T

Interp: Engagement requires the use of positive

incentives to change Chinese behavior
Haass and OSullivan 2K
(Richard N. Haass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings
Institution, and Meghan L. OSullivan, Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies
Program at the Brookings Institution, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 113
35)
The term engagement was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan
administrations policy of constructive engagement towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a
source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime or country,
America arguably engages states and actors all the time simply by
interacting with them. To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term
engagement must refer to something more specific than a policy of nonisolation. As used in this article, engagement refers to a foreign-policy strategy
which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its
objectives. Certainly, it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as
sanctions or military force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination

the distinguishing feature of American

engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of
incentives to shape the behaviour of countries with which the US has
important disagreements.
or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet

Violation: The affirmative is an unconditional policy which

requires no behavior change from China
Standards
1. Limits QPQs set a meaningful limit on a huge topic
unconditional plans turn the topic into Resolved: Do
something China likes which is unpredictable
2. Ground neg loses access to lit and solvency
arguments virtually all authors write about actual
engagement strategies plus the neg loses China
says no and other solvency ground
T is a voting issue
1. Jurisdiction judges only have jurisdiction to vote for
the resolution they are not the resolution
2. Fairness vDebates set the tone for debates during
the season makes this round k2 checking
unreasonable affs
Prefer competing interps Reasonability justifies any
untopical case and makes judge intervention inevitable

India DA
The U.S. and India are expanding relations now mutual
suspicion of China is key
Tankel 15
(Stephen Tankey is an assistant professor in the School of International
Service at American University, where he specializes in international security
with a focus on political and military affairs in South Asia, transnational
threats, Islamist militancy, and U.S. foreign and defense policies, 1/27. U.S.India Relations Three Questions for Stephen Tankel.
http://www.american.edu/sis/news/20150127-3Q-Three-Questions-on-USIndia-Relations.cfm)
Q: Why did President Obama visit India, and what was the significance of the visit? A: President Obama attended Indias
Republic Day celebrations as the chief guest of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This is the first time

India

has

invited an American president to be chief guest at its Republic Day. It is also the
first time that an American president visited India twice while in office. Those
facts alone speak to the importance both governments place on building the
bilateral relationship. In the United States, there is bipartisan support for building the relationship
with India, which is viewed as a possible net security provider in South Asia and the
wider Indian Ocean Region, a potential balance against China, an attractive economic market, and a natural
partner given that it is the worlds largest democracy. Q: Why has Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made
improved U.S.-Indian relations a priority since his landslide election victory last May? A: Prime
Minister Modi has stressed, since before he was elected, that he believes India and the United
States have a fundamental stake in one anothers success. Strong bilateral relations are
beneficial to India in various ways, and Id note several of them here. First, Modi has made revitalizing the Indian economy
the centerpiece of his administration, and that requires boosting investment and manufacturing in India. The United
States is an important partner in this regard. Second, the conventional wisdom is that India does not view security through

Modi, who is more hawkish on China than his

and appears to view strengthening U.S. relations as a critical
component of his foreign policy. Third, and related to the first observations, India views the defense
a realist lens, but that may be changing under
predecessor

relationship with the United States as a way to procure technology that India lacks. Thats necessary both from a defense
perspective, and as a way to build the Indian economy, which helps explain why New Delhi is so insistent that the United
States agrees to technology transfers as part of defense trade agreements.

India perceives strengthened cooperation with China as

abandonment
Madan 15
(Tanvi Madan is a fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy in
the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, and director of The
India Project, The U.S.-India Relationship and China, 1/20/15,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-us-india-relationshipand-china-madan)
Chinaespecially uncertainty about its behavioris partly what is
driving the India-U.S. partnership. Arguably, there have been three imperatives in the U.S. for a more
Each also recognizes that

robust relationship with India and for supporting its rise: strategic interest, especially in the context of the rise of China;

Indian policymakers recognize that American

concerns about the nature of Chinas rise are responsible for some of the
interest in India. New Delhis own China strategy involves strengthening India both security-wise and
economic interest; and shared democratic values.

economically (internal balancing) and building a range of partnerships (external balancing)and it envisions a key role for
the U.S. in both. Some Indian policymakers highlight another benefit of the U.S. relationship: Beijing takes Delhi more

India and the U.S. also have concerns about the

other when it comes to China. Both sides remain uncertain about the others willingness and capacity to
play a role in the Asia-Pacific. Additionally, Indian policymakers worry both about a China-U.S.
condominium (or G-2) and a China-U.S. crisis or conflict. There is concern about the reliability
of the U.S., with the sense that the U.S. will end up choosing China because
of the more interdependent Sino-American economic relationship and/or leave
India in the lurch. Some in the U.S. also have reliability concerns about India. They question whether the
seriously because Washington does. But

quest for strategic autonomy will allow India to develop a truly strategic partnership with the U.S. There are also worries
about the gap between Indian potential and performance. Part of the rationale for supporting Indias rise is to help
demonstrate that democracy and development arent mutually exclusive. Without delivery, however, this rationaleand

neither India nor the U.S. is interested in the

others relationship with China being too hot or too coldthe Goldilocks view. For New
Delhi, a too-cosy Sino-U.S. relationship is seen as freezing India out and
impinging on its interests. It would also eliminate one of Washingtons
rationales for a stronger relationship with India. A China-U.S. crisis or conflict, on the other
Indias importancefades away. As things stand,

hand, is seen as potentially destabilizing the region and forcing India to choose between the two countries. From the U.S.
perspective, any deterioration in Sino-Indian relations might create instability in the region and perhaps force it to choose
sides. Too much Sino-Indian bonhomie, on the other hand, would potentially create complications for the U.S. in the
bilateral, regional and multilateral spheres.

Strong US/Indian relations key to solve climate change

Armitage et al. 10
(Richard Armitage is President of Armitage International. He has served in a
number of senior national security posts in government, most recently as
Deputy Secretary of State, with R. Nicholas Burns and Richard Fontaine.
Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations, October
2010, web)
Indias emergence as a key actor at the Copenhagen summit on climate
change in December 2009 represented a turning point in its global activism. The
Copenhagen talks put new stresses on the bilateral relationship when India sided with the BASIC (i.e., Brazil, South Africa,

direct Indian
engagement in these global negotiations demonstrated that it is essential to
any international solution to this pressing problem. While real differences
exist and will likely continue on the best methods for reducing carbon emissions,
this effort should not be seen as a competition between developed and developing countries.
On the contrary, any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions will require the
active collaboration of the worlds largest energy consumers. India , one of the
two fastest-growing energy markets in the world today, is critical to this
effort.
India, and China) bloc rather than with the United States and its other partners. At the same time,

Climate change causes extinction

Deibel 07

(Terry Deibel is a professor of IR at the National War College, Foreign Affairs

Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs
Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as
well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the
future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the
stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this

what was once a mere possibility has passed

through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than
900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific
journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is
occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert,
it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific
threat for three decades now, and

monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel
predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could
literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria;
glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming
several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase

NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005
was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is
estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million
illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad
in the most destructive hurricanes;

killed broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded
Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it
breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution,
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present
they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As

we are already experiencing the effects of

1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass
die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened
inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a
warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could
disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would
cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of
Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich
Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the
the newspaper stories quoted above show,

winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the
damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming
could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive
feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took
place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse
effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and
humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor
Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn
everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at
the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl

Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the
Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the
post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over

is a threat not
only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It

DipCap DA
The US is pushing for peace talks in the Middle East now
Kerrys making it a priority
Mills 5/19/16
(Curt Mills is a staff writer for the US News and World Report, Kerry to Take
Part in Middle East Peace Talks Opposed by Netanyahu, US News And World
Report, 19 May 2016)
Secretary of State John Kerry announced Thursday that he will attend a meeting on
a French-led peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a plan opposed by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Kerry said in Brussels on Thursday that he informed French Foreign Minister
Jean-Marc Ayrault that the U.S. will participate in the June 3 meeting after some initial doubt about his availability on a
previously sheduled date. The organizers of the meeting also plan a larger international conference on the Middle East this

"I
certainly intend to be helpful and cooperative in a cooperative way that
makes sense with the parties in order to encourage them to come to the
table," Kerry said." I will work with the global community in good faith in an
effort to see if we can find a way to help the parties see their way to come
back and ultimately see their way to a final status agreement that meets the
needs of the parties." The State Department said Thursday the U.S. will be an "active" and
"energetic" participant in the work of the talks. "I can assure you the
secretary is not going to attend the meeting with the expectation that he's
just going to be in the audience," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. "We're not going to
summer amid a growing dissatisfaction that decades of U.S.-led efforts have yielded little in the way of results.

close down any good ideas."

Diplomatic capital is finite each new issue trades off

with another one
Anderson and Grewell 2k
(Terry L., Executive Director of the Property and Environment Research
Center, J. Bishop, former research associate for PERC. He is a graduate of
Stanford University, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,
and Northwestern Law School, The Greening of Foreign Policy, PERC Policy
Series: PS-20, December 2000)
Foreign policy is a bag
of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms trading to
human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening
the focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between
issues. Increased environmental regulations could cause countries to
lessen their focus on international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles
or border conflicts between nations. As countries must 9watch over more and more
issues arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the
resources necessary to deal with traditional international issues . As
Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is
Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension.

critically important that the United States focus its diplomatic

efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation. Traditionally, these
priorities have been opposing hostile domination of key geographic regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources,

Peace talks will succeed US diplomacy is key to Mid-east

peace
Elsner 13
(Alan Elsner is a former Reuters State Department correspondent, former
professor at Princeton, Dartmouth, American and George Washington
University, "Conditions Not Perfect for Israeli-Palestinian Peace -- But May Be
as Good as They'll Get," Huffington Post, 7-17-13)
this is the one issue where the U.S. has the leverage and
ability to actually play a constructive role. The civil war in Syria and unrest in Egypt are
Unlike Egypt and Syria,

both very important -- but it is not clear what the U.S. can or should do and how much influence it can exert. However,

on Israel-Palestine, the U.S. remains the indispensible broker with

enormous influence on both parties and a clear policy -- namely the two-state solution.
Securing Israeli-Palestinian peace would inject some stability into an unstable
region. It would strengthen moderates, bolster the vulnerable government of Jordan, a
key U.S. strategic ally, weaken Iran and its allies and proxies and pave the way
for relations between Israel and the important Gulf States. It would springboard the
Palestinian economy and act as a driver for economic activity throughout the Mid dle
East, eventually boosting Egypt too. Without viable peace talks, the status
quo could quickly fall apart; instability will grow between Israel and the Palestinians,
heightening the threat of violence in the West Bank and a new crisis between
Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Now may not be the perfect time -- but tomorrow is likely to be worse and the next day worse

it is not impossible and

there are some reasons for cautious optimism. Both Israelis and Palestinians
continue to support two states as recent polls have again demonstrated. Kerry's
indirect negotiations have been substantive and have narrowed gaps between
the parties forming a better framework for talks than in some past efforts. And
neither side wants to be blamed for failure. It's easy to find excuses not to make peace but that
still. This may be the best chance we still have. Finally, although it is a tough task,

attitude achieves nothing. Working for peace is harder, no doubt, but the rewards are so great that it would be criminal
not to try.

Middle East instability escalates guarantees WMD use

Russell 09
(James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval
Postgraduate School, 9 (Spring) Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects
for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East IFRI, Proliferation Papers,
#26)
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior
from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability
into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions
about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining
framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of

opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to
pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United

the lack of a communications framework to build trust and

cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive
bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on
purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime
circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict
could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the
use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear
States; (6)

taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework.
Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which

escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such
a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and
decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The
international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an

an unprecedented disaster for

entire world.

outcome, which would be

for the

the peoples of the region, with substantial risk

K
The affirmatives desire for the USFG to step in and save
us from racism is a farce their deference to Congress
and method of pretended fiat precludes analysis of our
own relationship to violence
Kappeler 95
(Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the
notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the
conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is
precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash
a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective
action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective

our habit of focusing on the stage where the major

dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own
sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to
the well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called political disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of
other nations - have come to feel secure in their obvious non-responsibility for such
large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina or Somalia - since the
`assumption' of responsibility. Yet

decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions
of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at
all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own

it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any

relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the
connections between those political decisions and our own personal
decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the
sphere of action. In particular,

apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate
competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the
major powermongers: For we tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to

Which is why many of

those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of
mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I were the general, the
prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to
regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective
ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do
if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of
having what is perceived as `virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems
petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a
be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made.

General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to stop this war', `I want
military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we
do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension:
our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring
innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you
have a yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one

We share in the responsibility for this war and its

violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape `our feelings, our
for refugees, one of our own and one for the `others'.

relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of war
and violence.

Privilege maintains itself through ignorance a failure to

understand our own role in Anti-Chinese racism ensures
that systems of oppression remain internalized
Kray 15
(Kel Kray works out of a LGBTQIA+ youth center in Philly, 1-12-15, Your
internalized dominance is showing: a call-in to white feminists who believe
that #alllivesmatter, http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/yourinternalized-dominance-is-showing/)
For the girls at camp, their race was a source of pride and their experiences with racism a source of fight
built into their every breath. As my mom had taught me about being a girl, their moms had taught them
about being black girls. I began to tremble a bit as it came to my turn. I cant say Im proud to be black
because Im not black. But Im white? What does that mean? Im not proud of thatI dont think? Hi, Im

Part of my white
privilege was not seeing my whiteness. One of the most pervasive tools
of oppression is the insistence that power and privilege do not exist. From birth,
those of us with privileged identities are socialized to internalize dominance.
We come to believe that our privilege, or even superiority, is natural, and that all
Kelly, Im proud Im a girl, and Im proud I have a guinea pig. Well, that was that.

opportunities are granted based on individual merit. I never had a hard time finding a job. Pull yourself up

Internalized dominance is the fuel with which the oppression

monster feeds itself. If men dont acknowledge that they benefit from sexism, gender inequity
by your bootstraps!

remains status quo. And if white people dont acknowledge that they benefit from racism, they are
cosigning onto white supremacy.

Many of us carry internalized dominance in some

form or another as white folks, as cismen, as straight folks, as able-bodied folks, as United States
citizens. And because of the often-subconscious nature of internalized
dominance, our social justice learning curve typically entails unlearning. For
example: For a gay man to stand in solidarity with a lesbian woman with
whom he shares a marginalized sexuality, but carries a dominant gender
he must unlearn his internalized sexism. Otherwise, his male privilege will
inevitably show up despite his efforts to combat homophobia alongside her.
If it so happens he is white (carrying a dominant race), and she is black (a marginalized race), he must also
unlearn his internalized white supremacy. Otherwise, his internalized sexism and racism begin to layer in
how he moves through the world. Make sense? Mainstream feminist and anti-racist organizing emerged in
the 20th century as responses to the systematic denial of male and white supremacy: Hey, wait a sec.
Thanks for the vote and all, but my

oppression isnt coincidental its a product of your

power and privilege. But it gets tangled. As systems of oppression are. To stand firmly in antiracism, white feminists must unlearn internalized white supremacy. The unlearning of white
supremacy isnt exactly encouraged by the existing powers that be.
Unfortunately, its not an integral rite of feminist passage. Dismantling white supremacy isnt a core

Again the
oppression monster feeds itself. This is all natural. Because of this,
internalized white supremacy among feminism carries a long and painful history
that continues to create fierce divisions today. In 1982, a group of black lesbian feminists
element of high school social studies, nor a given in womens studies curricula.

by the name of the Combahee River Collectiveissued a statement that would become a core canon of
black feminist thought and a required text within intersectional feminism. Their statement expressed that
the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the
conditions of our lives. In a lesser-cited excerpt, however, the Collective stated, We realize that the only

people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us. We repeatedly hear the
voices of feminists of color calling out a persistent whitewashed feminism that erases their experiences as
people of color. This is not new. This has been going on for over a century. So where are the white anti-

Because of internalized dominance, being marginalized in one

way doesnt necessarily translate to honoring the marginalized experience of
those who are different from you. More simply: Identifying with feminism doesnt mean that I
racist feminists?

dont perpetuate white supremacy and the same goes for you. Consider this: As a feminist, how many
times have you heard the following? Maybe if women didnt dress like that, they wouldnt get sexually
assaulted. Thats reverse sexism. Youre just a man hater. Its not all about gender, you know. Women are
sexist toward each other, too. Why dont you ever talk about mens issues? Men are victims to violence,
too. I cant be sexist. Im a [marginalized identity]. Youre just dividing people. Why are you so angry?
#NotAllMen I imagine youve heard at least one of those things before, if not all. How did you respond?
How did you feel? As an anti-racist feminist, how many times have you heard the following? Maybe if
people of color didnt commit crimes, they wouldnt get arrested. Thats reverse racism. It sounds like you
just hate white people. Its not all about race, you know. People of color are racist toward each other, too.
Why dont you ever talk about the struggles white people face? White people are arrested, too. I cant be
racist. Im a woman. Youre just dividing feminists. Why are you so angry? #AllLivesMatter Similarly, I
imagine youve heard at least one of those things before, if not all. How did you respond? How did you

One marginalized identity does not immunize us from

internalizing the dominance of another. Without unlearning internalized dominance, white
feel? See what happened there?

feminists can silence the experiences of people of color just as men can silence the experiences of women.
Shifting Toward a Self-Aware Accountability Many anti-racist feminists rightfully mistrust an anti-racism that
is outward looking the type that believes that as a white feminist, I should learn about the experiences of
people of color in order to help them. I should promote diversity and inclusion. Instead, as a white feminist,

I need to first study my white privilege, unlearn my internalized white

supremacy, and emotionally connect to the ways in which I perpetuate
oppression. In sum: I had those eight free years of color-ignorance, but its time I learned about my
whiteness. When I commit to self-awareness, its not very hard to identify the ways in which my whiteness
shows up in the world. For example, I can emotionally connect to many times when men have spoken over
me. Examining my whiteness, I can also map that emotional experience onto times when I have spoken
over people of color. I can emotionally connect to reading disparaging statistics about communities I
belong to and wishing our strengths were publicized instead. Examining my whiteness, I can also map that
emotional experience onto a time when I read disparaging statistics about a community of color and
attributed those statistics to the community itself. I can emotionally connect to being called angry and
polarizing for speaking up around gender and cissexism. Examining my whiteness, I can also map that
emotional experience onto a time where I felt a person of color was being oppositional around race and
racism. I dont feel proud of my whiteness, no. But I have to acknowledge my oppression and my capacity
to oppress if I want to inhabit a feminism that truly dismantles not just my oppression, but also the whole
thorny system of oppression. What this means is that my accountability to anti-racism as a white person is
as integral to my feminism as gender itself is. Sometimes more so given the work of unlearning I must
continue to do. Moving Forward Mindfully If you have come here to help me, you are wasting our time. But
if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. Aboriginal

Only when we unlearn our internalized power and

privilege do we emotionally connect to the shape-shifting web of oppression
and find our unique role in dismantling it. For white feminists, we are well overdue to place
activist group, Queensland, 1970s

a collective emphasis on noticing andlearning about our whiteness as it relates to our desire to be antiracist. This isnt just a call to learn about the unique struggles encountered by women of color in a white
supremacist society, but to really study your whiteness. This is the only way to genuinely address white
privilege in a way that lends itself to a humble and focused anti-racism. Study your words, your thoughts,
your feels. Find what is yours and what you have been taught. Examine the things that you feel entitled to,
or situations in which you do not experience barriers. And when you find your privilege is checked, or
witness another responding to their privilege being checked, notice the response. Specifically, have an
honest conversation with your heart and witness whether you experience the silencing tools of oppression
not only the ones that erase the lives of women, but also the lives of people of color.

Thus, we affirm a process of intralocality. Only selfreflective action, centered around ones unique
positionality and privileges, can ever challenge
intersectional oppression
Moore 11
(Darnell L., writer and activist whose work is informed by anti-racist, feminist,
queer of color, and anti-colonial thought and advocacy. Darnell's essays,
social commentary, poetry, and interviews have appeared in various national
and international media venues, including the Feminist Wire, Ebony
magazine, and The Huffington Post, "On Location: The I in the Intersection,"
http://thefeministwire.com/2011/12/on-location-the-i-in-the-intersection/)
The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that

we are actively

committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression and see as our
particular ask the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the
fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these
oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As black women we see black feminism as the logical
political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.
-The Combahee River Collective in A Black Feminist Statement Many radical movement builders are wellversed in the theory of intersectionality. Feminists, queer theorists and activists, critical race scholars,
progressive activists, and the like owe much to our Black feminist sisters, like The Combahee River
Collective, who introduced us to the reality of simultaneityas a framework for assessing the multitude of
interlocking oppressions that impact the lives of women of colorin A Black Feminist Statement (1978).
Their voices and politics presaged Kimberl Crenshaws very useful theoretical contribution of
intersectionality to the feminist toolkit of political interventions in 1989. Since its inception,
many have referenced the termsometimes without attribution to the black feminist intellectual
genealogy from which it emergedas a form of en vogue progressive parlance. In fact, it seems to be the

it is often referenced in progressive circles as a counterfeit license

to
enter resistance work even if the person who declares to have a deep
understanding of the connectedness of systemic matrices of oppression,
themselves, have yet to discern and address their own complicity in the
maintenance of the very oppressions they seek to name and demolish.
case that

(as in, I understand the ways that race, sexuality, class, and gender coalesce. I get it. I really do.)

I am certain that I am not the only person who has heard a person use language embedded with race,

My concern, then,
has everything to do with the way that the fashioning of intersectionality as a
political framework can lead toward the good work of analyzing ideological
and material systems of oppressionas they function out thereand
away from the great work of critical analyses of the ways in which we, ourselves, can
function as actants in the narratives of counter-resistance that we
rehearse. In other words, we might be missing the opportunity to read our
complicities, our privileges, our accesses, our excesses, our excuses,
our modes of oppressinglocated in hereas they occupy each of
us. Crenshaws theorization has provided us with a useful lens to assess the problematics of the
class, gender, or ability privilege follow-up with a reference to intersectionality.

interrelated, interlocking apparatuses of power and privilege and their resulting epiphenomena of

Many have focused on the external dimensions of

oppression and their material results manifested in the lives of the
marginalized, but might our times be asking of us to deeply consider our
own stuff that might instigate such oppressions ? What if we
powerlessness and subjugation.

extended Crenshaws theory of intersectionality by invoking what we might name

intralocality? Borrowing from sociologists, the term social location, which broadly
speaks to ones context, highlights ones standpoint(s)the social
spaces where s/he is positioned (i.e. race, class, gender, geographical, etc.).
Intralocality, then, is concerned with the social locations that
foreground our knowing and experiencing of our world and our
relationships to the systems and people within our world.
Intralocality is a call to theorize the self in relation to power and
privilege, powerlessness and subjugation. It is work that requires the
locating of the I in the intersection. And while it could be argued that
such work is highly individualistic, I contend that it is at the very level of
self-in-relation-to-community where communal transformation is
made possible. Might it be time to travel into the deep of our contexts?
Might it be time for ustheorists/activiststo do the work of intersectionality
(macro/system-analysis) in concert with the intra-local (micro/self-focused
analysis)? Intersectionality as an analysis, rightly, asks of us to examine systemic oppressions, but in
these times of radical and spontaneous insurgencies times when we
should reflect on our need to unoccupy those sites of privilege (where they
exist) in our own lives even as we occupy some other sites of domination
work must be done at the level of the self-in-community. We cannot
as a progressive communityrally around notions of progression and, yet, be complicit
in the very homo/transphobias, racisms, sexisms, ableisms, etc. that violently
terrorize the lives of so many others. If a more loving and just
community is to be imagined and advanced, it seems to me that we would
need to start at a different location than we mightve expected: self.

PIK
We endorse the entirety of the 1AC minus the use of the
term American soil in the plan text.
Using the term America when referring to the United
States of America creates cultural assimilation and
perpetuates colonial and hegemonic thought
Velazquez 07
(Edyael Velazquez is an M.A. in Latin American Studies, Influence of
Trajectory and Agency on Strategies of Incorporation and Identity of
Immigrant Youth: A Case Study of New Life High School, pg. 12-13, 2007)
A component of the hegemonic attitude at the foundation of the United
States is establishing the national identity as American. America is a
continent (or three to some) not a country. The United States is not America,
but one of the countries on the American continent. Therefore, referring to the
United States as America and its citizens as American is a strategy of
hegemony. Because I wish to deconstruct the hegemonic practice of referring to
the United States as America and its citizens as American , I refer to U.S. citizens as
UnitedStatesian. Re-defining who is considered immigrant also challenges how someone is considered immigrant.
Research conducted on the so-called second generation, referencing the children of immigrants, (Portes, 1993, Portes et.
al, 1994, 1996, 2001; Rumbaut, 1999; Zhou, 1997) indicates that immigrants are defined by generational position.
Therefore, anybody who is a descendant of someone who immigrated at any point is an immigrant of X generation.
However, the hegemonic establishment of United Statesian identity as a native identity instead of an immigrant identity,
places the descendants of European immigrants outside of immigrant identity and immigration discourse. And it also
introduces my third objective: to challenge and re-frame the discourse on immigration. I challenge immigration discourse
by considering UnitedStatesian an immigrant identity constructed by European immigrants. By placing UnitedStatesian
inside the immigration discourse, I re-frame the U.S.-centric, assimilationist understanding of immigrant incorporation and
identity to an understanding centered on the experience of the immigrant.2 Thus, instead of asking how UnitedSatesian
are you? and using assimilation into UnitedStatesian identity to measure the identity and successful incorporation of
immigrants, I explore diverse identities and strategies of incorporation that immigrants negotiate influenced by their
particular experience. The objectives I have outlined shape the arguments I present in this thesis and how I construct

The current frame of immigrant incorporation discourse centers

American as the native identity to which all immigrants aspire to assimilate
to. The idea of the American dream is the hallmark of a successful
American life that can only be attained by being American and living in
America. I have present two criticisms: 1) America does not equate the United
States, and 2) American does not equate success . First, America is not a
country, but a continent (or three South, Central, and North). The fact that citizens of the
United States of America are recognized as American demonstrates the
colonialist, hegemonic mentality that created this country and continues to
shape its relations with other nations and peoples . Secondly, another symptom of this
them. 2

hegemonic mentality is equating being American with being successful. In immigrant incorporation
research, American is placed as the native identity immigrants assimilate to . The
ultimate goal for the immigrant is to become American and stop being immigrant in order to receive all the

researchers often understand the success of

immigrants by measuring their level of Americaness. This understanding of
glory of being American. For example,

immigrant incorporation establishes other immigrant identities as

unsuccessful and undesired.

And it turns the case US as America" discourse

demonstrates a perspective that hurts a holistic
understanding of racism and imperialism
Bauer 10
[Ralph Bauer, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at
the University of Maryland, American Literary History Volume 22, Number 2,
Summer 2010 Early American Literature and American Literary History at
the Hemispheric Turn
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_literary_history/v022/22.2.bauer.html#
back]
By contrast, much of the recent hemispheric studies of nineteenth- and twentieth-century American
literature has originated from within (US) American studies, particularly the "new" or "transnational"
American studies of the 1990s and 2000s.9 Methodologically, much of this recent hemispheric scholarship
has been informed by an Anglo-American postcolonialist and US [End Page 252] American
multiculturalist/minority discourse studies paradigm, particularly in the critique of US empire and racism,
investigating the connections between US domestic racial politics, ethnic nationalisms, and US imperialism
in the hemisphere during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.10 Thus, despite the frequent critique of

the traditionally narrow conception of "America" in American studies as

denoting the US (rather than the hemisphere) and despite the emphatically transnational
framework embraced by these works, the US nation-state (or empire) has often remained at the
center of critical analysis in the recent "hemispheric turn" of American
studies. To be sure, some of the most innovative and pathbreaking recent scholarship in hemispheric
American studies has been done precisely in the attempt to reconceptualize subdisciplines of US American
literary scholarship by placing their particular archives in a hemispheric context and by bringing them into
conversation with archives and critical traditions written in languages other than English and in places
outside the US.11 However, while the US multiculturalist approach, with its interest in ethnic or racial
categories as they have emerged in the modern US, has made for a powerful paradigm in recent attempts
in nineteenth- and twentieth-century American studies to cross national borders, the nation-state never
made much historical sense for the study of early American literatures, whether they be written in English,
Spanish, French, or Portuguese (except insofar as they have been considered as part of the national

Until the early nineteenth century, "America" did indeed denote

the hemisphere, not one particular nation-state. From this point of view, early American
studies has been "transnational" (or prenational) by the very nature of its archive. One of the ways
in which hemispheric scholarship on the colonial period might inform
hemispheric scholarship on later periods, then, is to dislodge further the US as a central
or normative paradigm for transnational historical development and to
practice what Roland Greene has called a "polycentric historicism" (27) a historicism that
resists unilinear national (or ethnic) teleologies of literary history and that is
respectful to the historical context and the critical traditions of multiple
places and parallel literary histories. Let me illustrate this point by briefly considering how
literatures of Europe).

the "hemispheric turn" has been reflected in two recent literary anthologies.

Case

Racism
Not going to touch it anti-Chinese racism is certainly
awful and we should try to prevent it. The problem here is
that the aff has no chance of solving racism C/A our
solvency answers. Make them explain to you how an
ambassador in Chicago is going to prevent Missourians
from thinking Everything in China is cheap, or else they
will never get solvency

Business
First, U.S.-China trade ties are massive and expanding
cultural gaffes may be embarrassing, but empirically they
are not hurting trade relations
Morrison 15
(Wayne M. Morrison is a specialist in Asian Trade and Finance, China-U.S.
Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, 15 December 2015, web)
U.S.-China economic ties have expanded substantially over the past three
decades. Total U.S.-China trade rose from $2 billion in 1979 to $591 billion in
2014. China is currently the United States second-largest trading partner, its
third largest export market, and its biggest source of imports. In addition, according to
one estimate, sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms in China totaled $364 billion
in 2013. Many U.S. firms view participation in Chinas market as critical to
staying globally competitive. General Motors (GM) for example, which has invested heavily in China, sold
more cars in China than the United States each year from 2010 to 2014. In addition, U.S. imports of low-cost
goods from China greatly benefit U.S. consumers , and U.S. firms that use
China as the final point of assembly for their products , or use Chinese-made inputs for
production in the United States, are able to lower costs . China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury
securities ($1.26 trillion as of September 201). Chinas purchases of U.S. government debt help keep interest rates low.

They link turn themselves with their Scott ev Scott

specifically say the extraordinary growth of trade
between China and the United States has had a dramatic
effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy, though
in neither case has this effect been beneficial. The United
States is piling up foreign debt and losing export capacity,
and the growing trade deficit with China has been a prime
contributor to the crisis in U.S. manufacturing
employment and then outlines economic decline as a
result
Economic decline doesnt cause war empirics
Barnett 09
(Thomas Barnett is the senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC,
contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire, The New Rules: Security
Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, Aprodex, Asset Protection Index,
8/25/09, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stableamid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was
ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict
and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war , as it were. Now,
as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging

it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize
how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact
whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen
ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the
global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and
Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the
markets -- is the talk of the day,

chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia

Russia-Georgia
conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening
ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by
the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long
struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various
databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts,
insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements . Besides the recent RussiaGeorgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v.
Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied
down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our
involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and
following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America,
(where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the

the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast).

Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn,

occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa
Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces.

Solvency
China says no no motivation to cooperate with the U.S.
plan makes them pay for diplomats and get nothing in
return
Gallage 13
(Moira Gallage, Do We Still Need Embassies? The Diplomat, 4 September
2013, web)
the global recession is that it has compelled a number of countries
to scale back their diplomatic representation overseas by closing some of
their embassies. Faced with the economic and financial realities during economic
downturns, governments often have little choice but to cut back on the spending that is
involved in maintaining and operating embassies overseas. For developing countries,
especially those facing issues such as poverty, serious income inequality , battered
economies and poor quality of life for average citizens, it can be quite difficult
to justify the allocation of limited government funds to maintaining an
embassy. It doesn't help that there is a mistaken public perception of the way in which diplomacy is conducted: that
One of the impacts of

it is all about cocktails and receptions. It makes it very easy for grandstanding politicians to target diplomats and their
perceived "lifestyles" overseas in order to make budget cuts.

The plan doesnt increase the amount of Chines

embassies in the U.S., just the number of diplomats that
limits the effects of the cultural exchange to 6 cities
PRC Embassy no date
(Embassy and Consulates General of the People's Republic of China, The
Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United States, no date,
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zmzlljs/t84229.htm)
The people's Republic of China currently maintains one Embassy in
Washington D.C., but also maintains 5 consulates-general in the following
U.S. cities: New York, NY; Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Los Angeles, CA;
Houston, TX.

They have literally zero solvency for diplomats Institute

for Cultural Diplomacy describes cultural diplomacy
through informal ambassadors like the American jazz
ambassadors, Mendoza-Denton describes the merits of
prejudice and conflict seminars, and Ganster is about the
need to meet business, not political, contacts. Unless they
can provide you specific evidence on 1. Why diplomats are
k2 cultural understanding and 2. Why our current
diplomats arent sufficient to solve their impacts then you
reject their solvency
Globalization has made embassies irrelevant to diplomacy
and U.S.-China relations
Gallage 13
(Moira Gallage, Do We Still Need Embassies? The Diplomat, 4 September
2013, web)
Not surprisingly, then, there has been discussion or debate as to whether embassies and resident diplomats are still

Globalization and rapid advances in information and

telecommunications technology have connected billions of people. The
conduct of diplomacy cannot be immune to this. It must change or at least adapt, so that it is
needed or relevant in the 21st century.

more responsive and effective in this modern environment. Former British diplomat Carne Ross strongly emphasizes this

others would go further, and

argue that embassies no longer have a role in the conduct of diplomacy and
point, noting that conventional embassies are ill-suited for today's challenges. Yet

foreign policy. Proponents of this view would cite the benefits of modern telecommunications and information systems and

Instead of spending millions to keep ambassadors , security teams, and

other support staff resident in a foreign country, presidents and prime
ministers can now conveniently communicate directly on matters of urgency and
importance. Cellular phones, e-mails and video-conferencing technology
enables world leaders, government officials and bureaucrats to communicate
and coordinate directly with one another. If person-to-person contact is a
must, air travel allows an official to be anywhere in the world in less than a
day. Some countries designate special envoys to take advantage of this. The use of special envoys to
cover specific countries and/or issues is certainly more cost-effective than maintaining a
fully staffed embassy. And of course the internet makes it easy to gather
information and monitor events and developments overseas . A network of
local contacts can likewise be established to serve as sources on the ground to help
gather and evaluate data, information and news, which can then be made
available electronically.
networks.

No solvency advocate is a voting issue

1. Ground the neg cant indict their solvency evidence
because there is none specific to the aff. Plus if no
one has written about why the plan is good, no one
writes why its bad the neg loses access to lit
2. Limits they could create any plan with generic
China coop good evidence the neg has no way to
prepare
3. Education no solvency advocate means they rely on
generic solvency kills in-depth clash and
argumentation
4. Ethics no advocate means they rely on out-ofcontext generic solvency that allows them to distort
evidence in ways the authors didnt intend
misrepresenting evidence has no place in academia