of absolute
singularity. And moreover, we don't think or speak of Abraham from the point of view of a faith that is sure
of itself, any more than did Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard keeps coming back to this, re- "Furopean philosophy,"
"a new modality of the True," "the idea of a persecuted truth" (114-15). 79 monotonous complacency of its
discourses on morality, politics, and the law, and the exercise of its rights (whether public, private, national
or international), are in no way impaired by the fact that, because of the structure of the laws of the market
that society has instituted and controls, because of the mechanisms of external debt and other similar
inequities, that same "society" puts to death or (but failing to help someone in distress accounts for only a
minor difference) allows to die of hunger and disease tens of millions of children (those neighbors or fellow
humans that ethics or the discourse of the rights of man refer to) without any moral or legal tribunal ever
being considered competent to judge such a sacrifice, the sacrifice of others to avoid being sacrificed oneself.
Not only is it true that such a society participates in this incalculable sacrifice, it actually organizes it. The
smooth functioning of its economic, political, and legal affairs, the smooth functioning of its moral discourse
and good conscience presupposes the permanent operation of this sacrifice. And such a sacrifice is not even
invisible, for from time to time television shows us, while keeping them at a distance, a series of intolerable
images, and a few voices are raised to bring it all to our attention. But those images and voices are
completely powerless to induce the slightest effective change in the situation, to assign the least
responsibility, to furnish anything more than a convenient alibi. That this order is founded upon a bottomless
chaos (the abyss or open mouth) is something that will necessarily be brought home one day to those who
just as necessarily forget the same. We are not even talking about wars, the less recent or most recent ones, in
which cases one can wait an eternity for morality or international law (whether violated with impunity or
Gonzaga Debate Institute 100
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

invoked hypocritically) to determine with any degree of certainty who is responsible or guilty for the
hundreds of thousands of victims who are sacrificed for what or whom one knows not, countless victims,
each of whose singularity becomes each time infinitely singular, every other (one) being every (bit) other,
whether they be victims of the Iraqi state or victims of the international coalition that accuses the latter of not
respecting the law. For in the discourses that dominate during such wars, it is rigorously impossible, on one
side and the other, to discern the religious from
Gonzaga Debate Institute 101
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Bearing Witness
We are obligated to bear radical witness to the evil and atrocity present. Only this
commitment will stop future evils from emerging.
Jacques Depelchin in 1995, (research associate at the University of Florida's Center for African Studies, 1995,
Issue, p. 63-65)
My perspective in writing this letter is the same as that of Ebousi Boulaga, who, in his Conferences
souveraines nationales (Karthala, 1993), articulated the stance of the Radical Witness who speaks from the
"bottom of the pile" against all the atrocities, not just the ones perpetrated by the post-independence leaders,
but also against those which were committed in the name of "civilization, economic development and other
orthodoxies." For Boulaga the Radical Witness is the one who let the event of the National Sovereign
Conferences determine a total and radical rethinking of our histories. The Radical Witness is the one who
refuses to be silenced, to be bribed. He is one who says that it is time to suspend everything and take stock of
what has been happening, and insist that a radical change must take place if we are going to avoid total
annihilation. "We" in this particular case is not referring to Africans alone, but to all human beings. Boulaga's
Radical Witness is the same as A. Badiou's Subject pursuing an ethic of truth. (A. Badiou, L'Ethique: Essai
sur la conscience du mal, Paris: Hatier, 1994.) To pursue an ethic of truth means for Badiou recognizing an
event, being faithful to it. Failing to recognize the event (such as the genocide in Burundi/Rwanda), and
failing to act on such a recogniton (i.e., suspending all routine thinking) can only result in the creation and
reproduction of evil. Combining Boulaga and Badiou, one could say that the Radical Witness is the one who
is capable of identifying events, and subsequently remain faithful to such a recognition regardless of the costs
such a recognition might entail. I am mentioning these two authors because they have articulated the question
of ethics much better than I can do in this short space. Badiou has never written on Africa, but the short 79
pages are a necessary text for anyone seriously concerned with the question of ethics in African history and
African historiography. Boulaga's Radical Witness goes further than Badiou's Subject because he argues that
the exemplary evil of the twentieth history—the Holocaust— had several precursors and that, for that reason,
it is high time to act on such a recognition. Your letter to President Clinton falls in the tradition of treating
Africa as a spectacle: TV images, the print media all operated counter to Badiou's and Boulaga's concepts of
the Event and the Radical Witness. Images and texts were produced to make sure that the readers and viewers
were not seized by the event' the presentation was done in such a way that the events "observed" would not
radically transform the way viewers thought about what they were witnessing. Instead the objective was to do
the opposite. Indeed, images were produced in order to make sure that viewers would distance themselves
from them, and avoid analyzing the question of responsibility in an increasingly anonimized world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 102
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The Utterance of Our Infinite Responsibility is the First Step Toward Achieving Peace. We
Must Act Even When Calculation Suggests it is Imprudent
Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p60-4,jec)
Just as no one can die in my place, no one can make a decision, what we call "a decision," in my place. But
as soon as one speaks, as soon as one enters the medium of language, one loses that very singularity. One
therefore loses the possibility of deciding or the right to decide. Thus every decision would, fundamentally,
remain at the same time solitary, secret, and silent. Speaking relieves us, Kierkegaard notes, for it "translates"
into the general (113).4 The first effect or first destination of language therefore involves depriving me of, or
delivering me from, my singularity. By suspending my absolute singularity in speaking, I renounce at the
same time my liberty and my responsibility. Once I speak I am never and no longer myself, alone and
unique. It is a very strange contract—both paradoxical and terrifying—that binds infinite responsibility to
silence and secrecy. It goes against what one usually thinks, even in the most philosophical mode. For
common sense, just as for philosophical reasoning, the most widely shared belief is that responsibility is tied
to the public and to the nonsecrct, to the possibility and even the necessity of accounting for one's words and
actions in front of others, of justifying and owning up to them. Here on the contrary it appears, just as
necessarily, that the absolute responsibility of my actions, to the extent that such a responsibility remains
mine, singularly so, something no one else can perform in my place, instead implies secrecy. But what is also
implied is that, by not speaking to others, I don't account for my actions, that I answer for nothing \que je tie
reponde de rien] and to no one, that I make no response to others or before others. It is both a scandal and a
paradox. According to Kierkegaard, ethical exigency is regulated by generality; and it therefore defines a re-
sponsibility that consists of speaking, that is, of involving oneself sufficiently in the generality to justify
oneself, to give an account Pg 60 of one's decision and to answer for one's actions. On the other hand, what
does Abraham teach us, in his approach to sacrifice? That far from ensuring responsibility, the generality of
ethics incites to irresponsibility. It impels me to speak, to reply, to account for something, and thus to
dissolve my singularity in the medium of the concept. Such is the aporia of responsibility: one always risks
not managing to accede to the concept of responsibility in the process of forming it. For responsibility (we
would no longer dare speak of "the universal concept of responsibility") demands on the one hand an
accounting, a general answering-for-onesclf with respect to the general and before the generality, hence the
idea of substitution, and, on the other hand, uniqueness, absolute singularity, hence nonsubstitution,
nonrepetition, silence, and secrecy. What I am saying here about responsibility can also be said about
decision. The ethical involves me in substitution, as does speaking. Whence the insolence of the paradox: for
Abraham, Kierkegaard declares, the ethical is a temptation. He must therefore resist it. He keeps quiet in
order to avoid the moral temptation which, under the pretext of calling him to responsibility, to self-
justification, would make him lose his ultimate responsibility along with his singular-ity, make him lose his
unjustifiable, secret, and absolute responsibility before God. This is ethics as "irresponsibilization," as an
insoluble and paradoxical contradiction between responsibility in general and absolute responsibility.
Absolute responsibility is not a responsibility, at least it is not general responsibility or responsibility in
general. It needs to be exceptional or extraordinary, and it needs to be that absolutely and par excellence: it is
as if absolute responsibility could not be derived from a concept of responsibility and therefore, in order for it
to be what it must be it must remain inconceivable, indeed unthinkable: it must therefore be irresponsible in
order to be absolutely responsible. "Abraham cannot speak, because he cannot say that which would explain
everything . . . that it is an ordeal such that, please note, the ethical is the temptation" (115). The ethical can
therefore end up making us irresponsible. It is a temptation, a tendency, or a facility that would sometimes
have to be refused in the name of a responsibility that doesn't keep account or give an account, neither to
man. to humans, to society, to one's fellows, or to one's own. Such a responsibility keeps its secret, it cannot
and need not present itself. Tyrannically, jealously, it refuses to present itself before the violence that consists
of asking for accounts and justifications, summonses to appear before the law of men. It declines the
autobiography that is always auto-justification, egodkee. Abraham presents bimself\ of course, but before
God, the unique, jealous, secret God, the one to whom he says "Here I am." But in order to do that, he must
renounce his family loyalties, which amounts to violating his oath, and refuse to present himself before men.
He no longer speaks to them. That at least is what the sacrifice of Isaac suggests {it would be different for a
tragie hero such as Agamemnon). In the end secrecy is as intolerable for ethics as it is for philosophy or for
dialectics in general, from Plato to Hegel: The ethical as such is the universal; as the universal it is in turn the
disclosed. The single individual, qualified as immediate, sensate, and psychical, is the hidden. Thus his
ethical task is to work himself out of his hiddenness and to become disclosed in the universal. Every time he
Gonzaga Debate Institute 103
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

desires to remain in the hidden, he trespasses and is immersed in spiritual trial from which he can emerge
only by disclosing himself. Once again we stand at the same point. If there is no hiddenness rooted in the fact
that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, then Abraham's conduct cannot
be defended, for he disregarded the intermediary ethical categories. But if there is such a hiddenness, then we
face the paradox, which does not allow itself to be mediated, since it is based precisely on this: the single
individual as the single individual is higher than the universal. . . . The Hegelian philosophy assumes no
justified hiddenness, no justified incommensurability. It is, then, consistent for it to demand disclosure, but it
is a little bemuddled when it wants to regard Abraham as the father of faith and to speak about faith. (82,
translation modified—DW) 62 In the exemplary form of its absolute coherence, I legel's philosophy
represents the irrefutable demand for manifestation, phe-nomenalization, and unveiling; thus, it is thought, it
represents the request for truth that inspires philosophy and ethics in their most powerful form.s. There are no
final secrets for philosophy, ethics, or politics. The manifest is given priority over the hidden or the secret,
universal generality is superior to the individual; no irreducible secret that can be legally justified (fonde en
droit says the French translation of Kierkegaard)—and thus the instance of the law has to be added to those
(if philosophy and ethics: nothing hidden, no absolutely legitimate secret. But the paradox of faith is that
intenority remains "incommensurable with exterioritv" ((>')). No manifestation can consist in rendering the
interior exterior or show what is hidden. The knight of faith can neither communicate to nor be understood by
anyone, she can't help the other at all (71). The absolute duty that obligates her with respect to God cannot
have the form of generality that is called duty. If I obey in my duty towards God (which is my absolute duty)
only in terms of duty, I am not fulfilling my relation to God. In order to fulfill my duty towards God, I must
not act out of duty, by means of that form of generality that can always he mediated and communicated and
that is called duty. The absolute duty that binds me to Cod himself, in faith, must function beyond and
against any duty I have. "The duty becomes duty bv being traced back to God, but in the duty itself I do not
enter into relation to God" (68). Kant explains that to act morally is to act "out of duty" and not only "by
conforming to duty." Kierkegaard sees acting "out of duty," in the universalizahle sense of the law, as a
dereliction of one's absolute duty. It is in this sense that absolute duty (towards God and in the singularity of
faith) implies a sort of gift or sacrifice that functions beyond both debt and duty, beyond dutv as a form of
debt. This is the dimension that provides for a "gift of death" which, beyond human responsibility, beyond
the universal concept of duty, is a response to absolute duty.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 104
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Private Military Could be Used in Sudan are Force Multipliers


Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec)
David Wimhurst, a spokesman in the office of the U.N. Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping
Operations, dismisses the privatization idea. "It's not going to go anywhere. Forget about it," he says. "So you
get a gang of mercenaries in there, basically. Who do they report to? Who controls them? It's a nonstarter."
Wimhurst's vehement response is typical at the United Nations, says Peter Gantz, a peacekeeping associate
at Refugees International, a private humanitarian group: There, people's aversion to putting soldiers of
fortune among blue helmets gets in the way of an honest assessment of what private companies could offer.
"The thing that disappoints me is that the people who oppose the idea oppose it so categorically, it seems,
particularly the United Nations, so they don't open themselves up to the middle ground," he says. "To me,
what the Department of Peacekeeping Operations should be doing is looking at what companies are out there
and what they can provide and having an honest debate within the United Nations about it. If you have the
United States and the United Kingdom and France and these other major military powers utilizing private
companies to support military operations, then the United Nations should be able to at least consider doing
the same thing." To some degree, it already is. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Los Angeles-based
Pacific Architects & Engineers revamped the airfields and now manages air traffic control, a crucial part of
operations in a country as vast as that one, where a paltry 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers cannot possibly be
expected to be everywhere at once. PAE is providing fuel, vehicles, and rations for the new mission in Ivory
Coast. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution fellow and the author of Corporate Warriors, a detailed analysis
of the rise of private military companies, says, "Logistics is not just innocuous tasks. It is things that are
critical to the overall operation. The second thing is that on the modern battlefield, there's no fixed front line,
so any part of the operation can come under threat. And any part of the operation may be called on to play a
role in combat." A more robust version of logistical support would use private firms as "force multipliers" to
leverage the power of U.N. troops. This is the key to Brooks's Sudan proposal: Refurbish five airfields, plop
U.N. troops down to guard them, and rely primarily on surveillance equipment with a satellite connection so
that government officials and rebels can monitor the truce in virtual time. Do more with less.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 105
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Counterplan Frontline 1/1


Perm – Do plan with support from the AU.
US Institute of Peace ’94 (United States Institute of Peace, September 28, 1994. Date Accessed: July 11,
2004. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/USContr2.html)
A need exists for the creation of an African capability for peacekeeping and for greater cooperation among
the UN, OAU, and subregional organizations such as ECOWAS. Although many OAU countries have
provided troops for UN peacekeeping operations, including those in Africa, new capacities for peacekeeping
can be developed. One proposal is to use African troops for peacekeeping operations on the continent, with
support for command, communications, and coordination provided by the UN and logistics and other
material support by major powers with interests in Africa, such as the U.S., United Kingdom, France, and
Belgium.

Solvency Deficit – AU is unable or unwilling stop the genocide in Sudan.


US Institute of Peace ’94 (United States Institute of Peace, September 28, 1994. Date Accessed: July 11,
2004. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/USContr2.html)
Although there is wide enthusiasm for the OAU's new mechanism, doubts linger about whether the OAU is
the best mechanism in each instance. A layered approach would suggest that resorting to the OAU is not
necessarily a first or best step. For example, when the OAU was unable or unwilling to act in the Liberia civil
war in 1990, ECOWAS deployed a peacekeeping mission to restore order and promote negotiations.
Likewise, IGADD's activities to promote peace between Ethiopia and Somalia and among the warring
factions in Sudan is an example of the comparative advantage of subregional organizations. The Southern
African Development Commission (SADC) could play a similar role with regard to conflicts in that
subregion.

Solvency Deficit – AU does not have the resources to effectively solve


Reuters ’94 (Aljazeera.net, July 5, 2004. Date Accessed: July 11, 2004.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6A482B7D-E8EA-4EE5-8EA9-6867D81F75E4.htm)
Ibok said an initial deployment of 300 troops would likely be sent to guard an eventual 60 AU peace
monitors as well as to patrol refugee camps and border areas between Sudan and Chad, where some 200,000
Sudanese have fled to safety from attacks by armed groups.

No Solvency – African Union has already dispatched peacekeepers, but conflict continues.
Nyang'oro ’04 (Julius Nyang'oro, UNCCH, Head of African Studies, July 11, 2004. Date Accessed: July 11,
2004. http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1417086p-7541084c.html)
The African Union has sent an observer delegation to Khartoum and has tried to engage the Sudanese
government, but the African Union operates with the principle of respect for the sovereignty of member
states, and Sudan has cleverly used that status to deflect a much more intrusive examination of its policies
and their consequences in west Sudan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 106
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Cannot Solve
OAU cannot solve regional conflicts.
Patrick Gilkes, JDW Special Correspondent, Jane's Defence Weekly, March 10, 1999, pp. l-n.
Given the present depth of bitterness and distrust, the situation is unlikely to be defused even if there is a
cease-fire and implementation of the OAU peace agreement. Effects on regional stability are likely to be
lasting. Any conflict prevention and security role for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development
which links Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda has been weakened. Somalia's
regional and clan conflicts seem set to continue. Eritrea's previously close relationship with Israel has
cooled, apparently replaced by links with Libya - it is talking of joining the Arab League. Ethiopia's links
with Djibouti have been greatly strengthened, while at the same time normalising relations with Sudan,
splitting the US-backed front of Eritrea, Uganda and Egypt. US regional policy, in an area previously
considered as an exemplar of the 'New Africa' leadership, is now in disarray, with little sign of any new
approach.-
Gonzaga Debate Institute 107
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

No OAU unity
No African Unity
This Day (Lagos), Africa News, July 11, 2000
The idea of a unified African state is one that Gadhafi has aggressively pitched since holding a mini-summit
last September in his home town of Sirte. While some leaders like Eyadema and Republic of Congo's
President Denis Sassou Nguesso have expressed qualified support for the idea, other more powerful African
nations like South Africa and Nigeria are believed to have serious reservations. Attempts at forging inter-
African cooperation have floundered in the past.

The AU has no power


AFP, 7-7-00
Civil wars, armed separatist movements and territorial disputes continue to dog the continent, where grinding
poverty is the lot of nearly half the population. The year since the last summit has seen two peace deals
turn sour -- with fighting erupting anew in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- while
Ethiopia and Eritrea have yet to reach a definitive peace following a ceasefire agreed last month. A 1994
peace agreement between the Angolan government and the Union for the Total Indendence of Angola
(UNITA) collapsed in 1998, and the two sides have remained on a war footing since. Hopes that Algerian
President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's bold initiative to end his country's civil war, in which some 100,000 people
have been killed since 1992, have faded with regular reports of brutal massacres by diehard Islamic extremist
groups. Protracted peace efforts have yet to bear fruit for Sudan, Somalia, Burundi and Congo, while
"forgotten" conflicts also simmer, such as those in Rwanda and Senegal. The OAU has acknowledged
an abysmal record at conflict resolution, but can at least point this year to the Horn of Africa ceasefire,
which it brokered.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 108
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

Local organizations solve


Local organizations are resolving conflicts
OAU/IPA Joint Task Force Report on Peacemaking and Peacekeeping Rapporteur: Ameen, January, 1998,
International Peace Academy, http://www.ipacademy.org/Publications/Reports/Africa/PublRepoAfriPP98Print.htm
Formal and informal sub-regional initiatives have more recently assumed a highly important role in conflict
management efforts in Africa. Sub-regional organizations, including ECOWAS in West Africa, IGAD in the
Horn of Africa, and SADC in Southern Africa, have increasingly assumed political, and in some cases
military, functions with respect to their sub-regions, and have been key players in managing the conflicts in
countries including Liberia, Sudan, and Lesotho. Informal sub-regional initiatives, such as the decision taken
on 31 July 1996 in Arusha by leaders of the sub-regional states to impose economic sanctions against
Burundi in response to a military coup d'etat there, or the more robust actions taken by West African states
against the coup leaders in Sierra Leone in 1997, have also assumed increasing importance. Actions by
individual states in their regional neighborhoods are also increasingly prevalent. Recent examples include the
Ethiopian-initiated peace process in late 1996 among Somali political leaders, and the provision of military
support starting in late 1996 from some of the neighboring states of Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly
Zaire) to Laurent Kabila in overthrowing the Mobutu dictatorship. Finally, African civil society has played
critical roles in creating the conditions for preventing or promoting settlement of conflicts, such as in South
Africa, Mali and Sierra Leone before the recent coup. These examples demonstrate that Africans have not
been complacent while conflicts rage within their continent, but have on many occasions marshaled their
own political and financial resources to address them.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 109
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU has no power
AU power is waning and international groups already step on their toes
OAU/IPA Joint Task Force Report on Peacemaking and Peacekeeping Rapporteur: Ameen, January, 1998,
International Peace Academy, http://www.ipacademy.org/Publications/Reports/Africa/PublRepoAfriPP98Print.htm
The OAU has been preoccupied with the issue of conflict prevention, management and resolution since its
inception in May 1963. But its ability to act was limited until recently by several factors, including: the OAU
Charter provision of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states; lack of political will among
member states to act; perceived fear of competing and sometimes conflicting claims and interests of various
actors in a conflict situation; absence of a lead country with power and resources to take the initiative and
bear the costs attendant with taking action; choice of appropriate tools for action; overlapping jurisdiction
and competence of other bodies, such as the UN; lack of experience or staying power in a peace process until
a durable solution is found; and the influence of external powers in the furtherance of their own interests in
Africa.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 110
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Cannot Solve
The Congo conflict is center to AU’s agenda
Channel News Asia - July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/94000/1/.html) MH
A major African Union summit opens in the Ethiopian capital where dozens of leaders from across the
continent have gathered for talks set to focus on security issues and the organisation's ambition to foster
development through unity and peace. Crises and instability in Sudan's western Darfur region, the Great
Lakes and Ivory Coast are expected to take centre stage. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is due
to speak at the start of the AU's third ordinary summit since it replaced the Organisation of African Unity in
2002. The risk of a third war in less than a decade in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and hence
the stability of all its neighboring countries, is also of great concern to the AU, which has repeatedly warned
there can be no prosperity in Africa without peace and stability. Fears of a renewed conflict in DRC were
raised in late May, when former rebels, who had theoretically been integrated into a new national army, rose
up against regular troops in the east of the country, prompting Kinshasa to accuse its old enemy, Rwanda, of
involvement. DRC President Joseph Kabila is expected to meet his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame on
the sidelines of the main event in a bid to defuse tenions. Ivory Coast, which has not settled down since a
rebellion erupted in December 2002, is the third major theatre of unrest on the summit agenda. Another
mini-summit bringing together Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo and several of his west African
counterparts is also expected in Addis Ababa in the wake of accusations that Ivorian planes had violated the
airspace of neighboring Burkina Faso. The summit will witness the unveiling of a three-year strategic plan
for the continent, a document central to the AU's desire for greater unity and development and less war. The
plan has a budget of some 1.7 billion dollars, money the AU does not have and which its 53 member states
and the international community will be asked to provide.
The AU is concerned about Zimbabwe abuses
Bloomberg.com – July 4, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aecRKQDRvptk&refer=top_world_news) MH
The African Union accused Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and called on President Robert Mugabe's
government to repeal laws preventing free political activity, the Sunday Independent said, citing a report
by the 53-member body. The report by the African Union's Commission on Human Rights calls on
Zimbabwe's government to accept mediators to help solve the country's political impasse, the
Johannesburg-based newspaper said. The ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and
the opposition Movement for Democratic Change have been at loggerheads since disputed
parliamentary elections in 2000. The report contains the strongest criticism yet of Zimbabwe by other
African leaders, the newspaper said. The African Union declared the 2000 elections as free and fair.
Other observers, including the U.S. and European Union, said the elections were marred by
intimidation of opposition parties and fraud. The African Union's executive council yesterday adopted
the report, compiled by observers who visited Zimbabwe shortly before 2002 presidential elections
that Mugabe won, over the objections of Zimbabwe's delegates, the Sunday Independent said. The
report will be considered by the organisation's annual meeting of heads of state starting in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, on Tuesday.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 111
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Cannot Solve
The AU has denied U.S. claims before
Bloomberg.com – July 4, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aecRKQDRvptk&refer=top_world_news) MH
The African Union accused Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and called on President Robert Mugabe's
government to repeal laws preventing free political activity, the Sunday Independent said, citing a report
by the 53-member body. The report by the African Union's Commission on Human Rights calls on
Zimbabwe's government to accept mediators to help solve the country's political impasse, the
Johannesburg-based newspaper said. The ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and
the opposition Movement for Democratic Change have been at loggerheads since disputed
parliamentary elections in 2000. The report contains the strongest criticism yet of Zimbabwe by other
African leaders, the newspaper said. The African Union declared the 2000 elections as free and fair. Other
observers, including the U.S. and European Union, said the elections were marred by intimidation of
opposition parties and fraud. The African Union's executive council yesterday adopted the report,
compiled by observers who visited Zimbabwe shortly before 2002 presidential elections that Mugabe
won, over the objections of Zimbabwe's delegates, the Sunday Independent said. The report will be
considered by the organisation's annual meeting of heads of state starting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
on Tuesday.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 112
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Lacks Resources

AU lacks financial resources


Channel News Asia - July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/94000/1/.html) MH
A major African Union summit opens in the Ethiopian capital where dozens of leaders from across the continent
have gathered for talks set to focus on security issues and the organisation's ambition to foster development through
unity and peace. Crises and instability in Sudan's western Darfur region, the Great Lakes and Ivory Coast are
expected to take centre stage. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is due to speak at the start of the AU's
third ordinary summit since it replaced the Organisation of African Unity in 2002. The risk of a third war in less
than a decade in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and hence the stability of all its neighboring countries,
is also of great concern to the AU, which has repeatedly warned there can be no prosperity in Africa without peace
and stability. Fears of a renewed conflict in DRC were raised in late May, when former rebels, who had
theoretically been integrated into a new national army, rose up against regular troops in the east of the country,
prompting Kinshasa to accuse its old enemy, Rwanda, of involvement. DRC President Joseph Kabila is expected to
meet his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame on the sidelines of the main event in a bid to defuse tenions. Ivory
Coast, which has not settled down since a rebellion erupted in December 2002, is the third major theatre of unrest on
the summit agenda. Another mini-summit bringing together Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo and several of his
west African counterparts is also expected in Addis Ababa in the wake of accusations that Ivorian planes had
violated the airspace of neighboring Burkina Faso. The summit will witness the unveiling of a three-year strategic
plan for the continent, a document central to the AU's desire for greater unity and development and less war. The
plan has a budget of some 1.7 billion dollars, money the AU does not have and which its 53 member states and the
international community will be asked to provide.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 113
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

No Advantage to Consultation
The African Union has already committed troops to Sudan conflict – Consulting AU will
have no military advantage
Mathaba.net - July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=58607) MH
The African Union says it's preparing to send hundreds of troops to Sudan's strife-torn Darfur region, where
more than one million people have been uprooted by conflict. A senior union official says the protection
force will be deployed as soon as possible and forces from Rwanda and Nigeria are on standby. The Darfur
mission, announced on the eve of the annual summit of African leaders in Addis Ababa, will mark the
organisation's only joint military deployment since it sent peacekeepers to Burundi last year. The African
Union has deployed unarmed observers to Darfur and had said if all parties agreed it was necessary, it would
send armed troops to protect the monitors. As many as one million people have been driven from their
homes by the violence that erupted last year, and up to 30,000 have been killed.

AU, UN, and U.S. are working together on Sudan conflict now
William Eagle (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=1C3B03FC-25D6-4D9B-A0202A4A45D71338)
The most pressing issue is said to be what to do with Darfur, a region in western Sudan the size of France.
The fighting between predominantly black rebel groups and Arab militia allied with the government has
killed some 30,000 people and displaced more than one million others. This week, AU Peace and Security
Council Director Sam Ibok announced the 53 member body is preparing to send a protection force of around
300 soldiers to Darfur. It will guard the 60 unarmed observers the AU aims to deploy there and will also
patrol refugee camps and border areas between Sudan and Chad. The South African Mail and Guardian
newspaper quotes South Africa's Defense Minister as saying Pretoria is expected to send 10 high-ranking
soldiers as platoon leaders. Rwanda is expected to send 100 soldiers. News reports say Tanzania and
Botswana have also been approached about sending troops. On July 3, the chair of the executive branch of
the AU, Alpha Konare, traveled to the region to try to negotiate peace between the warring parties. His trip
followed an earlier one by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. They
urged the Sudanese government to disarm the militias or face sanctions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 114
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The AU is Not Ready to Lead in Conflicts


The AU follows the EU and the UN
Iol.co.za - July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=87&art_id=qw1089085682435A162) MH
Loosely modelled on the European Union and embodying a similar aim of continental integration, the AU
was the brainchild of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, even if it falls short of his grandiose idea of a federal
United States of Africa with a single African army. The AU constitution was signed at an OAU summit in
Lome, Togo, in 2000 and came into effect on May 26, 2001, following its formal proclamation at an
extraordinary OAU summit in Libya in March the same year. One of the key organs of the Union is the
Peace and Security Council (PSC), an entity loosely modeled on the UN's Security Council. The PSC can
authorise peace support missions, such as the observers now in western Sudan's region of Darfur, who are
monitoring a ceasefire signed between rebels and Khartoum. In 2002, the PSC mandated troops from South
Africa, Ethiopia and Mozambique to deploy in Burundi, where a decade old civil is winding down. The UN
took control of this mission in June, mainly because of the AU's funding problems. The PSC can also
recommend to heads of state, known as the Assembly in AU parlance, that more robust military interventions
be deployed in areas in the case of grave circumstances. The executive branch of the AU is known as the
Commission, currently chaired by former Malian president Alpha Oumar Konare, and modeled on the
European Union Commission.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 115
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

The AU is Ineffective
Burundi Proved the AU Cannot Solve
Raymond Thibodeaux (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 5, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=4FBB55A7-D87B-4394-8E6BADDD124AD148#) MH

Helping to end the 11-year civil war in Burundi was the African Union's first major peacekeeping operation,
and it became an important test case for the proposed continental force. The A.U. mission, led by South
Africa, was handed over to a United Nations force last month. So far, the results of the A.U. mission in
Burundi appear to be mixed. Over the past year, hundreds of families have come to this feeding center in
Gatumba, only a half-hour's drive north of Burundi's capital, Bujumbura. Many of the children are emaciated,
the mothers themselves undernourished and unable to breast-feed their babies. If they sound happy, it's
because they've managed to escape, for the time being, the persistent violence, the raping of women and
children and the looting of homes, in the rural areas surrounding Bujumbura. The continued attacks have
kept them off their farms. Unable to plant or harvest their crops, they are now forced to depend on aid groups
for food and shelter. For these mostly rural Burundians, who bear the brunt of attacks by both rebel and
government forces, it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of the African Union's mission in their country.
Despite the presence of nearly 3,000 AU peacekeepers in Burundi this past year, most of them from South
Africa, Mozambique and Ethiopia, more than 50,000 Burundians have fled their homes, government and
rebel militias have killed and raped dozens of civilians and looted and burned their houses, according to a
Human Rights Watch report issued last week. In Bujumbura, A.U. soldiers are often scorned by ordinary
Burundians. Major Modisame Masebe, a commander for the AU's South African force, says some of his
soldiers have had to fend off both verbal and physical attacks by civilians. A 37-year-old woman who gave
her name only as Maria says she was forced to flee with her five children, as rebels attacked her village of
Masama last month. They now live in a small hut made of dried banana leaves near a feeding center in
Kabezi, a village protected by a small contingent of government troops. Maria says, "it doesn't matter if the
African Union soldiers are here. They don't do anything for us. The rebels are still attacking us." Like Maria,
many rural Burundians say they have never even seen a single A.U. soldier, much less felt protected by them.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 116
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Consultation Fails
Coalitions are Ineffective
William Maclean (Correspondent at Reuters.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5600621) MH
Despite pressure from the AU, the United Nations and the United States, the path to peace in Darfur looks
uncertain. Two rebel groups say they will not negotiate unless Sudan first disarms the marauding Arab
militias and respects a shaky cease-fire agreed in April. Annan said West African leaders would meet rival
factions from Ivory Coast later this month to try to get the country's struggling peace process back on track.
The talks would take place in Ghana's capital Accra on July 29, Annan said after meeting West and Central
African heads of state at the summit. Civil war broke out in Ivory Coast after a failed coup in 2002.
Although the conflict was declared over last year, no disarmament has taken place and the world's top cocoa
grower is still split between a government-run south and rebel-held north. Annan urged African leaders to
become better democrats, saying good governance was a pillar of economic development and human rights.
Veteran Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, normally a fixture at African summits, was absent without
explanation despite the fact that his country is challenging Ethiopia for the right to host the AU headquarters.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 117
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative

AU Doesn’t Want into Sudan


The AU won’t agree to stop Sudan conflict

William Eagle (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at


http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=1C3B03FC-25D6-4D9B-A0202A4A45D71338)
MHIn Sudan, however, Mr. Landsberg believes the AU delegates will not go as far. "You can
imagine if the Sudanese government is going to be seriously rebuked, that will be significant.
Whether that drives them to stop the carnage in Darfur, I have my doubts," he said. "But at the
very least, it signals a willingness of Africans to consider ostracism and isolation of particular
regimes that violate the [principles] of the AU's Constitutive Act. I don't think you can expect 53
countries to show similar eagerness to stop carnage like that. But I do think the task is whether
the AU can develop a critical mass or what the Americans and British in Iraq call a 'coalition of
the willing' to act."

The AU is not concerned with Zimbabwe crisis

William Eagle (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at


http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=1C3B03FC-25D6-4D9B-A0202A4A45D71338) MH
Zimbabwe was not on the official list of African crises to be discussed, but the situation there did come up at
an AU council of ministers meeting shortly before the start of the summit. "Something interesting happened
with the ministers over last couple of days," he added. "Some of governments took the initiative to almost
rebuke President Mugabe, asking him for free and fair elections to level the playing field and called on him
to ease the draconian laws that circumscribe freedom of movement and association, and draconian press
laws. As long as long as Africans adopt an attitude that there is not real crisis in Zimbabwe, that's how long
Mugabe will feel [safe]. He'll feel he has a strong ally in the African Union. They are aware he behaves like
that and uses them as a shield. It must come as a huge surprise to Mugabe but is a welcoming one."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 118
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative
Gonzaga Debate Institute 119
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative
Gonzaga Debate Institute 120
Intermediate Lab Sudan Affirmative