You are on page 1of 34

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 1

Shunning Disadvantage
Explanations
Debating the Shunning Disadvantage ......................................................................................................................................2

Negative 1NC
1NC Shunning DA ................................................................................................................................................................4 1NC Cuba Link .....................................................................................................................................................................7 1NC Mexico Link .................................................................................................................................................................8 1NC Venezuela Link ............................................................................................................................................................9

2NC/1NR Extensions
They Say: Cubas Record Not Extreme .............................................................................................................................. 10 They Say: Mexicos Record Not Extreme .......................................................................................................................... 11 They Say: Venezuelas Record Not Extreme ..................................................................................................................... 13 They Say: Human Rights Watch Bad ................................................................................................................................. 15 They Say: Case Outweighs ................................................................................................................................................ 16 They Say: Weigh Consequences ........................................................................................................................................ 18 They Say: Shunning Immoral ............................................................................................................................................. 19 They Say: No Morality Decision Rule ................................................................................................................................ 20

Affirmative 2AC Frontline Materials


2AC Cuba .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 2AC Mexico ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2AC Venezuela ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 2AC Case Outweighs ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 2AC Weigh Consequences ............................................................................................................................................... 25 2AC Shunning Immoral .................................................................................................................................................... 26 2AC No Morality Decision Rule ........................................................................................................................................ 27

1AR Extensions
Extend: Cubas Record Not Flagrant ................................................................................................................................. 28 Extend: Mexicos Record Not Flagrant .............................................................................................................................. 29 Extend: Venezuelas Record Not Flagrant ......................................................................................................................... 30 They Cite: Human Rights Watch ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Extend: Weigh Consequences ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Extend: Shunning Immoral ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Extend: No Morality D-Rule .............................................................................................................................................. 34

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 2

Debating the Shunning Disadvantage (1/2)


Description:
Shunning is a moral argument about the proper response to individuals and governments that violate the moral order. The negative argues that because a particular nation (in this case, Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela) is a flagrant, willful, and persistent violator of human rights, the United States has a moral obligation to shun. Shunning is a refusal to engage it expresses moral outrage, supports the moral order, and exerts moral suasion. The goal is not to change the targeted nations behavior (although that would be nice); it is to take a moral position and avoid complicity with evil. The Shunning DA is different from most disadvantages because it posits a different moral framework for judging policy proposals. Instead of evaluating the consequences of a proposed policy, the negative argues that the proposed action itself should be rejected as inconsistent with the moral order. For this reason, uniqueness is irrelevant to the negative's conception of morality: the fact that the moral order is sometimes ignored does not mean that disregarding the moral order is justified.

Affirmative Answers:
The affirmative can raise threads in two basic categories to respond to the Shunning DA: First, the affirmative can argue that an evaluation of consequences is the best way to determine the merits of a proposed policy. If the benefits of the policy outweigh its costs, the policy should be enacted the case outweighs the disadvantage. This category of responses also includes arguments about the relationship between morality and national policymaking as well as arguments questioning the effectiveness of shunning as a human rights strategy. Second, the affirmative can argue that the nation with which they propose engagement is not a flagrant, willful, and persistent violator of human rights. For each country, there is a robust debate about their human rights record; both the facts and interpretations of the facts are debatable. Affirmatives can argue that the negative's criticism of these nations' human rights records is biased and based on a particular Western conception of rights that can't be universally applied.

Key Terms:
Consequentialism Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories that assesses the morality of an action based on the action's consequences, not the action itself or the intentions that motivated it. In debates, the negative will argue that consequentialism is an undesirable ethical framework because engagement with human rights abusers is always immoral. In response, the affirmative will defend consequentialism as a superior framework for assessing the merits of proposed policies. Deontology Deontology is a class of ethical theories that assesses the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to one ore more rules, not based on the consequences of the action. In debates, the negative will defend a deontological view of ethics by arguing that human rights abusers should always be shunned. In response, the affirmative will argue that deontology is an undesirable moral framework because it fails to consider the consequences of strictly following the rules it establishes. Human Rights Human rights are the inalienable rights to which every person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being. While there is substantial disagreement about the particulars, there is a great deal of consensus about the basic set of rights that should be universally recognized. Documents like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights codify human rights in international law. In debates, the negative will argue that human rights are so important that those who violate them must be shunned.

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 3

Debating the Shunning Disadvantage (2/2)


Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch (or HRW) is an international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocates for human rights. Headquartered in New York, Human Rights Watch regularly produces reports that assess the human rights records of nations across the world. In debates, the negative will appeal to evidence from Human Rights Watch criticizing the human rights policies of particular countries. The affirmative can respond by challenging the credibility of Human Rights Watch's reporting (both in the particular and universally). Moral Order In this context, the moral order is the set of social norms and conventions which serve to maintain social order. Specifically, the moral order establishes norms for human rights that provide a shared foundation of respect for human dignity. In debates, the negative will argue that flagrant, willful, and persistent violators of human rights have thumbed their noses at the moral order and must therefore be shunned to avoid disintegrating the moral order itself. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a specific consequentialist ethical theory that holds that the best course of action is the one that maximizes utility, or the maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering. Put simply, it posits that an action is moral if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In debates, the affirmative can argue that the plan is the most ethical option because it maximizes utility. In other words, "the case outweighs".

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 4

1NC Shunning DA (1/3)


[Insert Specific Link] Second, reject engagement with human rights abusers moral duty to shun. Beversluis 89 Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in
Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 (On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 17-19) A fundamental task of morality is resolving conflicting interests. If we both want the same piece of land, ethics provides a basis for resolving the conflict by identifying "mine" and "thine." If in anger I want to smash your [end page 17] face, ethics indicates that your face's being unsmashed is a legitimate interest of yours which takes precedence over my own interest in expressing my rage. Thus ethics identifies the rights of individuals when their interests conflict. But how can a case for shunning be made on this view of morality? Whose interests (rights) does shunning protect? The shunner may well have to sacrifice his interest, e.g., by foregoing a beneficial trade relationship, but whose rights are thereby protected? In shunning there seem to be no "rights" that are protected. For shunning, as we have seen, does not assume that the resulting cost will change the disapproved behavior. If economic sanctions against South Africa will not bring apartheid to an end, and thus will not help the blacks get their rights, on what grounds might it be a duty to impose such sanctions? We find the answer when we note that there is another "level" of moral duties. When Galtung speaks of "reinforcing morality," he has identified a duty that goes beyond specific acts of respecting people's rights. The argument goes like this: There is more involved in respecting the rights of others than not violating them by one's actions. For if there is such a thing as a moral order, which unites people in a moral community, then surely one has a duty (at least prima facie) not only to avoid violating the rights of others with one's actions but also to support that moral order . Consider that the moral order itself contributes significantly to people's rights being respected. It does so by encouraging and reinforcing moral behavior and by discouraging and sanctioning immoral behavior. In this moral community people mutually reinforce each other's moral behavior and thus raise the overall level of morality. Were this moral order to disintegrate, were people to stop reinforcing each other's moral behavior, there would be much more violation of people's rights . Thus to the extent that behavior affects the moral order, it indirectly affects people's rights. And this is where shunning fits in. Certain types of behavior constitute a direct attack on the moral order . When the violation of human rights is flagrant , willful , and persistent , the offender is, as it were, thumbing her nose at the moral order, publicly rejecting it as binding her behavior. Clearly such behavior, if tolerated by society, will weaken and perhaps eventually undermine altogether the moral order. Let us look briefly at those three conditions which turn immoral behavior into an attack on the moral order. An immoral action is flagrant if it is "extremely or deliberately conspicuous; notorious, shocking." Etymologically the word means "burning" or "blazing." The definition of shunning implies therefore that those offenses require shunning which are shameless or indiscreet, which the person makes no effort to hide and no good-faith effort to excuse. Such actions "blaze forth" as an attack on the moral order. But to merit shunning the action must also be willful and persistent. We do not consider the actions of the "backslider," the [end page 18] weak-willed, the one-time offender to be challenges to the moral order. It is the repeat offender, the unrepentant sinner, the cold-blooded violator of morality whose behavior demands that others publicly reaffirm the moral order. [Continues No Text Removed]

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 5

1NC Shunning DA (2/3)


[Continues No Text Removed] When someone flagrantly , willfully , and repeatedly violates the moral order, those who believe in the moral order, the members of the moral community, must respond in a way that reaffirms the legitimacy of that moral order . How does shunning do this? First, by refusing publicly to have to do with such a person one announces support for the moral order and backs up the announcement with action . This action reinforces the commitment to the moral order both of the shunner and of the other members of the community. (Secretary of State Shultz in effect made this argument in his call for international sanctions on Libya in the early days of 1986.) Further, shunning may have a moral effect on the shunned person, even if the direct impact is not adequate to change the immoral behavior. If the shunned person thinks of herself as part of the moral community, shunning may well make clear to her that she is, in fact, removing herself from that community by the behavior in question. Thus shunning may achieve by moral suasion what cannot be achieved by "force." Finally, shunning may be a form of punishment, of moral sanction , whose appropriateness depends not on whether it will change the person's behavior, but on whether he deserves the punishment for violating the moral order. Punishment then can be viewed as a way of maintaining the moral order , of "purifying the community" after it has been made "unclean," as ancient communities might have put it. Yet not every immoral action requires that we shun. As noted above, we live in a fallen world. None of us is perfect. If the argument implied that we may have nothing to do with anyone who is immoral, it would consist of a reductio of the very notion of shunning. To isolate a person, to shun him, to give him the "silent treatment," is a serious thing. Nothing strikes at a person's wellbeing as person more directly than such ostracism. Furthermore, not every immoral act is an attack on the moral order. Actions which are repented and actions which are done out of weakness of will clearly violate but do not attack the moral order. Thus because of the serious nature of shunning, it is defined as a response not just to any violation of the moral order, but to attacks on the moral order itself through flagrant, willful, and persistent wrongdoing. We can also now see why failure to shun can under certain circumstances suggest complicity. But it is not that we have a duty to shun because failure to do so suggests complicity. Rather, because we have an obligation to shun in certain circumstances, when we fail to do so others may interpret our failure as tacit complicity in the willful , persistent , and flagrant immorality .

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 6

1NC Shunning DA (3/3)


Finally, any compromise sanctions evil reject every instance regardless of consequences. Gordon and Gordon 95 Haim Gordon, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education at Ben-Gurion University
of the Negev, and Rivca Gordon, general director of the Foundation for Democratic Education in Israel and chairperson of the Gaza Team for Human Rights, 1995 (Introduction, Sartre and Evil: Guidelines for a Struggle, Published by Greenwood Press, ISBN 031327861X, p. xvi-xviii) Put differently, this book is also about us, a man and a woman who, often with others, have for years been struggling for freedom, for dialogue, for justice, for human rights in Israel and in the Middle East, and about what we have learned from Sartre that has helped us to conduct this daily struggle. Yet it should also be clear: We are not standard dogooders. When we use the word "struggle," we mean fighting , attacking , pointing at evildoers, demanding that they be prosecuted . We mean accepting the profound loneliness that often characterizes such struggles. We mean living with the stupid decisions and the mistakes that we have often made, and, we hope, learning from them. We mean knowing that we too have done Evil. [end page xvi] Like Sartre we do not need to be identified with a party or an organization or a large group when we attack an evildoer, although we are, at times, happy when such occurs. For instance, when human rights are blatantly abused in the Gaza Strip, or when violence against women is ignored by the Israeli police, we are unwilling to compromise such a destruction of human freedom with the goals of a party or an organization so that the organization or party can attain its political ends from this Evil. Learning from Sartre, we condemn the Evil and the oppression and exploitation as loudly and clearly as possible . And like Sartre, our condemnations often fall on deaf ears. Again and again we have failed, as this book will often indicate. The Israeli military administration in Gaza, the Israeli press, Israeli politicians, other intellectuals and academics, and even other human rights organizations have often made us feel frustrated, impotent, stuck, irrelevant. But we continue. It is in this kind of struggle, we believe, that one can learn much from Sartre's writings. Hence, in what follows, while we shall discuss in detail and in depth quite a few philosophical themes central to Sartre's writings, we shall always attempt to suggest how these themes can help in the day-to-day struggle against Evil. To do so, we often add to our discussion of Sartre's insights on Evil an instance from our personal experiences or from events in the world that these insights have helped to clarify. We firmly believe that Sartre would have preferred such a book to a strict scholarly study of his relationship to Evil. He repeatedly pointed out that he was deeply concerned with the relevance of his writings to day-to-day praxis, to day-today struggles, to the situation in which persons find themselves. He wanted his writings to make a concrete difference in the world, not only to be a topic of analysis and discussion among scholars and philosophers. We also believe that Sartre would have liked a book that at times reeks of the blood, sweat, and tears -- and yes, the rage, the passion, the debilitating loneliness, and the ongoing fight against impotence -- that characterize any worthy struggle for freedom today. In the first section of this book we deal with the problem of intuitively responding to Evil. Our experience has taught us that too many people have learned to pass by or to ignore the Evil that confronts them here and now. They purposely refrain from perceiving a specific and concrete instance of Evil. Hence they never need to fight it. Of course, they thus support the evildoer and the evil regime , but that only partially concerned us in this section. Different questions seemed more crucial: What characterizes [end page xvii] the consciousness and the freedom of a person who does respond intuitively to Evil, and who tries to fight it? What attitudes interfere with such an intuitive response? We sought significant answers to these questions in Sartre's literature and drama.

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 7

1NC Cuba Link (1/1)


First, Cuba is a flagrant, willful, and persistent violator of human rights repression is worsening. Miami Herald 13 Miami Herald, 2013 (Human rights under abuse in Cuba, Editorial, April 22nd, Available Online
at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/22/3358813/human-rights-under-abuse-in-cuba.html#storylink=cpy, Accessed 07-03-2013) The State Departments latest report on human-rights practices effectively puts the lie to the idea that the piecemeal and illusory changes in Cuba under Gen. Ral Castro represent a genuine political opening toward greater freedom. If anything, things are getting worse . The report, which covers 2012, says the independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and Reconciliation counted 6,602 short-term detentions during the year, compared with 4,123 in 2011. In March 2012, the same commission recorded a 30-year record high of 1,158 short-term detentions in a single month just before the visit of Pope Benedict XVI. Among the many abuses cited by the 2012 report are the prison sentences handed out to members of the Unin Patriotica de Cuba, the estimated 3,000 citizens held under the charge of potential dangerousness , stateorchestrated assaults against the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White), the suspicious death of dissident Oswaldo Pay and so on. As in any dictatorship, telling the truth is a crime : Independent journalist Calixto Ramn Martnez Arias, the first to report on the cholera outbreak in Cuba, was jailed in September for the crime of desacato (insulting speech) and remained there until last week. The regime is willing to undertake some meek economic reforms to keep people employed. It has even dared to relax its travel requirements to allow more Cubans to leave the country if they can get a passport. Both of these are short-term survival measures , designed as escape valves for growing internal pressure. But when it comes to free speech , political activity and freedom of association the building blocks of a free society the report is a depressing chronicle of human-rights abuses and a valuable reminder that repression is the Castro regimes only response to those who demand a genuinely free Cuba. Fundamental reform? Not a chance .

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 8

1NC Mexico Link (1/1)


First, Mexico is a flagrant, willful, and persistent violator of human rights abuses are widespread. Pachico 13 Elyssa Pachico, Analyst at InSight Crimea think tank about organized crime in the Americas, 2013
(Amnesty International Critiques Human Rights Abuses of Mexico Drug War, InSight Crime, May 23rd, Available Online at In its annual report, Amnesty International criticized Mexico for human rights abuses committed during President Calderon's militarized response to organized crime, a war which left more than 60,000 people dead and some 150,000 displaced . The report noted that while organized criminal groups are responsible for the majority of killings seen during Calderon's six-year term, they often acted in collusion with public officials . An ongoing problem is abuses committed by the security forces, especially when carrying out anti-crime operations, the report stated. While Mexico's National Humans Rights Commission registered 1,921 complaints against the military and 802 complaints against the Federal Police, only eight members of the military were convicted in military courts in 2012. There is no available information on the number of police prosecuted and/or convicted for human rights crimes, the report added. Arbitrary detention under the so-called "arraigo" law -- which allows authorities to holds suspects for up to 80 days without charge -- is routinely used by prosecutors at both the state and federal level, and represents a serious abuse of human rights, the report said. Torture is also regularly used to obtain confessions from suspects, with the National Human Rights Commission registering 1,662 complaints last year alone. The report also criticized Mexico for the security forces' excessive use of force and extra-judicial killings in confrontations with criminal groups and for collusion between public officials and criminals in abusing migrants . InSight Crime Analysis Amnesty International's assessment makes a strong case that Mexico is sorely lacking in its commitment to human rights . It also stated that the US could arguably have done more to push Mexico in the right direction. As noted by Amnesty, in 2011 the US State Department released some $36 million in specific aid to Mexico, even though Mexico was not meant to receive these funds without meeting several human rights criteria. Amnesty International is not the only international human rights watchdog to level critiques against Mexico's flawed justice system. Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch openly called for the arraigo law to be abolished, a move which, as InSight Crime has argued, would make sense both in terms of protecting human rights and fighting organized crime more effectively.

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 9

1NC Venezuela Link (1/1)


First, Venezuela is a flagrant, willful, and persistent violator of human rights abuses are rampant. Halvorssen 12 Thor Halvorssen, Venezuelan Human Rights Advocate, President of the Human Rights Foundation
an organization devoted to protecting liberty in the Americas, Columnist for the Huffington Post, holds graduate degrees in Political Science and History from the University of Pennsylvania, 2012 (A Tyrannical Victory at the Human Rights Council?, The Global Journal, November 13th, Available Online at http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/895/, Accessed 07-22-2013) The Venezuelan government has continually engaged in human rights violations . Arrests, incarceration, and criminal prosecution of individuals who express opinions opposing the state are rampant . Press freedom is under assault , and the regime holds a communications hegemony. Legislation by the state has criminalized legitimate criticism of public officials, disregarding the principles of accountability , transparency and honest government . What's more, the Venezuelan government has consistently ignored various international recommendations from UN member states. For instance, recommendations from Norway, Switzerland, the UK and Czech Republic to improve Venezuela's hellish prison conditions have been denied. Venezuela has failed to uphold international obligations on freedom of speech, and has yet to respect a single decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has determined in numerous cases that Venezuela's political prisoners should be freed. Equally problematic is Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's repeated endorsements of some of the world's top human rights violators : Vladimir Putin of Russia, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Bashar alAssad of Syria, Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The Venezuelan strongman has described these men as his brothers. It is doubtful that Venezuela can objectively address the human rights violations of leaders considered allies, and friends and from whom Chavez purchases billions of dollars in arms or shares totalitarian best practices. Things will only become worse with Venezuela, a country with neither rule of law nor freedom of speech , and with a track record of ignoring the international decisions of the Council.

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 10

They Say: Cubas Record Not Extreme (1/1)


Abuses are pervasive Cuba represses all political dissent. HRW 13 Human Rights Watch, 2013 (Universal Periodic Review: HRW Submission on Cuba, 16th Universal Periodic
Review, May, Available Online at http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/18/universal-periodic-review-hrw-submissioncuba, Accessed 07-03-2013) Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent . In 2012 the government of Ral Castro continued to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions , beatings , public acts of repudiation , travel restrictions , and forced exile . During its first UPR review, Cuba rejected all recommendations addressing the arbitrary detentions of political prisoners , the lack of protection of human rights defenders , and restrictions on freedom of expression . Since then, Human Rights Watch has continued documenting cases of serious abuses of these rights. The Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 on the condition that they accept exile in exchange for their freedom. Yet while the overall number of political prisoners has declined, the government has increasingly relied upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move about freely . Meanwhile, the government continues to sentence dissidents to long-term prison sentences in closed, summary trials, or hold them for extended periods without charge .

Political imprisonment is widespread and denies basic rights. HRW 13 Human Rights Watch, 2013 (Universal Periodic Review: HRW Submission on Cuba, 16th Universal Periodic
Review, May, Available Online at http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/18/universal-periodic-review-hrw-submissioncuba, Accessed 07-03-2013) In line with the rejection by the Cuban government of the recommendation to halt the prosecution of citizens who are exercising the rights guaranteed under articles 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the UDHR, Cubans who dare to criticize the government risk criminal charges which is in clear contradiction with Cubas international human rights obligations and will not enjoy due process guarantees , such as the right to fair and public hearings by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. In practice, courts are subordinated to the executive and legislative branches, thus denying meaningful judicial protection . Political prisoners are routinely denied parole after completing the minimum required sentence as punishment for refusing to participate in ideological activities such as reeducation classes. Dozens of political prisoners remain in Cuban prisons, according to respected human rights groups on the island. These groups estimate there are many more political prisoners whose cases they cannot document because the government does not allow independent national or international human rights groups to access its prisons.

10

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 11

They Say: Mexicos Record Not Extreme (1/2)


Mexico is a flagrant violator of human rights. HRW 13 Human Rights Watch, 2013 (Mexico, 2013 World Report, Available Online at http://www.hrw.org/worldreport/2013/country-chapters/mexico?page=1, Accessed 07-22-2013) Mexican security forces have committed widespread human rights violations in efforts to combat powerful organized crime groups, including killings , disappearances , and torture . Almost none of these abuses are adequately investigated, exacerbating a climate of violence and impunity in many parts of the country. In an historic decision in August 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of military jurisdiction to prosecute a human rights violation was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, most abuses by military personnel continue to be prosecuted in military courts, which lack independence and impartiality . Criminal groups and members of security forces continue to threaten or attack human rights defenders and journalists. The government has failed to provide these vulnerable groups with adequate protection or investigate the crimes committed against them. In April, Mexico passed legislation to create a protection mechanism for human rights defenders and journalists, but protocols to evaluate risk and assign protection are still being designed.

11

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 12

They Say: Mexicos Record Not Extreme (2/2)


Abuses in Mexico are persistent and grave the U.S. must take a moral stance. WOLA 13 Washington Office on Latin America, 2013 (As President Obama Heads to Mexico, Members of Congress
Express Concern over Human Rights, April 25th, Available Online at http://www.wola.org/news/as_president_obama_heads_to_mexico_members_of_congress_express_concern_over_hu man_rights, Accessed 07-22-2013) On April 23, 24 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry expressing their concern about the persistence of grave human rights violations in Mexico and urging the administration to make the defense of human rights a central part of the U.S.-Mexico bilateral agenda. The bipartisan letter sponsored by Congressmen James Moran (D - VA) and Ted Poe (R - TX) comes just a week before President Obama will travel to Mexico to meet with Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto. The letter cites the five-fold increase in complaints of human rights violations by Mexican soldiers and federal police since the Mexican government began its war on organized crime in 2006 and advises Secretary Kerry that [n]ow is an opportune moment to work with the Mexican government to improve the situation in that country. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) supports this letter and believes that it is critical for the United States to express its concern about the human rights situation in the country as well as its support for the Mexican governments efforts to protect human rights. The dire human rights situation in Mexico is not going to solve itself , said Maureen Meyer, WOLA Senior Associate for Mexico and Central America. As the bilateral agenda evolves, it is critical that the U.S. and Mexican governments continue to focus on how best to support and defend human rights in Mexico. The letter expresses concern not only about the proliferation of human rights violations committed by government security forces, but also about the fact that only a handful of those responsible for such violations are ever investigated or sanctioned. Unfortunately, a majority of these abuses go uninvestigated , and as a consequence, unpunished , the members of Congress write, noting that government data shows that only two federal agents were convicted for torture between January 1994 and June 2010, and only 38 soldiers have been sentenced by military courts for human right abuses since 2006. To date, the Mexican government has not responded affectively to abuses committed by members of the armed forces and federal police against the civilian population, said Meyer. Holding violators of human rights accountable by investigating specific cases is key to curbing abuses. The United States has provided Mexico with over US$1.9 billion in security assistance since FY2008. However, as the congressional letter notes, the State Department is currently withholding $18 million of this assistance until the United States identifies areas of future collaboration with the Pea Nieto government on key human rights issues. The members of Congress emphasize that [t]he human rights crisis will not improve until there are stronger legal protections , increased human rights training for Mexicos security forces, and more government agents held responsible for the human rights violations they commit.

12

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 13

They Say: Venezuelas Record Not Extreme (1/2)


Rights abuses are systemic and flagrant. El Universal 13 El Universala newspaper published in Caracas, 2013 (Human Rights Watch reports abuse of
power by Venezuelan gov't, January 31st, Available Online at http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-ypolitica/130131/human-rights-watch-reports-abuse-of-power-by-venezuelan-govt, Accessed 07-22-2013) After almost 15 years in power, Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez has accumulated significant power , which has allowed the government to a series of " abuses " and " intimidation " of broad sectors of society, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in its annual report on human rights. Under the leadership of President Hugo Chvez, both the accumulation of power and the weakening of human rights guarantees have allowed the Venezuelan Government to intimidate , censor , and prosecute Venezuelans who criticize or oppose to the president or his political agenda, the reports stated. Chvez and his political supporters have relied on their power in different opportunities, thus negatively affecting the judicial branch , mass media , and human rights defenders , the report explained. Although criticism of the Venezuelan Government continues, fear to retaliation has undermined judges' capacity to render rulings in cases with serious political implications, HRW added. Similarly, journalists and human rights advocates have had no other choice but to weigh ponder the consequences of releasing information and critical opinions on the government, the organization remarked. The report also stated that Chvez's government has extended and misused power to regulate mass media. Although criticism of the government continues in some media, in some others there is widespread self-censorship , in an attempt to avoid government retaliation. Further, the report criticized the fact that Venezuela decided to withdraw from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) through denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights last September. The organization regretted Venezuela's refusal to welcome international human rights observers. HRW also expressed deep concerns about the level of violence in Venezuelan prisons and the significant number of police abuses . The report was released a few days after a new violent event in Uribana prison, northwest Venezuela, where 58 people died and over 95 were injured.

13

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 14

They Say: Venezuelas Record Not Extreme (2/2)


Maduros human rights record is already abysmal. WNVz 13 Whats Next Venezuela bloga global movement to raise awareness of the rapidly increasing
radicalization of Venezuela, 2013 (Nicols Maduro off to an inauspicious start as Venezuelas dubiously-elected president, Whats Next Venezuelaa blog about Venezuela, May 8th, Available Online at https://www.whatsnextvenezuela.com/press-freedom/nicolas-maduro-off-to-an-inauspicious-start-as-venezuelasdubiously-elected-president/, Accessed 07-22-2013) Obama and the U.S. State Department are among a growing chorus calling for a full and transparent recount of the Venezuelan election, a chorus that now includes the Organization of American States, former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, and internationally-respected human rights watchdog groups. Though Maduro may lack Hugo Chvezs charisma and support among Venezuelans, he evinces the same contempt for the international community. That contempt, combined with Maduros increasingly flagrant repression of his own people, mean that recent weeks for Venezuela have been turbulent indeed. Its hard to deny that Maduros election lacks legitimacy , before the eyes of both Venezuelans and the world. The partial audit the government agreed to is viewed as little more than a public relations gesture, and hardly sufficient to investigate the serious voting irregularities that led many to wonder whether Capriles was the elections true winner. As those doubts grow, Maduro has flexed the governments authoritarian muscle to stifle dissent and cow the opposition into obedience . The state-run media which recently tightened its grip on the airwaves by purchasing the previously-independent TV station Globovision has dutifully propagandized on behalf of Maduro; the government recently severed the video feed of a Capriles speech, preventing the opposition leader from making his case to Venezuelans. Such tactics havent prevented the opposition from making their voice heard. The din of Cacerola protests resounds throughout the country. Capriles has filed an official protest with the countrys Supreme Court which, comprised of Maduros political allies, is unlikely to intervene. Maduro and the PSUV have met these peaceful expressions of dissent, however, with strongman tactics. Capriles called off an opposition March after the government issued a veiled-threat of violence against the protestors. Opposition lawmakers have been barred from speaking in the National Assembly. And a bloody brawl in the National Assembly injured 17 opposition lawmakers. Now the government has intimated it may throw Capriles in jail . Such tactics, though they fly in the face of democracy and human rights , at least demonstrate that Maduro is feeling the pressure. The Economist opined after the election that without Chvez at the helm, chavismo, a noxious cocktail of populism, incompetence and repression, is a far less potent force. Nicolas Maduro cannot strong-arm his way to legitimacy. But that hasnt stopped him trying.

14

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 15

They Say: Human Rights Watch Bad (1/1)


Human Rights Watch is the gold standard for human rights reportingaff indicts are political, not substantive. Levy 9 Daniel Levy, Director of the Middle East Program at the New America Foundation, Director of the Prospects
for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation, hold an M.A. from Cambridge University, 2009 (The Swiftboating of Human Rights Watch, The Huffington Post, July 20th, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniellevy/the-swiftboating-of-human_b_241634.html, Accessed 07-03-2013) Last week witnessed a concerted attack against the credibility of the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), seeking to link supposed fundraising activities in Saudi Arabia with that organization's criticism ("bias", according to its detractors) of Israeli practices in the occupied territories, also claiming HRW is soft peddling on Saudi violations. It started in a Wall Street Journal piece, the Israeli prime minister's office and spokespeople weighed in, and then AIPAC and the rightwing blogosphere got onboard. The attack on HRW has now been ratcheted up according to last week's Jerusalem Post. The former right-wing Israeli Government Minister, Natan Sharansky (also an ex-Prisoner of Zion, President George W. Bush's favorite author and occupation apologist) claims that HRW "has become a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies." Ron Dermer, director of policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office adds: "We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity". The apparent trigger for this assault on a group that represents the global gold standard in human rights monitoring, analysis, and advocacy , was a visit by HRW's Middle East-North Africa director, Sarah Leah Whitson, to the Saudi kingdom. I happened to find myself on a panel at The Century Foundation discussing the Middle East with Whitson just days before this storm broke -- I went back and watched tapes of that panel discussion. To accuse Whitson of being soft on the Saudis or somehow singling out Israel for criticism is quite astonishing as I'm sure you'll agree if you take ten minutes to listen to her presentation -- of that, more in a moment. According to reports Whitson was hosted one evening in Riyadh by prominent businessman and intellectual, Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan, for a private dinner which included business leaders, civil society leaders, and well-connected Saudis. It was not a fundraising event. HRW was certainly not fundraising from the Saudi government. Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent quotes Whitson--"We have never raised any money from the Saudi government or any other agency in the world." That HRW does not take government money is something that is already well-known. HRW does, of course, receive contributions from individuals and foundations -- something that does not prevent them from producing releases and reports critical of the states from whence donors hail. Does HRW's fundraising from private sources in the U.S. prevent it being critical of American human rights violations (and I obviously acknowledge the differences between the US and Saudi Arabia)? Apparently not. Yes, donors have agendas, but as long as the organization adheres to standards of fact-checking and objectivity , its credibility is sustained . Sadly, these attacks on HRW demonstrate no such objectivity or credibility -- they come from a narrow and misguided right-wing Israel advocacy agenda. One group that has been plowing this terrain for some years is Gerald Steinberg's odiously named "NGO Monitor," in the attacks on HRW he is being joined by bigger guns. Steinberg accuses HRW of being "linked to the terrorist campaign" (of Hamas ...etc), and whines that "Human Rights Watch is an organization with a budget of $40 million a year; they are a superpower". Poor Mr. Steinberg, his supporters in the anti-HRW campaign over at AIPAC only had an "$80 million purse" at their disposal.

15

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 16

They Say: Case Outweighs (1/2)


Maintaining a moral order that respects human rights is crucial for human survival. Annas et al. 2 George J. Annas, Edward R. Utley Professor and Chair of the Health Law Department at the Boston University School
of Public Health, Professor of SocioMedical Sciences and Community Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and an M.P.H. from Harvard School of Public Health, et al., with Lori B. Andrews, Distinguished Professor of Law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, Director of the Institute for Science, Law, and Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, and Rosario M. Isasi, Health Law and Bioethics Fellow in the Health Law Department at the Boston University School of Public Health, holds a J.D. from Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru and an M.P.H. from the Boston University School of Public Health, 2002 (Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Pr ohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations, American Journal of Law & Medicine (28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis) II. HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE HUMAN SPECIES The development of the atomic bomb not only presented to the world for the first time the prospect of total annihilation, but also, paradoxically, led to a renewed emphasis on the "nuclear family," complete with its personal bomb shelter. The conclusion of World War II (with the dropping of the only two atomic bombs ever used in war) led to the recognition that world wars were now suicidal to the entire species and to the formation of the United Nations with the primary goal of preventing such wars. n2 Prevention, of course, must be based on the recognition that all humans are fundamentally the same, rather than on an emphasis on our differences. In the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war, President John F. Kennedy, in an address to the former Soviet Union, underscored the necessity for recognizing similarities for our survival :

Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved . . . . For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. n3 That we are all fundamentally the same , all human, all with the same dignity and rights , is at the core of the most important document to come out of World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the two treaties that followed it (together known as the "International Bill of Rights"). n4 The recognition of universal human rights, based on human dignity and equality as well as the principle of nondiscrimination, is fundamental to the development of a species consciousness. As Daniel Lev of Human Rights Watch/Asia said in 1993, shortly before the Vienna Human Rights Conference: Whatever else may separate them, human beings belong to a single biological species , the simplest and most fundamental commonality before which the significance of human differences quickly fades. . . . We are all capable, in exactly the same ways, of feeling pain, hunger, [*153] and a hundred kinds of deprivation. Consequently, people nowhere routinely concede that those with enough power to do so ought to be able to kill , torture , imprison , and generally abuse others. . . . The idea of universal human rights shares the recognition of one common humanity , and provides a minimum solution to deal with its miseries. n5 Membership in the human species is central to the meaning and enforcement of human rights, and respect for basic human rights is essential for the survival of the human species . The development of the concept of "crimes against humanity" was a milestone for universalizing human rights in that it recognized that there were certain actions , such as slavery and genocide , that implicated the welfare of the entire species and therefore merited universal condemnation . n6 Nuclear weapons were immediately seen as a technology that required international control, as extreme genetic manipulations like cloning and inheritable genetic alterations have come to be seen today. In fact, cloning and inheritable genetic alterations can be seen as crimes against humanity of a unique sort: they are techniques that can alter the essence of humanity itself (and thus threaten to change the foundation of human rights) by taking human evolution into our own hands and directing it toward the development of a new species, sometimes termed the "posthuman." n7 It may be that species-altering techniques, like cloning and inheritable genetic modifications, could provide benefits to the human species in extraordinary circumstances. For example, asexual genetic replication could potentially save humans from extinction if all humans were rendered sterile by some catastrophic event. But no such necessity currently exists or is on the horizon.

16

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 17

They Say: Case Outweighs (2/2)


Nations are obligated to shunprima facie duty. Beversluis 89 Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in
Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 (On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 21) A frequent objection to "human rights" policies may also be raised to shunning: By what right does one nation impose its values on another? The argument may proceed by noting that shunning represents the reaction of a community to those who reject its standards in particularly serious ways. But, it will continue, surely there is no such moral community among nations, since there is no world-wide agreement on basic moral standards. Jose Zalaquett addresses these questions in his lecture on "Human Rights and Moral Dimensions of International Conduct." His thesis is that there is a world-wide consensus on basic human rights, as is evidenced by the fact that the world's nations have signed the United Nations Charter (Zalaquett, 1983). Thus besides general arguments for moral obligations among nations, the explicit recognition of certain duties by the nations of the world supports the claim that there is a world moral order which ought to be protected. So, as moral agents, agents who can be responsible for violating people's rights, nations as well as individuals (and presumably other institutions, such as corporationsalthough we have not examined these cases separately) have a prima facie duty to shun under certain circumstances and ought to be shunned under certain circumstances.

17

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 18

They Say: Weigh Consequences (1/1)


Utilitarianism is incoherentinfinite uncertainty makes calculations interminable. Read 9 Rupert Read, Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, 2009 (The difference principle is not
action-guiding, Available Online at http://www.rupertread.fastmail.co.uk/The%20difference%20principle%20is%20not%20action%20guiding.doc, Accessed 04-15-2011) There is a flaw in Utilitarianism that is one step beyond the problem mentioned above. It is a deeper, more constitutive version of the no stable rules problem. It is one of the most widely-touted serious flaws in Utilitarianism (at least, in Act Utilitarianism ) that it is ultimately not merely liable to defy our moral intuitions and produce social uncertainty, but is not action-guiding at all . Any course of action can be justified, given uncertainties about others reactions, others expectations, and so forth, with a good enough story to tell, and a long enough view of the consequences. Utilitarianism, in other words, never rules out any choice since it makes permissibility always depend on consequences in a manner that is in-terminable . When agents are act-utilitarians, they need to undertake an endlessly iterable process of trying to determine how they will react to one anothers actions. This is a particular, very damaging version of the calculation problem in Utilitarianism. How can we really calculate utility, when it depends upon the consequences of our actions, and these depend upon other peoples reactions to those? Gigantic, impenetrable co-ordination problems result.

Isaac is wronghe overreaches on realism. Steger 2 Manfred B. Steger, Associate Professor of Politics & Government at Illinois State University, holds a Ph.D. in
Political Science from Rutgers University, 2002 (Ends, Means, and the Politics of Dissent: Reply to Jeffrey C. Isaac, Dissent, Volume 49, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost, p. 74-75) Idealizing Realist Politics Another reason for the systemic distortion and marginalization of the campus lefts pacifism is the widespread idealization of so-called realist politics. Throughout his article, Isaac adopts the questionable metaphysical assumptions that underlie the realist paradigm: In the best of all imaginable worlds, it might be possible to defeat alQaeda without using force and without dealing with corrupt regimes and political forces like the Northern Alliance. But [end page 74] in this world it is not possible. And this, alas, is the only world that exists. Note how Isaac claims for himself the same omniscient vantage point that he so dislikes in the campus left. This arrogant spirit of ontological absolutism pervades his essay. Here is another example: To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. Of course, having defined what counts as the political world, Isaac employs the term necessary to imply war-like activities. In short, the only way to fight terrorism is to declare a large-scale war on it, thus fighting violence with greater violence. Anybody challenging Isaacs conclusions or his underlying realist metaphysics is nave , unpragmatic , vague , irrational , an accomplice of terrorism, andthis is my favorite charge out of touch with the preoccupations and opinions of the vast majority of Americans. Isaacs cheap rhetorical appeal to common sense, is, indeed, an embarrassing move for an intellectual descendent of the gadfly Socrates who contributes regularly to a progressive magazine titled Dissent.

18

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 19

They Say: Shunning Immoral (1/1)


Solvency isnt necessary voting neg bears witness and upholds the moral order. Beversluis 89 Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in
Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 (On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 20-21) But perhaps Thompson's pragmatic argument against interfering in the affairs of other states rules out national shunning: Respect for domestic jurisdiction causes diplomatists to question a crusading approach to human rights. Routine interference in the essential conduct of the affairs of one government (that is, in its definition of its rights and duties) by another is a recipe for disaster in political relationships. Furthermore, history offers little support for the assumption that moral intervention can even make the situation worse. Given the realities of national sovereignty, methods such as quiet diplomacy, the private offering of incentives and rewards, and sustained individual contacts are more likely to yield results. Workability is a companion principle to respect for domestic jurisdiction. Together they provide the diplomatists' main guidelines for action in human rights as in other spheres of foreign policy. (Thompson, 1980, pp. 91-92) As a general caution against our desire to "do something" when we do not like the policies of another country, Thompson's pragmatic approach is sound. But shunning represents a special situation in which, persuasion and direct pressure having been tried and having failed, the objective is not to change behavior but to witness against it . "Workability" has been tried and has [end page 20] failed; the flagrant, persistent, and willful violation of human rights continues and must be confronted publicly .

Sanctions are ethical necessary to protect the moral order. He 11 Wei He, holds L.L.B.s in Law from the University of Bristol and the University of International Business and
Economics, 2011 (Can International Sanctions in Foreign Policy be Ethical?, e-International Relations, August 27th, Available Online at http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/27/can-%E2%80%98international-sanctions%E2%80%99-in-foreignpolicy-be-ethical/, Accessed 07-22-2013) This minimal convergence area, which is the respect for peoples right to live, is where international morality lies, and is also the source of legitimacy for international sanctions . If the government of a state is unable to guarantee its peoples right to live, the international sanctions imposed on the government can be deemed ethical . This argument reaches the same point as the notion of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which is best demonstrated in the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document which states that [e] Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and the international community are prepared to take collective action if the state fails to do so (UN, 2005). However, the application of ethical international sanctions is not only limited to the range of the R2P. When the targeted government not only deprives its own people of the right to live, but also threatens such rights of people in other nations, the international sanctions are still ethical. In this sense, international sanctions are a valuable instrument in international efforts to safeguard peace and security (Sweden Government, no date). If peace and security can be achieved, the peoples right to live in the world will be guaranteed, which meets exactly the international moral requirement mentioned above.

19

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 20

They Say: No Morality Decision Rule (1/1)


States are moral actors at least in this contextthey have a duty to shun. Beversluis 89 Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in
Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 (On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 20) In this section I address a number of objections, beginning with the claim that the argument only applies to individuals and not to states. 1. Many maintain that there are no moral rights or duties among nations. Others hold that nations have a right to selfdetermination which obligates other nations not to interfere in their internal affairs. On what grounds can we say that nations as well as individuals can be obligated to shun and be liable to be shunned? As I see it, nations are agents in the sense that they do things that affect people's interests"do things" in the sense in which people do things and not in the sense in which the wind does thingsfor they have both the power to affect people's interests and the ability to decide whether or not to do so . But being an agent in this sense is a sufficient condition for having moral responsibility . And the argument for the duty to shun is perfectly general, applying to all morally responsible agents . Institutions such as the state can act in ways which directly attack and undermine the moral order , and individuals and institutions can sanction such offenders as a witness to the moral order. As moral agents states are also obligated to support the moral order and hence to shun when the situation demands . (For more detailed analysis of the arguments that morality applies to nations see Cohen (1985) and Beitz (1979).)

State moral agency is needed to address global challenges. Erskine 1 Toni Erskine, Professor of International Politics at Aberystwyth University, Honorary Professor of Global
Ethics at RMIT University, holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, 2001 (Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: The Case of States and Quasi-States, Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 15, Issue 2, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Wiley, p. 83) First, if only individuals, and never institutions, are seen to be moral agents, the possibility of assigning responsibility for some actions is lost . The United States can respond to acute environmental crises by upholding the conditions of the Kyoto conventionwhether or not it chooses to do sowhile the individual citizen cannot . The same citizen might have a duty to live in a way that is environmentally responsible, but she has neither the scope nor the power to coordinate and enforce systemic changes in how goods are produced, consumed, and disposed of. As ONeill maintains, If ethical reasoning is accessible only to individuals , its meagre help with global problems should not surprise us.46

20

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 21

2AC Cuba (1/1)


Too extremeCubas record isnt flagrant. Their authors are biased. Lamrani 10 Salim Lamrani, Lecturer at the Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV and Paris-Est Marne-la-Valle Universities,
specialist in Cuba-US relations, 2010 (Cuba and the rhetoric of human rights (1 of 2), ZNet, July 7th, Available Online at http://www.zcommunications.org/cuba-and-the-rhetoric-of-human-rights-1-of-2-by-salim-lamrani, Accessed 07-032013) Thus, the western media has misled the public when it presents Cuba as the main violator of human rights in the Americas. The United States, for its part, cannot in any way justify the imposition of economic sanctions based on the human rights situation on the island and should eliminate them. Indeed, not only does the US have no moral authority to speak on this subject in view of its own situation, but in addition most countries on the continent have situations worse than that of Cuba .

21

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 22

2AC Mexico (1/1)


Mexico is not a flagrant or willful violator improvements are being made with U.S. assistance. McGovern 12 James McGovern, Member of the United States House of Representatives (D-MA), holds n M.P.A.
from American University, 2012 (Human Rights in Mexico, Hearing Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the United States House of Representatives, May 10th, Available Online at http://tlhrc.house.gov/docs/transcripts/05_10_2012_Human_Rights_in_Mexico.pdf, Accessed 07-22-2013, p. 6) Both the United States and Mexican governments have taken steps to try to address these serious problems. Over the past several years, the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration have shifted much of the focus of U.S. assistance to Mexico under the Merida Initiative from security assistance to support for strengthening the rule of law and judicial institutions in Mexico. The Government of Mexico has also taken some significant positive steps , including mandating ethics training for all Federal Police, changing regulations on the use of force by the police and passing laws that strengthen the authority of Mexico's human rights commission, provide for compensation of victims of human rights abuses and require protection of at-risk journalists and human rights defenders. These are encouraging steps , but much more needs to be done to ensure that these reforms are fully implemented, to establish a more effective and transparent Mexican judicial system, and to address the pervasive problems of corruption and impunity. Accountability for abuses is particularly important so that the Mexican people believe that the era of impunity is starting to come to an end. For its part, the United States should continue to provide Mexico with assistance to strengthen the rule of law in Mexico and advance respect for human rights.

22

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 23

2AC Venezuela (1/1)


Venezuelas rights record is strong their authors are biased. Leech 13 Garry Leech, independent journalist, Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton
University, 2013 (The Bias of Human Rights Watch, Counterpunch, March 14th, Available Online at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/, Accessed 07-02-2013) The point here is not to suggest that Venezuela does not violate human rights, obviously it does; as does every government . The point is to illustrate how Human Rights Watchs bias dramatically distorts the human rights reality in Venezuela where every Venezuelan enjoys economic and social rights to a greater degree than virtually everyone else on the planet . It is only through the callous ignoring of these particular rights that Human Rights Watch can label Chvez as authoritarian and accuse his government of exhibiting an open disregard for basic human rights guarantees. In actuality, the Chvez governments focus on economic and social rights has resulted in the emergence of a thriving grassroots democracy in Venezuela that is rooted in the concepts of participation and equality in other words, a socialist vision of political and civil rights. Ultimately, Human Rights Watchs selective and biased application of the human rights norms enshrined in the UN Declaration not only undermines its credibility , it also promotes injustice .

23

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 24

2AC Case Outweighs (1/1)


Case outweighsscope and urgency. Kennan 86 George F. Kennan, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, served
as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952) and Yugoslavia (1961-1963), 1985 (Morality and Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1985/1986, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 216) Except perhaps in some sectors of American government and opinion, there are few thoughtful people who would not agree that our world is at present faced with two unprecedented and supreme dangers . One is the danger not just of nuclear war but of any major war at all among great industrial powersan exercise which modern technology has now made suicidal all around. The other is the devastating effect of modern industrialization and overpopulation on the world's natural environment . The one threatens the destruction of civilization through the recklessness and selfishness of its military rivalries, the other through the massive abuse of its natural habitat. Both are relatively new problems, for the solution of which past experience affords little guidance. Both are urgent . The problems of political misgovernment, to which so much of our thinking about moral values has recently related, is as old as the human species itself . It is a problem that will not be solved in our time , and need not be . But the environmental and nuclear crises will brook no delay .

24

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 25

2AC Weigh Consequences (1/1)


Weigh consequencesmoral absolutism reproduces evil. Isaac 2 Jeffrey C. Isaac, James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of
Democracy and Public Life at Indiana University-Bloomington, 2002 (Ends, Means, and Politics, Dissent, Volume 49, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost, p. 35-36) As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility . The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of ones intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice , moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice . [end page 35] This is why, from the standpoint of politicsas opposed to religionpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant . Just as the alignment with good may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of good that generates evil . This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that ones goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important , always , to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment . It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance . And it undermines political effectiveness .

25

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 26

2AC Shunning Immoral (1/1)


Shunning is immoralit uses people as means to an end. Gordon 99 Joy Gordon, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from
Yale University and a J.D. from Boston University, 1999 (A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethics of Economic Sanctions, Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 13, Issue 1, March, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Wiley Online Library, p. 138-139) To the extent that commentators have pondered the question of why sanctions are still usedand why they are justifiedthey have generated two main responses: expression and punishment. Galtung and Lundborg, in documenting the failure of sanctions to achieve compliance with the stated political objectives, argue that sanctions should not be seen as "instrumental."41 Sanctions are not really designed to achieve compliance, they assert, but rather are "expressive." A government may consider sanctions useful if they serve to "declare its position to internal and external publics or help win support at home or abroad."42 It is common enough to hear sanctions discussed in these terms "It's important that we send a message that this type of conduct is unacceptable to the international community."43 If we view sanctions in this light, then they are no longer a failure. For example, after Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, President Carter imposed a grain embargo on the USSR, which President Reagan lifted in 1981. The Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan until 1988.44 If we look at sanctions from an instrumental point of view, they were clearly a failure. But sanctions could also "be interpreted as having been motivated in part by a desire to signal resolve and leadership to the domestic public during an election year," Nossal observes, suggesting that as an act of expression, the sanctions were in fact successful.45 However, "sending a message," while ordinarily a legitimate undertaking for a state, becomes ethically problematic if the means of communication consist of depriving vulnerable sectors of a foreign population of basic necessities . While sanctions against aggression might be justified on utilitarian grounds, sanctions as a means of sending a message cannot claim the same moral legitimacy . And while deontological ethics might not be able to raise a particular objection to sanctions that prevent aggressionsince in either case, some innocent population will suffer the same cannot be said of sanctions as expression. Where "sending [end page 138] a message" or "signaling resolve" or "expressing outrage" is the purpose of sanctions, the sanctions patently entail the use of human beings as simply a means to an end ; human suffering becomes merely a device of communication . Thus the purpose is unacceptable on deontological as well as utilitarian grounds .

26

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 27

2AC No Morality Decision Rule (1/1)


No morality d-rulenations arent moral actors. Rational self-interest best metric for action. Kennan 86 George F. Kennan, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, served
as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952) and Yugoslavia (1961-1963), 1985 (Morality and Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1985/1986, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 216) Second, let us recognize that the functions, commitments and moral obligations of governments are not the same as those [end page 205] of the individual. Government is an agent, not a principal . Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience. No more than the attorney vis-a-vis the client, nor the doctor vis-a-vis the patient, can government attempt to insert itself into the consciences of those whose interests it represents. Let me explain. The interests of the national society for which government has to concern itself are basically those of its military security, the integrity of its political life and the well-being of its people. These needs have no moral quality . They arise from the very existence of the national state in question and from the status of national sovereignty it enjoys. They are the unavoidable necessities of a national existence and therefore not subject to classification as either "good" or "bad." They may be questioned from a detached philosophic point of view. But the government of the sovereign state cannot make such judgments . When it accepts the responsibilities of governing, implicit in that acceptance is the assumption that it is right that the state should be sovereign, that the integrity of its political life should be assured, that its people should enjoy the blessings of military security, material prosperity and a reasonable opportunity for, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, the pursuit of happiness. For these assumptions the government needs no moral justification , nor need it accept any moral reproach for acting on the basis of them.

27

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 28

Extend: Cubas Record Not Flagrant (1/1)


Their authors ignore economic and social rights. Leech 13 Garry Leech, independent journalist, Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton
University, 2013 (The Bias of Human Rights Watch, Counterpunch, March 14th, Available Online at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/, Accessed 07-02-2013) Nowhere in its Cuba reports does Human Rights Watch acknowledge the countrys huge achievements in guaranteeing economic and social rights. In spite of being subjected to an inhumane decades-long economic blockade by the U.S. government, Cuba has succeeded in providing free healthcare and education to all of its citizens as well as ensuring that everyones basic housing and food needs are met. But as with its analysis of Venezuela, the provision of these economic and social rights to all Cubans is ignored by Human Rights Watch.

28

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 29

Extend: Mexicos Record Not Flagrant (1/1)


Their authors are wrong about Mexico flawed methodology. Byrne 13 Edward V. Byrne, Journalist who writes for the Mexico Gulf Reporter, holds a J.D. from The American
University Law School and a B.S.F.S. from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 2013 (Hype is always present in Mexico's drug war, especially when Human Rights Watch comes to town, Mexico Gulf Reporter, February 22nd, Available Online at http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/02/press-calls-hrw-report-on-drug-war.html, Accessed 07-22-2013) Human Rights Watch, which never misses a chance to bash Mexico for trying to defend itself from powerful drug cartels and criminal gangs, filed another one of its fairy tale reports this week. A month ago it laid into the Mexican armed forces, without which there might not be a Mexico today. More accurately, as MGRR recently pointed out, Mexico might be the Somalia of Latin America, its capital, perhaps, a sister city to Mogadishu. Human Rights Watch's latest condemnation of Mexican drug war reveals how little it understands conflict. Two days ago, amid much fanfare and with ample notice to every press agency anywhere that would accept a copy of its latest term paper, HRW reported on disappearances in Mexico's drug war, which was launched by former president Felipe Caldern Dec. 11, 2006. That term paper, by the way, earns an "F," because the assignment was to report facts, not practice creative writing techniques (poorly executed ones at that). Caldern has been and yet remains HRW's prime target. The organization can barely conceal its boiling antipathy for the man whose strategy produced real results, forcing perhaps thousands of narcotics traffickers and fellow travelers to abandon this country and move south into Central American jungles, where they're now regrouping and wreaking havoc for ill-prepared governments. What no doubt infuriates HRW is that the United Nations at least twice confirmed that fact in 2012, before Caldern left office. Moreover, the leaders of Guatemala and Honduras have said exactly the same thing: Mexico's strategic gains in the drug war have been their losses. The empirical evidence of such is far too much for anyone to dispute. Guatemalan ambassador warns of growing Los Zeta drug cartel presence in his country. So this week HRW up shifted, clutch jumping in the process. It reported on "forced disappearances" - kidnappings, if you will - during the 74 month old conflict. HRW claims to have documented 249 cases of such, 149 of which it laid squarely at the doorstep of public authority, i.e., military and police forces at all levels (although primarily federal). But it didn't stop there. The organization quickly added, "We have no doubt there are thousands more cases just like those." HRW didn't have time to "document" the others, apparently. Business owners, imagine calling a trusted employee into your office, and telling him/her: "I've got solid evidence that $249 is missing from the company cash register. I can prove you took $149 of that money. And I have no doubt that you've stolen thousands more from the company, so you're fired." That, by rough analogy, is HRW's latest indictment of Mexican security forces (and by extension their former commander-inchief, Felipe Caldern). Even if the claim of 149 "forced disappearances" (people presumably later murdered by government troops for no reason) was valid, to many such a toll would seem puny in the overall scheme of things . Nobody knows how many died during the first six years of the drug war (a period contemporaneous with Caldern's tenure in office), but Mexico's most reliable news network - never a friend of the former PAN president - reported in November that it was just under 59,000 people. More recently the new PRI government estimated it was 70,000, but quickly added that "there's no official data" to prove so. MGRR has not examined the lengthy (193 page) HRW report, but Milenio did so, focusing on the 149 cases attributed to military misconduct. It's conclusion? "The document in essence is false , and lacks rigorous methodology ." Here is part of the network's analysis. To repeat, Milenio does not exchange Christmas cards or "Hi, how are things up there at Harvard?" email with Felipe Caldern.

29

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 30

Extend: Venezuelas Record Not Flagrant (1/1)


Human rights in Venezuela are strong their authors selectively highlight. Leech 13 Garry Leech, independent journalist, Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton
University, 2013 (The Bias of Human Rights Watch, Counterpunch, March 14th, Available Online at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/, Accessed 07-02-2013) A vivid example of Human Rights Watchs bias against economic and social rights is the report the organization issued immediately following the death of Venezuelas President Hugo Chvez. Human Rights Watch had long had an antagonistic relationship with the Venezuelan leader, which was touched upon in the report. The report clearly reflected the view of the organizations executive director Ken Roth that Venezuela (along with Bolivia and Ecuador) is the most abusive nation in Latin America. One only need take a quick look at Human Rights Watchs reports on Colombia to illustrate the ludicrousness of such a statement. Under the title, Venezuela: Chvezs Authoritarian Legacy, the report contains a litany of violations of civil and political rights and not a single mention of the countrys impressive achievements in economic, social and cultural rights. The report opens by stating, Hugo Chvezs presidency (1999-2013) was characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees. The latter part implies a basic disregard for all human rights, but the report goes on to focus solely on issues related to civil and political rights. If the Chvez government had indeed disregarded all basic human rights as suggested by Human Rights Watch, then how does one explain the countrys remarkable successes ensuring that all citizens receive adequate food and housing as well as free healthcare and education; all of which constitute guarantees of economic, social and cultural rights. Not only does Venezuela now provide free education including at the university level, where students can learn the countrys various indigenous languagesbut its programs, according to UNESCO, have resulted in the country becoming an illiteracy-free nation and post-secondary enrolments doubling over the past decade. And as for the basic right to food, a recent report issued by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) stated, We analyze hunger statistics all over the world. There are 800 million people in the world who suffer from hunger, 49 million in Latin America and the Caribbean, but not one of them is Venezuelan. Perhaps the governments most impressive overall achievement with regard to social and economic rights has been the astounding decline in the number of Venezuelans living in poverty, from 55 percent of the population when Chvez was first elected in 1998 to 18 percent in 2011. These achievements have resulted from state-funded projects, called missions, that are devised, implemented and evaluated at the community level by more than 16,000 communal councils in what constitutes an impressive example of participatory democracy. But Human Rights Watch does not make a single reference to any of these achievements in social and economic rights, or with regard to the political rights enjoyed by the millions of citizens participating in the communal councils. All of these examples contradict Human Rights Watchs claim that the Chvez government was characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees. Venezuela is far from perfect and, as is the case with all other nations, violations of human rights do occur. However, Human Rights Watchs selective highlighting of a handful of cases related only to civil and political rights implies widespread human rights abuses perpetrated against the population. This approach obscures the fact that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans are now, for the first time, enjoying economic , social and cultural rights to a degree that few citizens in the world have ever experienced .

30

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 31

They Cite: Human Rights Watch (1/1)


Dismiss evidence from Human Rights Watch it lacks credibility. Leech 13 Garry Leech, independent journalist, Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton
University, 2013 (The Bias of Human Rights Watch, Counterpunch, March 14th, Available Online at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/, Accessed 07-02-2013) In conclusion, the repeated failure of Human Rights Watch to prioritize economic , social and cultural rights on par with civil and political rights, along with its refusal to contextualize human rights within the grossly unequal and imperialist power structures that dominate global politics, has reduced the organization to little more than an advocate of capitalist values . Human Rights Watch refuses to recognize the ways in which a human rights paradigm rooted in capitalist values (i.e. only civil and political rights) may not be suited to countries searching for a socialist alternative in their struggle to liberate themselves from centuries of imperialism . After all, countries such as Venezuela and Cuba are forced to exist in a global context in which the most powerful nation on earth is using all of its resources to undermine them , not in the name of democracy or human rights, but because they dare to challenge the hegemony of the United States by promoting alternative models.

31

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 32

Extend: Weigh Consequences (1/1)


Refusing to defend the consequences of shunning is irresponsible. Kennan 86 George F. Kennan, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, served
as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952) and Yugoslavia (1961-1963), 1985 (Morality and Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1985/1986, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 210) Furthermore, while we are quick to allege that this or that practice in a foreign country is bad and deserves correction, seldom if ever do we seem to occupy ourselves seriously or realistically with the conceivable alternatives . It seems seldom to occur to us that even if a given situation is bad, the alternatives to it might be worse even though history provides plenty of examples of just this phenomenon. In the eyes of many Americans it is enough for us to indicate the changes that ought, as we see it, to be made. We assume, of course, that the consequences will be benign and happy ones. But this is not always assured . It is, in any case, not we who are going to have to live with those consequences: it is the offending government and its people . We are demanding, in effect, a species of veto power over those of their practices that we dislike, while denying responsibility for whatever may flow from the acceptance of our demands.

32

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 33

Extend: Shunning Immoral (1/1)


Shunning as a first resort is immoral dont reject the plan on ethical grounds. Beversluis 89 Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in
Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 (On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 21-22) 2. We should also consider the objection that shunning violates the obligation to "keep talking" to a "wayward" brother or sister, the obligation not to "write them off." The kind of "moral banning" that shunning involves in fact may undermine the moral order by isolating more and more individuals from the moral community. Turning against to Galtung, we find the objective of changing behavior contrasted with that of punishing for the sake of punishing: it makes good sense to ask a politician engaged in sanction policies, "If you cannot have both, which outcome would you prefer, punishment without compliance or compliance without punishment?" If he insists that punishment is a sufficient condition for compliance, then he is naive; if he insists that punishment is a necessary condition for compliance, then he is probably in addition highly punishment-oriented in the sense that punishment has become an automatic and probably also cherished goal in itself. This punishment-oriented attitude is probably fairly widespread, particularly as applied to the international system, and serves to maintain negative sanctions. If compliance is not obtained, there is at least the gratification from knowing (or believing) that the sinner gets his due, that the criminal has been punished. (Galtung, 1983, p. 20.) Two points are relevant to meeting this objection. First, one does not shun as a first resort. There are many steps of personal and public persuasion and pressure that should be taken before one decides on shunning . Are not human [end page 21] rights better promoted through "quiet diplomacy"? (See Zalaquett, 1983, pp. 79-80.) Recall the criteria of persistency, willfulness, and flagrancy which must be met before one shuns. Thus shunning is not something that will drive people or nations from the moral community, but rather a recognition of the fact that they have removed themselves from the moral community. Second, shunning is not a complete rupture of relationships, a complete refusal to have to do with. Even while imposing sanctions as a public witness against the immoral behavior, one can continue talks designed to bring the shunee back to the moral community . Recall the Mennonite norm "that such shunning and reproof may not be conducive to his ruin, but serviceable to his amendment."

33

GFCA Packet 2013-2014

Shunning Disadvantage 34

Extend: No Morality D-Rule (1/1)


Policies are justified only if they promote the national interest moral considerations are irrelevant. Kennan 86 George F. Kennan, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, served
as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952) and Yugoslavia (1961-1963), 1985 (Morality and Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1985/1986, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 209-210) The situations that arouse our discontent are ones existing, as a rule, far from our own shores. Few of us can profess to be perfect judges of their rights and their wrongs. These are, for the governments in question, matters of internal affairs . It is customary for governments to resent interference by outside powers in affairs of this nature, and if our diplomatic history is any indication, we ourselves are not above resenting and resisting it when we find ourselves its object. Interventions of this nature can be formally defensible only if the practices against which they are directed are seriously injurious to our interests , rather than just our sensibilities . There will, of course, be those readers who will argue that the encouragement and promotion of democracy elsewhere is always in the interests of the security, political integrity and prosperity of the United States. If this can be demonstrated in a given instance, well and good. But it is not invariably the case. Democracy is a loose term. Many varieties of folly and injustice contrive to masquerade under this designation. The mere fact that a country acquires the trappings of self-government does not automatically mean that the interests of the United States are thereby furthered. There are forms of plebiscitary "democracy" that may well prove less favorable to American interests than a wise and benevolent authoritarianism. There can be tyrannies of a majority as well as tyrannies of a minority, with the one hardly less odious than the other. Hitler came to power (albeit under highly unusual circumstances) with an electoral mandate, and there is scarcely a dictatorship of this age that would not claim the legitimacy of mass support. There are parts of the world where the main requirement [end page 209] of American security is not an unnatural imitation of the American model but sheer stability, and this last is not always assured by a government of what appears to be popular acclaim. In approaching this question, Americans must overcome their tendency toward generalization and learn to examine each case on its own merits . The best measure of these merits is not the attractiveness of certain general semantic symbols but the effect of the given situation on the tangible and demonstrable interests of the U nited S tates.

34

You might also like