Sudan Affirmative

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

1 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

2 Sudan Affirmative

We Must Understand Genocide.......................................................................................................................................... 69 We Must Understand Genocide.......................................................................................................................................... 70 Narratives Key to Remembering/Remembering Key........................................................................................................ 71 We must recount what happened in Rwanda or risk forgetting ........................................................................................ 71 Assuming Responsibility Key to Prevent Future Genocide .............................................................................................. 72 Bystanders Influence Genocide .......................................................................................................................................... 73 Inaction is a choice-bystanders have an obligation to act.................................................................................................. 73 Bystanders Influence Genocide .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Genocide Minimalization Bad............................................................................................................................................ 75 Genocide Education Good .................................................................................................................................................. 76 The Holocaust Requires Vigilance Against Future Genocide........................................................................................... 77 Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 78 Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 79 Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 80 Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurance.............................................................................................................. 82 ***Infinite Responsibility Module***............................................................................................................................... 83 The Aff. is the Ultimate Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 84 Infinite Responsibility Solves for Violence ....................................................................................................................... 85 Responsibility Creates Effective Politics ........................................................................................................................... 86 Responsibility Solves Egoism ............................................................................................................................................ 87 Recognizing Responsibility is a Sign of Love ................................................................................................................... 88 Responsibility is a Form of Resisting Domination ............................................................................................................ 89 Personal Testimony Solves................................................................................................................................................. 90 Moral Force (Good) ............................................................................................................................................................ 91 Language Alone Opens the Possibility of a Relationship With the Other........................................................................ 92 Engaging the Face 1/1......................................................................................................................................................... 93 ***Derrida***..................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Calculation Bad ................................................................................................................................................................... 95 RESPONSIBILITY TO THE OTHER............................................................................................................................... 97 Bearing Witness ................................................................................................................................................................ 101 AU Counterplan Frontline 1/1 .......................................................................................................................................... 105 AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 106 No OAU unity ................................................................................................................................................................... 107 Local organizations solve ................................................................................................................................................. 108 AU has no power............................................................................................................................................................... 109 AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 110 AU Cannot Solve .............................................................................................................................................................. 111 AU Lacks Resources......................................................................................................................................................... 112 No Advantage to Consultation.......................................................................................................................................... 113 The AU is Not Ready to Lead in Conflicts ...................................................................................................................... 114 The AU is Ineffective........................................................................................................................................................ 115 AU Consultation Fails....................................................................................................................................................... 116 AU Doesn’t Want into Sudan ........................................................................................................................................... 117 The AU won’t agree to stop Sudan conflict..................................................................................................................... 117 The AU is not concerned with Zimbabwe crisis.............................................................................................................. 117

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

3 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

4 Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC Scenario One Internally Displaced Peoples In an attempt to flee the Janjaweed, over one million Sudanese have been displaced Slavin in 2004 (July 4, Chicago Sun Times, accessed online, jec) But there is little to celebrate in Darfur. Powell's visit was the administration's most dramatic effort yet to find a solution to the looming humanitarian catastrophe here. More than a million people have been forced from their homes in a bitter conflict over power and resources that also has ethnic roots. The Janjaweed are Arab militias who have driven non-Arab villagers off the land in Darfur in an ethnic-cleansing campaign that many human rights groups believe now verges on genocide. United Nations officials and human rights activists say Sudan's armed forces back the Janjaweed. The government in Khartoum says they are outlaws and it is determined to disarm them. What is not in dispute is that people in Darfur are dying in alarming numbers. Conditions at Abu Shouk, the site selected for Powell to see by the Sudanese government, are vastly superior to the horrific scenes of famine and squalor in other camps to the north and west. Some aid workers called Abu Shouk a ''show camp'' that was spruced up for Powell, who was accompanied by Sudanese officials at all times. While there were no visible signs of famine here, other camps are said to be heartbreaking. ''The camp I went to was one of the better camps,'' Powell told National Public Radio after his visit. ''I'm sure there are camps out there that are awful and nowhere near what I saw today.'' Between 15,000 and 30,000 people have perished in Darfur in the past 16 months. U.S. officials say 500,000 more may die if they can't go home or if more aid doesn't arrive soon. Powell spent only about 20 minutes here, cutting short his visit to escape an approaching sandstorm. Afterward he told reporters that Abu Shouk -- located about 400 miles west of the Sudanese capital of Khartoum -- and more than 130 other camps in Darfur are not the solution to the crisis. ''These people want to go home, they need to go home,'' he said. ''And they can't go home if it's not safe.''

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

5 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

6 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

7 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

8 Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC Solvency Private Military could be used in Sudan are Force Multipliers Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec) David Wimhurst, a spokesman in the office of the U.N. Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, dismisses the privatization idea. "It's not going to go anywhere. Forget about it," he says. "So you get a gang of mercenaries in there, basically. Who do they report to? Who controls them? It's a nonstarter." Wimhurst's vehement response is typical at the United Nations, says Peter Gantz, a peacekeeping associate at Refugees International, a private humanitarian group: There, people's aversion to putting soldiers of fortune among blue helmets gets in the way of an honest assessment of what private companies could offer. "The thing that disappoints me is that the people who oppose the idea oppose it so categorically, it seems, particularly the United Nations, so they don't open themselves up to the middle ground," he says. "To me, what the Department of Peacekeeping Operations should be doing is looking at what companies are out there and what they can provide and having an honest debate within the United Nations about it. If you have the United States and the United Kingdom and France and these other major military powers utilizing private companies to support military operations, then the United Nations should be able to at least consider doing the same thing." To some degree, it already is. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Los Angeles-based Pacific Architects & Engineers revamped the airfields and now manages air traffic control, a crucial part of operations in a country as vast as that one, where a paltry 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers cannot possibly be expected to be everywhere at once. PAE is providing fuel, vehicles, and rations for the new mission in Ivory Coast. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution fellow and the author of Corporate Warriors, a detailed analysis of the rise of private military companies, says, "Logistics is not just innocuous tasks. It is things that are critical to the overall operation. The second thing is that on the modern battlefield, there's no fixed front line, so any part of the operation can come under threat. And any part of the operation may be called on to play a role in combat." A more robust version of logistical support would use private firms as "force multipliers" to leverage the power of U.N. troops. This is the key to Brooks's Sudan proposal: Refurbish five airfields, plop U.N. troops down to guard them, and rely primarily on surveillance equipment with a satellite connection so that government officials and rebels can monitor the truce in virtual time. Do more with less.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

9 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

10 Sudan Affirmative

Sudan 1AC Acknowledging Sudan as a Genocide and Referring to the ICC solves future genocides by spurring domestic legal change and empowering political groups Christian Science Monitor, 9/5/2002 Court advocates know the ICC will be no panacea. Still, they call it the greatest achievement for universal human rights in half a century, a tool that may revolutionize how domestic courts around the globe conduct their business. The ICC jurisdiction and its definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide will compel signatory countries to adopt these statutes in their criminal codes, supporters say - and to prosecute violators or face the prospect of the ICC doing it for them. That is expected to embolden judges, prosecutors, and activists, particularly in the developing world. "For those who feel utter helplessness that nothing is done about rogues who defy the international community and act as if they are above the law, the ICC extends the frontiers of justice," said Albie Sachs, an anti-apartheid activist who now serves on the Constitutional Court of South Africa. "The ICC emphasizes the universality of human rights and the universal responsibilities of all of humanity. The excuse of sovereignty can no longer be used in the face of human tragedy." Hailing the court as "a victory for accountability" and "the end of impunity," the governing body of the ICC is meeting in the UN and now begins a three-month process of nominating the ICC prosecutor and its 18 judges. Elections are slated for February, with the court expected to begin investigating cases next summer.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

11 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

12 Sudan Affirmative

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

13 Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 1/ This argument is intended to work with more traditional explanations of what is happening in Sudan. It essentially seeks to establish that , only through the relationship with the other can we survive and transcend violence. There are a few untagged cards in back so that you have some flexibility in running it. The US is Currently Unwilling to Classify the Sudan as a Genocide Birchall 04(Jonathan, Financial Times Online, July 5, jec) More than 800,000 people have been made homeless. Pro-government militias have systematically burned villages and destroyed crops and wells. Up to 30,000 have been killed in the conflict, many of them civilians; and there are fears that at least 300,000 more could die from resulting hunger and disease. By any measure, the situation in Sudan's western Darfur region is a man-made catastrophe. But as the international community steps up pressure on Sudan's government over the crisis, it is also struggling with a question of definitions: should the targeting of the region's black African population by militia drawn largely from the local nomadic Arab herders be classed as genocide? "These are innocent people being raped, murdered, forced into sexual slavery and being submitted to other kinds of brutality," argued Donald Payne, a member of the US House of Representatives, announcing a bid to persuade the US and the United Nations to invoke the international convention on genocide over Darfur. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, disagrees. After visiting Sudan last week, he talked of "some indicators, but certainly not a full accounting of all the indicators that lead to a legal definition of genocide".

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

14 Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 2/ Plan – We should acknowledge that the actions of the Sudan government and Junjaweed, its assassins is is violation of the Genocide Convention. Any questions, just ask. As citizens of the United States, we have begun emotionally faitigued to the point that we no longer recognize the tragedy in others. Like Mersault we have privileged our physical needs over the needs of the other. Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963) Right after my arrest I was questioned several times, but it was just so they could find out who I was, which didn't take long. The first time, at the police station, nobody seemed very interested in my case. A week later, however, the examining magistrate looked me over with curiosity. But to get things started he simply asked my name and address, my occupation, the date and place of my birth. Then he wanted to know if I had hired an attorney. I admitted I hadn't and inquired whether it was really necessary to have one. "Why do you ask?" he said. I said I thought my case was pretty simple. He smiled and said, "That's your opinion. But the law is the law. If you don't hire an attorney yourself, the court will appoint one." I thought it was very convenient that the court should take care of those details. I told him so. He agreed with me and concluded that it was a good law. At first, I didn't take him seriously. I was led into a curtained room; there was a single lamp on his desk which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained standing in the shadows. I had read descriptions of scenes like this in books and it all seemed like a game to me. After our conversation, though, I looked at him and saw a tall, fine-featured man with deep-set blue eyes, a long gray moustache, and lots of thick, almost white hair. He struck me as being very reasonable and, overall, quite pleasant, despite a nervous tic which made his mouth twitch now and then. On my way out I was even going to shake his hand, but just in time, I remembered that I had killed a man. The next day a lawyer came to see me at the prison. He was short and chubby, quite young, his hair carefully slicked back. Despite the heat (I was in my shirt sleeves), he had on a dark suit, a wing collar, and an oddlooking tie with broad black and white stripes. He put the briefcase he was carrying down on my bed, introduced himself, and said he had gone over my file. My case was a tricky one, but he had no doubts we'd win, if I trusted him. I thanked him and he said, "Let's get down to business." He sat down on the bed and explained to me that there had been some investigations into my private life. It had been learned that my mother had died recently at the home. Inquiries had then been made in Marengo. The investigators had learned that I had "shown in-sensitivity" the day of Maman's funeral. "You understand," my lawyer said, "it's a little embarrassing for me to have to ask you this. But it's very important. And it will be a strong argument for the prosecution if I can't come up with some answers." He wanted me to help him. He asked if I had felt any sadness that day. The question caught me by surprise and it seemed to me that I would have been very embarrassed if I'd had to ask it. Nevertheless I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

15 Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module- Killing an Arab 3/ Once we abandon hope of seeing the other as ourselves, it becomes nothing to let them die. As Mersault explained to the magistrate- one shot or five shots – it is all the same when the one being shot is less than human to us. Despite the difficulty, we must recognize that we are all criminals. We are all judges. Albert Camus, The Stranger, 1963, p 100). . Again without any apparent logic, the magistrate then asked if I had fired all five shots at once. I thought for a minute and explained that at first I had fired a single shot and then, a few seconds later, the other four. Then he said, "Why did you pause between the first and second shot?" Once again I could see the red sand and feel the burning of the sun on my forehead. But this time I didn't answer. In the silence that followed, the magistrate seemed to be getting fidgety. He sat down, ran his fingers through his hair, put his elbows on his desk, and leaned toward me slightly with a strange look on his face. "Why, why did you shoot at a body that was on the ground?" Once again I didn't know how to answer. The magistrate ran his hands across his forehead and repeated his question with a slightly different tone in his voice. "Why? You must tell me. Why?" Still I didn't say anything. Suddenly he stood up, strode over to a far corner of his office, and pulled out a drawer in a file cabinet. He took out a silver crucifix which he brandished as he came toward me. And in a completely different, almost cracked voice, he shouted, "Do you know what this is?" I said, "Yes, of course." Speaking very quickly and passionately, he told me that he believed in God, that it was his conviction that no man was so guilty that God would not forgive him, but in order for that to happen a man must repent and in so doing become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace all. He was leaning all the way over the table. He was waving his crucifix almost directly over my head. To tell the truth, I had found it very hard to follow his reasoning, first because I was hot and there were big flies in his office that kept landing on my face, and also because he was scaring me a little. At the same time I knew that that was ridiculous because, after all, I was the criminal. He went on anyway. I vaguely understood that to his mind there was just one thing that wasn't clear in my confession, the fact that I had hesitated before I fired my second shot. The rest was fine, but that part he couldn't understand. I was about to tell him he was wrong to dwell on it, because it really didn't matter. But he cut me off and urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if I believed in God. I said no. He sat down indignantly. He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless. "Do you want my life to be meaningless?" he shouted. As far as I could see, it didn't have anything to do with me, and I told him so. But from across the table he had already thrust the crucifix in my face and was screaming irrationally, "I am a Christian. I ask Him to forgive you your sins. How can you not believe that He suffered for you?" I was struck by how sincere he seemed, but I had had enough. It was getting hotter and hotter. As always, whenever I want to get rid of someone I'm not really listening to, I made it appear as if I agreed. To my surprise, he acted triumphant. "You see, you see!" he said. "You do believe, don't you, and you're going to place your trust in Him, aren't you?" Obviously, I again said no. He fell back in his chair. He seemed to be very tired. He didn't say anything for a minute while the typewriter, which hadn't let up the whole time, was still tapping out the last few sentences. Then he looked at me closely and with a little sadness in his face. In a low voice he said, "I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours. The criminals who have come before me have always wept at the sight of this image of suffering." I was about to say that that was

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

16 Sudan Affirmative

Camus Module – Killing an Arab 4/ precisely because they were criminals. But then I realized that I was one too. It was an idea I couldn't get used to. Then the judge stood up, as if to give me the signal that the examination was over. He simply asked, in the same weary tone, if I was sorry for what I had done. I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt kind of annoyed. I got the impression he didn't understand

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

17 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

18 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

19 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

20 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

21 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

22 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

23 Sudan Affirmative

***US Role is Key***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

24 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

25 Sudan Affirmative

US Role is Key Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

26 Sudan Affirmative

***Racism Add On***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

27 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

28 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

29 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

30 Sudan Affirmative

Confronting Racism will aid U.S. security Scruggs-Leftwich 04 (http://www.gvnews.net/html/WorldReacts/alert32.html, Date accessed: July 5 2004, JD) I am trying desperately to connect the dots between the World Conference Against Racism just concluded on Sept. 8 in Durban, South Africa, and the dastardly Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the United States of America. The specter of the deadly imploding concrete and steel of America's economic and military superiority was unfathomable after experiencing at Durban the stressful confrontation between nations ideologically--and often geographically--polarized. In addition, it came on the heels of tendentious displays of the raw power of the United States and other industrialized nations in thwarting the conference's agenda of addressing long-neglected Third World issues. The acts of human annihilation, perpetrated by U.S. airplanes turned into situational weapons of mass destruction in the hands of lunatics, instantly trivialized the race conference's posturing, bickering and frequent fits of uncompromising arrogance. The image of discord projected by many news organizations covering the meeting with the unwieldy title of World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was fueled by Western nations' determination to have their own way and to play only by their rules. In fact, the United States vacillated for months about coming, ultimately to send a low-level delegation that left five days before the conference ended. As long as this and petty parliamentary moves by others succeeded in suppressing slavery and reparations as topics for serious consideration, Western power ruled. As long as it was possible for extremists on all sides--Arabs, Israelis and Americans--to manipulate the Middle East into an untenable zero-sum position, no nation could be expected to make true progress on slavery, its lingering effects or its remedies. From Vision of Power to Symbol of Vulnerability Yet, these heated confrontations somehow pale when compared with the United States' utter vulnerability under a war-like attack, or with the fragility of thousands of American lives, collaterally consumed in a conflagration of hatred and fanatical rage. But the dots do somehow connect in my mind. Among shifting images and recollections, I see a link between the negotiating, collaborating, reapprochement-seeking delegates at the conference--the majority of whom seemed to be women from both the industrialized West and the Third World-and the allegedly "Third World" Kamikaze men who, in a matter of moments, shook the foundations--literal, spiritual and figurative--of America's deeply embedded sense of security. Loose cannon conservative TV personality Laura Schlessinger has hastily assigned blame for our vulnerability to security breeches by women in the military who, in her opinion, don't belong there anyhow. To the contrary, an international team of women planned, governed, managed, guided, mediated and finally led to a conclusion the fragile World Conference Against Racism, complete with a minimally acceptable, formal Conference Declaration and a Plan of Action. Such diplomacy will, I believe, lead to more security for all rich and poor nations alike. U.N. Commissioner Robinson Insists Racism Must Be Discussed In fact, this experience suggests that we will need increasingly more women at the boundaries between the United States, our sworn enemies and the rest of the world if, in the months to come, we are to prosecute with any sanity a campaign against specifically identified groups of terrorists and their networks, to avenge the pain and destruction caused by the attack. The Durban meetings would not have gotten beyond the first preparatory conference had it not been for the

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

31 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

32 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

33 Sudan Affirmative

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

01

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

34 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

35 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

36 Sudan Affirmative

***Harms Extensions***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

37 Sudan Affirmative

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

The Sudanese Ethnic Cleansing is Not a Genocide Birchall 04(Jonathan, Financial Times Online, July 5, jec) While the US was keeping the situation under review, Mr Powell said he was "more interested in taking care of the people" than arguing over definitions. The 1948 genocide convention legally defines genocide as acts "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Richard Dicker, an expert on international law at Human Rights Watch, points out that the convention also brings "the obligation to prevent and to punish" acts of genocide, which has in the past affected the readiness with which Washington has been prepared to use the term. "In the case of the crisis in Kosovo, the use of the term was encouraged by Washington to justify military intervention; in the case of Rwanda, when there was no readiness to intervene, its use was discouraged," Mr Dicker said. For human rights and aid agencies working to mobilise international pressure over Darfur, there have been agonised internal debates over whether genocide should be invoked. Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have both denounced "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur, but avoided the term genocide. Amnesty International has called for the setting up of an international inquiry to examine charges of war crimes, "as well as allegations of genocide". But Jean-Hervé Bradol, head of Médecins Sans Frontières, also said last week after returning from visiting MSF projects in Darfur that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate, speaking instead of "a mass campaign of repression directed against civilians". "Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres, but not of attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group," he said on MSF's website. Genocide is Happening it Darfur Buffalo News 2004 (Pg.A6, accessed on lexis, jec)

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

38 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

39 Sudan Affirmative

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

Unfortunately, UN Peacekeepers are at Crisis Levels and Can Ill Afford to Deploy Enough Troops to Sudan to Effectively Stop the Violence and Help Internally Displaced Peoples Hukil in 2004 (Traci, The Progress Report, accessed online at http://www.progress.org/2004/merc01.htm, jec) The United Nations is facing a peacekeeping crisis. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations began emitting distress signals months ago about the number of blue berets and blue helmets it will be expected to muster this year -- up to 20,000 for missions in Ivory Coast, Haiti, and possibly Burundi and Sudan, and all at a time when troop-contributing countries are under pressure from Washington to send soldiers to Iraq. If the Burundi and Sudan missions become reality, the U.N. will have 45,000 peacekeepers deployed, the highest number since the mid-1990s.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

40 Sudan Affirmative

Junjaweed Actions are Verging on Genocide Slavin in 2004 (Barbara, USA TODAY, pg. 1A, accessed on lexis, jec)

Secretary of State Colin Powell briefly visited Abu Shouk on Wednesday as part of a continuing effort by the Bush administration to pressure the Sudanese government to crack down on the Janjaweed. U.S. officials want aid workers to get broader access to Darfur and to ship in more food and medicine. But Leila and thousands of other refugees who chased after Powell as he walked among them and mobbed his entourage in 100-degree heat did not know who he was -- only that he was someone important who might finally bring help. "Ya esh," they chanted at him, using the Arabic term for "long life." Women in rainbow-hued native dresses ululated -- a shrill cry that usually accompanies celebrations in this part of the world. But there is little to celebrate in Darfur. More than a million people have been forced from their homes in a bitter conflict over power and resources that also has ethnic and tribal roots. Powell's visit, the first by a secretary of State to Sudan in 26 years, is the administration's most dramatic effort yet to find a solution to the looming humanitarian catastrophe here. The Janjaweed are Arab militias who have driven non-Arab villagers, mostly black farmers, off the land in Darfur in an ethnic-cleansing campaign that many human rights groups say verges on genocide. Darfur is Beginning to look Like Rwanda in 1994 Slavin in 2004 (Barbara, USA TODAY, pg. 1A, accessed on lexis, jec)

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

41 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

42 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

43 Sudan Affirmative

***Topicality Answers***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

44 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

45 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

46 Sudan Affirmative

***Politics***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

47 Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 1/4 1 non unique- the US is already taking a public stand that the killings in Sudan need to stop. No reason why, if plan happened, the poltical or public reaction would be anymore dramatic. 2no link – No evidence indicates that Bush’s popularity has anything to do with his position in Sudan 3 No Impact – The negative process of calculation is just another tool of international relations to avoid our infinit responsibility to the other and they should be rejected for it. Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p107,jec) This infinite and dissymmetrical economy of sacrifice is opposed to that of the scribes and pharisees, to the old law in general, and to that of heathen ethnic groups or gentiles (goyim); it refers on the one hand to the Christian as against the Judaic, on the other hand to the Judeo-Christian as against the rest. It always presupposes a calculation that claims to go beyond calculation, beyond the totality of the calculable as a finite totality of the same. There is an economy, but it is an economy thai integrates the renunciation of a calculable remuneration, renunciation of merchandise or bargaining [marcbandage], of economy in the sense of a retribution that can be measured or made symmetrical. In the space opened by this economy of what is without measure there emerges a new teaching concerning giving or alms that relates the latter to giving back or paying back, a yield [rendement] if you wish, a profitability [rentabilitf] also, of course, but one that creatures cannot calculate and must leave to the appreciation of the father as be who sees in secret. Starting from Chapter ft of the same Gospel, the theme of justice is remarked upon if not marked out explicitly, or it is at least appealed to and named as that which must be practiced without being marked or remarked upon. One must be just without being noticed for it. To want to be noticed means wanting recognition and payment in terms of a calculable salary, in terms of thanks [remerciarient] or recompen.se. On the contrary one must give, alms for example, without knowing, or at least by giving with one hand without the other hand knowing, that is, without having it known, without having it known by other men, in secret, without counting on recognition, reward, or remuneration. Without even having it known to oneself. The dissociation between right and left again breaks up the pair, the parity or pairing, the symmetry between, or homogeneity of, two economies. In fact it inaugurates sacrifice. But an infinite calculation supersedes the finite calculating that has been renounced. God the Father, who sees in secret, will pay back your salary, and on an infinitely greater scale.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

48 Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 2/4 4 Not Competitive in our framework Our advocacy in the 1AC is that there are costs to be bore by accepting our infinite responsibility and that those costs are irrelevant in a question of ethics Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. xiv This also means that I am not only answerable for what I initiated in a project or commitment of my will. I am responsible for the situation in which I find myself, and for the existence in which I find myself. To be responsible is always to have to answer for a situation that was in place before I came on the scene. Responsibility is a bond between my present and what came to pass before it. In it is effected a passive synthesis of time that precedes the time put together by retentions and protentions. I am responsible for processes in which I find myself, and which have a momentum by which they go on beyond what I willed or what I can steer. Responsibility cannot be limited to the measure of what I was able to foresee and willed. In fact real action in the world is always action in which the devil has his part, in which the force of initiative has force only inasmuch as it espouses things that have a force of their own. I am responsible for processes that go beyond the limits of my foresight and intention, that carry on even when I am no longer adding my sustaining force to them and even when I am no longer there. Serious responsibility recognizes itself to be responsible for the course of things beyond one’s own death. My death will mark the limit of my force without limiting my responsibility. There is in this sense an infinity that opens in responsibility, not as a given immensity of its horizons, but as the process by which its bounds do not cease to extend — an infinition of infinity. The bond with the alterity of the other is in this infinity. I am answerable before the other in his alterity responsible before all the others for all the others. To be responsible before the other is to make of my subsistence the support of his order and his needs. His alterity commands and solicits, his approach contests and appeals; I am responsible before the other for the other. I am responsible before the other in his alterity, that is, not answerable for his empirical and mundane being only, but for the alterity of his initiatives, for the imperafive appeal with which he addresses me. I am responsible for the responsible moves of another, for the very impact and trouble with which he approaches me. To be responsible before another is to answer to the appeal by which he approaches. It is to put oneself in [their] his place, not to observe oneself from without, but to bear the burden of his existence and supply for its wants. I am responsible for the very faults of another, for his deeds and misdeeds. The condition of being hostage is an authentic figure of responsibility. —

5 cross apply the New Republic evidence in the 1AC. Even our administration acknowledges that we cannot allow another Rwanda. We confront our numbness and solve back for harms in the disadvantage and the 1AC. 6 Prioritize your act of protest- The internal links of the disadvantage are absurd. They always are. People are dying in Sudan as we speak. Use the ballot as a means to express solidarity with those who wish to stop this violence. The larger the calculative impact to this argument the more reason to vote affirmative

The Utterance of Our Infinite Responsibility is the First Step Toward Achieving Peace. We Must Act Even When Calculation Suggests it is Imprudent Derrida in 92( Jacques, French guy, The Gift of Death, p60-4,jec) Just as no one can die in my place, no one can make a decision, what we call "a decision," in my place. But as soon as one speaks, as soon as one enters the medium of language, one loses that very singularity. One therefore loses the possibility of deciding or the right to decide. Thus every decision would, fundamentally, remain at the same time solitary, secret, and silent. Speaking relieves us, Kierkegaard notes, for it "translates" into the general (113).4 The first effect or first destination of language therefore involves depriving me of, or delivering me from, my singularity. By suspending my absolute singularity in speaking, I renounce at the same time my liberty and my responsibility. Once I speak I am never and no longer myself, alone and unique. It is a very strange contract—both paradoxical and terrifying—that binds infinite responsibility to silence and secrecy. It goes against what one usually thinks, even in the most philosophical mode. For common sense, just as for philosophical reasoning, the most widely shared belief is that responsibility is tied to the public and to the nonsecrct, to the possibility and even the necessity of accounting for one's words and

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

49 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

50 Sudan Affirmative

Politics Frontline 4/4 droit says the French translation of Kierkegaard)—and thus the instance of the law has to be added to those (if philosophy and ethics: nothing hidden, no absolutely legitimate secret. But the paradox of faith is that intenority remains "incommensurable with exterioritv" ((>')). No manifestation can consist in rendering the interior exterior or show what is hidden. The knight of faith can neither communicate to nor be understood by anyone, she can't help the other at all (71). The absolute duty that obligates her with respect to God cannot have the form of generality that is called duty. If I obey in my duty towards God (which is my absolute duty) only in terms of duty, I am not fulfilling my relation to God. In order to fulfill my duty towards God, I must not act out of duty, by means of that form of generality that can always he mediated and communicated and that is called duty. The absolute duty that binds me to Cod himself, in faith, must function beyond and against any duty I have. "The duty becomes duty bv being traced back to God, but in the duty itself I do not enter into relation to God" (68). Kant explains that to act morally is to act "out of duty" and not only "by conforming to duty." Kierkegaard sees acting "out of duty," in the universalizahle sense of the law, as a dereliction of one's absolute duty. It is in this sense that absolute duty (towards God and in the singularity of faith) implies a sort of gift or sacrifice that functions beyond both debt and duty, beyond dutv as a form of debt. This is the dimension that provides for a "gift of death" which, beyond human responsibility, beyond the universal concept of duty, is a response to absolute duty.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

51 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

52 Sudan Affirmative

Sudan Costs No Political Capital Preventing Genocide Will Provide Political Cover on Foreign Policy for Bush Christian Science Monitor June 30, 2004 (pg. 01) The last time a US secretary of State visited Sudan was 1978, when Jimmy Carter's envoy, Cyrus Vance, stopped to refuel his plane. But in a sign of Sudan's growing significance, Colin Powell arrived Tuesday for a high-profile two-day visit. The trip is the latest evidence of a major shift in US policy toward the Muslimled state that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The visit is primarily aimed at halting the suffering and violence in Sudan's western region of Darfur, home to the world's worst humanitarian crisis. But analysts say it may also fulfill other White House goals. If the Bush team can bring Sudan back into the family of nations, as it did this week with Libya, it would gain a diplomatic victory for the war on terror. It could also fire up its Christian-conservative base by securing a peace deal in Sudan's other war, a 21-year conflict between the Muslims in the north and the largely Christian south. And it could keep critics from having another issue with which to pillory its foreign policy if it can prevent a repeat of Rwanda's 1994 genocide in Sudan. "People are starting to use the term genocide" in connection with Darfur, says Jennifer Cooke of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington. "That accusation, especially in an election year, and particularly after this administration has put so much effort" into a north-south peace agreement, "is not something they want to deal with." Furthermore, she says, if they can strengthen ties with Sudan's government, "they could make the case that, 'Our strong confrontation against terror has been productive not only in Iraq, but we've also brought some rogue states back into the fold.' "

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

53 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

54 Sudan Affirmative

Uniqueness Bush Will Win the Election, Wartime 'Hawks' Always Do Cavanaugh, 2004 (Tim, Web editor at Reason magazine, Accessed online 7-8-04, url: http://www.rppi.org/wartimehawks.shtml, srg). If John Kerry is serious about defeating George W. Bush in the US presidential election next November, I have some advice for him, courtesy of my daughter. Thanks to the American Museum of the Moving Image's online exhibit "The Living Room Candidate," I've found the perfect one-minute entertainment for a small child: The once-famous "I Like Ike" TV commercial for Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 campaign features a black and white cartoon parade led by a smiling, banner-waving elephant, marching to the infectious, policy-free anthem: "You like Ike, I like Ike, Everybody likes Ike for President ..." This spot never fails to make my kid (not yet, to my knowledge, a declared Republican) laugh, dance, wave her hands and demand repeat viewings. The obvious lesson: If you want to win, get a campaign spot that appeals to a 2-year-old. It's just one of the many weaknesses of the Kerry campaign that the candidate seems incapable of this sort of common touch. In recent weeks, commentators have predicted Kerry's doom for a number of reasons: because he seems like a snob; because his Roman Catholicism appears insufficiently zealous; because his daughter wore a revealing dress at the Cannes film festival; because he's from America's Northeast; and because he speaks French. But I've got another reason why Kerry doesn't have a prayer in November. My reason is neither infallible nor earthshaking, and it's based on one of those "iron laws of history" that have a bad habit of melting away once you notice them. But it has considerable support when one looks at the history of US presidential

elections. Call it the Alamo Principle: When troops are in the field, in sufficient enough numbers for the nation to consider itself "at war," the candidate who looks more convincingly hawkish will always win. It doesn't matter how controversial, hopeless, or misguided the given war is (and all three adjectives could plausibly be applied to the Iraq war). It doesn't matter if large segments or even a majority of the population are not persuaded that the costs of the war are worth paying. It doesn't even matter whether the candidate's hawkishness is real or merely an effect of style and spin. American voters refuse to admit, or even consider, battlefield defeat. Thus Bush, who has managed to sell himself as the hawkish candidate on both the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" (though it's often difficult to tell how or where his and Kerry's positions on the two differ), has an edge that is more significant than the slight lead Kerry now enjoys in most polls; and even more significant than indications, in a recent USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll, that a majority of Americans now consider the invasion of Iraq a mistake. Anybody who believes Kerry can win as an anti-war candidate needs to cite a single wartime instance in American history where an anti-war candidate has won.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

55 Sudan Affirmative

Substantive Solvency

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

56 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

57 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

58 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

59 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

60 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

61 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

***Justice/Genocide Module***

62 Sudan Affirmative

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

63 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

64 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

65 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

66 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

67 Sudan Affirmative

Justice Is Key to Reconciliation Effective execution of justice and rule of law is key to durable reconciliation Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa, Ambassador to the United States, The Republic of Rwanda Spring 1999, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce The second priority is determining how to deal both with the legacy of genocide and trying to build the rule of law within our country because it is the culture of impunity, the absence of the rule of law that progressively created the pattern of human rights abuses, leading finally to genocide. Even if genocide had not occurred in Rwanda in 1994, the challenges of ensuring the fundamental rights of the citizens and building governance based on the rule of law would still have been daunting tasks. Genocide has made this task more complex and many times more difficult. With over 130,000 genocide suspects in overcrowded prisons, insufficient human, material and financial resources in the infant justice system established in the aftermath of the genocide of 1994, the challenge of justice calls for originality and innovation in handling matters related to justice. However, there are no shortcuts for there can be no genuine and durable reconciliation without eradicating the culture of impunity and institutionalizing the rule of law in our national life. Justice is key Cyprian Fisiy, Senior Social Scientist and Leader of the Social Development Team in the Africa Region of the World Bank, April, 1998, African Studies Review, p. 23-24 These shortcomings of the judicial system come at a point where the underlying networks and social fibers that hold Rwanda society together have been destroyed by the genocide. Neighbors killed each other, even if they were supervised by the militia or radical units of the army. As a consequence, this genocide has produced a fragmented and an atomized society where individual members are intensely suspicious of each other. It is in this context of lack of trust that the justice system is expected to withhold from daily social interaction those individuals who epitomize the genocide and who can become easy targets of revenge, if justice is not seen to have been meted out. To provide the basis of any peaceful coexistence, an operational judicial system must be seen to be meting out justice if it is to quench the overwhelming desire for justice and rebuild trust following these massacres. The post-conflict situation, characterized by inadequate judicial capacity, has led to a state of insecurity for Hutu groups arising from the following practices. The presumption of guilt. For most refugees and returning there is the constant threat of arrest based on the assumption that they are guilty of massacres: otherwise they would have been killed during the genocide. This is a total reversal of the universal principle that the onus of proof is always on the prosecution not on the defendant, to prove the accused guilty. In this context, any denunciation of a returning refugee leads to his/her immediate arrest by either the burgomaster, tile army, or what is left of the gendarmerie and the police force. Fear of arrest The fear of being arrested on the basis of presumed guilt is at the origin of tile widespread insecurity report- ed by most people returning lo their home communes. At the time of my field trip in 1995, the random nature of arrests in the home communes accounted for the failure of "operation retour." It was not the fear of trial for crimes that kept people in the camps; rather it is the randomness of arrest without trial that subverted any genuine efforts to encourage people lo return to their home communes until they were forced hack home by the outbreak of war in Zaire. Disputes over occupied property The old refugees, or the refugees from the 1959 period, had occupied vacant houses in both urban and rural areas, especially Ryumba, Kigali, and Kibungo, in anticipation of their eventual relocation and rehabilitation. Available evidence at the time suggested that despite the government's commitment to ensure that all property was returned to their lawful owners, the procedure for such restitutio in integrum was not very effective. In the four communes I visited, those seeking to gel back their property had to confront the new residents with their claim. Any returnee who vigorously pursued a claim for the restitution of his property easily engendered a counter accusation of genocide by the new beneficiary of the property. The uncertainty that attended the recovery of property was a major cause of insecurity in Rwanda.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

68 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

69 Sudan Affirmative

We Must Understand Genocide We must seek to understand genocide to prevent future genocides and break down racist stereotypes David Newbury, Professor at the University of North Carolina, April 1998, African Studies Review, “Understanding Genocide,” p. 76-77 It is important to understand these processes for several reasons. First, the scale of the human tragedy overwhelms us: it compels us to attend to the plight of millions of people, many of them innocent victims, some of them true heroes and heroines (though unrecognized), and a few culpable of some of the worst crimes against humanity. Each of these categories consists of people we need lo know more about, for they are all indicative of the character of the world in which we live—and have helped create. Furthermore, the conditions that provoked these catastrophes are largely still present; the experiences and losses of the past few years in (central Africa., for example, have vastly complicated and intensified relations into the future, in all three countries. If we ever hope to understand the next thirty years in this region, therefore, a good place to start is by understanding these three. What is most shocking, perhaps, is that those most responsible for perpetrating these crises—and for perpetuating them still today—were not only a few isolated sociopaths, but often common people reacting to the conditions around them in horrifying fashion. In other words, with but few changes they could have been us, or family members to us, or people we know. To note that is not to exonerate those responsible or turn them into innocent victims of circumstances. Instead it is to make it all the more necessary lo understand such issues, where political ambition and class differences escalate into killings of the most unimaginable sort. There is a second reason we need to understand these issues, however, and that relates not to "them" but to "us"; it raises questions not only about our understanding but about our assumptions. This is a region not well known in the west, but one nonetheless enveloped in a century of powerful imagery—ranging from the "Heart of Darkness" to tile "Noble Savage." In other words, it is an area that outsiders feel they "know" well. (consequently, these events have often been misunderstood—and the reporting on them has sometimes reinforced and extended the stereotypes which many outsiders carry about the people and cultures of this region (and of Africa as a whole). So we need to address these issues directly, for not to address them is to leave the stereotypes intact. A careful examination of the reporting is often instructive in this regard. One such stereotype is the assumption that Africans live in isolation from the rest of the world, that such catastrophes are simply the local manifestations of social collapse. In fact, as will be discussed below, there were many ways in which outside forces affected the people of this region, not least by arming state governments; indeed the record suggests that outside factors have exacerbated, not contained, conflict. In addition, it is often assumed in the west that ethnic conflict emerges in the absence of a strong state—that powerful state structures are necessary to contain the murderous tendencies of its citizens. Perhaps in some cases that is true. But in Central Africa, stale power has more often provoked conflict than prevented it; in the case of the genocide, state power was part of the problem, not the solution. A further assumption is that these tragedies result from a social pathology associated with

"tribalism," a situation in which people are irrevocably and eternally in confrontation with each other; therefore, there is no hope for any alteration in such patterns. In fact, in Rwanda people of diverse ethnic identities have lived interspersed for centuries. While no political system is without conflict, past conflict in Rwanda was more often between dynasties of the same ethnic group than between different ethnic groups. In some cases these conflicts were expressed in ethnic terms, but one must be careful not to confuse the cause of a conflict with the form it look: when fighting did occur, it did so because the antagonists were in competing dynasties, not because they were from different ethnic groups; these were political conflicts not ethnic conflicts. There is a third reason, even broader still, why we need to understand these events: because although they occurred in Central Africa, the conditions that produced them could be, and to some degree have been, reproduced in other areas as well. So we need to see this not as something historically unique, but as part of a set of political and human relations in situations where large numbers of people are denied access to resources essential to a dignified life but are provided easy access to instruments of destruction. In the case of Rwanda, as in Germany in the 1930s and Bosnia of the 1980s, those who sought to consolidate their power did so by attributing the hardships of the people to an identifiable (and accessible) scapegoat: a group to serve as target. With that in mind, it becomes possible to mobilize people on such a scale that the group redefines its own morality. For genocide, if "everyone" from one group is involved, then killing others becomes not only acceptable but necessary: in the eyes of the ideologues, to be a member of that social category it becomes necessary to participate in the process—there are strong parallels here with "patriotism" in the West, where dissent is often seen as treason. It is only the uncommonly courageous that reject such group mentality: what is extraordinary, and humbling, is how many Rwandans did so in 1994. protecting those targeted and refusing to kill, even at great risk to themselves and their families.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

70 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

71 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

72 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

73 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

74 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

75 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

76 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

77 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

78 Sudan Affirmative

Answers to Holocaust was a Singular Occurrence There is no reason the Holocaust can stand outside other historical events: Holocaust Uniqueness claims stand to deny the atrocities suffered by other peoples David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p. 170-171 Yet even if the field of genocide studies must necessarily remain one in which many questions will always go unanswered, there is no question at all regarding at least one matter: that the pre-twentieth-century destruction of native peoples at the hands of European invaders—from Australia to the Americas and elsewhere—frequently resulted in population collapses proportionately much higher than those experienced by any group, including Jews, during the Holocaust. Moreover, not only were proportionate losses routinely much higher among indigenous peoples (up to 100 percent in many cases—that is, total extermination—and between 90 and 95 percent generally), but the gross number of people destroyed by what I have elsewhere called the "American Holocaust" exceeded by many times over the number of Jews who died under the Nazis and, indeed, was even greater than the number of people of all nations killed worldwide during the entire duration of the Second World War. Even in specific locales—central Mexico and the Andes in particular—the deaths of culturally and ethnically distinct indigenous people in the wake of the European invasions vastly exceeded the mortality figures for Jews during the Holocaust, both in terms of proportional population loss and overall numbers killed.'6 Most of these facts had become well known by the early 1980s, and thus quantitative criteria quietly began disappearing from the writings of proponents of the Jewish uniqueness argument. To be sure, they did not go away easily. Although acknowledging that, in general, mortality rates or counts could no longer be used as sufficient measures unto themselves to establish uniqueness, some proponents of the uniqueness argument continued to resort to quantification, but only selectively, when it worked to their advantage in establishing differences between the sufferings of Jews and others. Thus, for instance, Lucy

Dawidowicz, in The Holocaust and the Historians, used the numerical difference between the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust and the deaths of Japanese civilians following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one way of dismissing the possibility that the nuclear destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives might be termed genocide. 7 When the subjects of comparison are different, however— that is, when discussing other populations that experienced a numerically and proportionately larger loss of life, such as certain huge communities in sixteenth- century Mesoamerica—Jewish uniqueness proponents, of course, now reject any use of quantitative criteria.'8 Other writers have used the absence of complete extermination among a comparison group, such as Armenians, Gypsies, and Native Americans) as a way of denying that genocide was actually perpetrated against the respective non-Jewish group. Michael R. Marrus, for example, distinguishes the suffering of the Armenians from that of the Jews as arising in part from the fact that "however extensive the murder of Armenians . . . killing was far from universal." And, he notes, "the fact is that many thousands of Armenians survived within Turkey during the period of the massacres." Yehuda Bauer concurs, noting that neither the Armenian nor the Gypsy genocides were comparable to the experience of the Jews because "in neither case was the destruction complete." Adds Steven T. Katz: though the mass killing of New England's Pequot Indians was no doubt lamentable (and it is true, he concedes, that their government-sanctioned white killers did act "with unnecessary severity"), at most the destruction of the Pequots can be described as "cultural genocide" since, after all, "the number killed probably totaled less than half the entire tribe." 19 This, to say the least, is a peculiar bit of historical reasoning—since Europe's Jews themselves were far from totally exterminated by the Nazis,

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

79 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

80 Sudan Affirmative

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

Holocaust uniqueness scholars deny the suffering of other victims of genocide and mimic the thought of the Holocaust deniers David Stannard, professor of American studies at the University of Hawaii, 1996, Is the Holocaust Unique?, p. 198-199 The willful maintenance of public ignorance regarding the genocidal and racist horrors against indigenous peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations of the Western Hemisphere) including the United States—which contributes to the construction of a museum to commemorate genocide only if the killing occurred half a world away—is consciously aided and abetted and legitimized by the actions of the Jewish uniqueness

advocates we have been discussing. Their manufactured claims of uniqueness for their own people are after all synonymous with dismissal and denial of the experience of others—others much weaker more oppressed and in far more immediate danger than they. Further—and this would be ironic were it not so tragic—in their denial of genocide victim status to other groups Jewish uniqueness advocates almost invariably mimic exactly the same pattern of assertions laid out by the antisemitic historical revisionists who deny Jewish suffering in the Holocaust: The number of people killed is said to be exaggerated the deaths that did occur are labeled as provoked or wartime casualties most of the victims are claimed to have succumbed to natural causes such as disease there is alleged to be no evidence of official intent to commit genocide and so on. In this way narcissistic false claims of uniqueness are joined with brutal racist denials of the sufferings of others becoming two sides of the same debased coin. But as uniqueness proponents never tire of reminding anyone who will listen, denial encourages more violence against those who truly are its victims. Jews suffered horrendously during the reign of the Third Reich—to say nothing of the

millennium of oppression and exile and pogrom that led inexorably toward the Holocaust—and so all people of conscience must be on guard against Holocaust deniers who, in many cases, would like nothing better than to see mass violence against Jews start again. By that same token, however, as we consider the terrible history and the ongoing campaigns of genocide against the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere and other peoples elsewhere, there no longer is any excuse for maintaining the self-serving masquerade of Jewish genocide uniqueness—the endlessly refined and revised deception that serves equally to deny the sufferings of others and thus, in murderous complicity with both past and present genocidal regimes, to place those terribly damaged others even closer to harm's way. It is a moral issue. And a serious one. As Elie Wiesel has said: "Now we know. Henceforth we shall be responsible. And accomplices."

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

81 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

82 Sudan Affirmative

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

many years now the Turkish government has employed an extraordinary range of strong-arm tactics to prevent international recognition of the Armenian genocide. It is understandable, if still detestable that perpetrator governments would deny their own complicity in mass murder. It is quite another thing, however, for a group that itself has been terribly victimized by an extermination campaign to collaborate with a historically murderous state in denying that state's documented participation in genocide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

83 Sudan Affirmative

***Infinite Responsibility Module***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

84 Sudan Affirmative

The Aff. is the Ultimate Demand Responsibility to the Other is ultimate demand –We Must Embrace This Ethic Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 11 Neither my consciousness nor my instincts are sufficient to the excessive demand the other places on me. They are cut to the quick. Yet shattered as shattered, a fission, a “despite-myself,” for’ no one is good voluntarily,” says Levinas the subject rises to the occasion, subjected to the most passive passivity, saying “Here I am.” The crux of ethics lies in the non- encompassable yet non-indifferent relation between the “better” and “being.” It is a relation like no other, “a distance which is also proximity,” Levinas wrote in 1946, which is not a coincidence or a lost union, but signifies all the surplus or all the goodness of an original sociality.” Responsibility in proximity with the other is “more precious than the fact of being given.”1 It is also more demanding. —

—

“—

The relationship of responsibility constitutes modern subjectivity and is the position which can establish successful ends to violence Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 11-12 As such, the ethical relation escapes thematization. To reduce it to a theme, a principle, a being, an arch6, was the mistake of onto-theology. To let being flow in the poetry of language, in its gift giving, its play, is also to turn from the ethical exigency to the ontological exigency, for being wants only to persevere in being. Ethics occurs — to return positively to Socrates — across the hiatus of dialogue, not in the content of discourse, in the continuities or discontinuities of what is said, but in the demand for response. “It is better,” Socrates said, “to suffer evil than to do it.” Socrates didn’t realize that he could not prove this point, even though it was in effect while he spoke. The responsibility to respond to the other is, for Levinas, precisely the inordinate responsibility, the infinite responsibility of being-for-the-other before oneself— the ethical relation. What is said lie dit] can always be unsaid, re-said or revised it is the saying [le dire] of it, the intrusion it effects, the interruption it inserts into continuities, as well as the passivity it calls forth, beneath identity, that accomplishes the priority and anteriority of ethics. The only alterity sufficiently other to provoke response, to subject the subject to the subjection of response which for Levinas is subjectivity itself, and the meaning of meaning, the event of ethics — is the absolute alterity of the other person encountered in the excessive immediacy of the face-to-face. —

—

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

85 Sudan Affirmative

Infinite Responsibility Solves for Violence Responsibility for the other can solve violence Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. 15 Responsibility for the other, in its antecedence to my freedom, its antecedence to the present and to representation, is a passivity more passive than all passivity, an exposure to the other without this exposure being assumed, an exposure without holding back, exposure of exposed-ness, expression, saying. This exposure is the frankness, sincerity, veracity of saying. Not saying dissimulating it self and protecting itself in the said, just giving out words in the face of the other, but saying uncovering itself, that is, denuding itself of its skin, sensibility on the surface of the skin, at the edge of the nerves, offering itself even in suffering — and thus wholly sign, signifying itself. Substitution, at the limit of being, ends up in saying, in the giving of signs, giving a sign of this giving of signs, expressing oneself. This expression is antecedent to all thematization in the said, but it is not a babbling or still primitive or childish form of saying. This stripping beyond nudity, beyond forms, is not the work of negation and no longer belongs to the order of being. Responsibility goes beyond being. In sincerity, in frankness, in the veracity of this saying, in the uncoveredness of suffering, being is altered. But this saying remains, in its activity, a passivity, more passive than all passivity, for it is a sacrifice without reserve, without holding back, and in this non-voluntary the sacrifice of a hostage designated who has not chosen himself to be hostage, but possibly elected by the Good, in an involuntary election not assumed by the elected one. For the Good can not enter into a present nor be put into a representation. But being Good it redeems the violence of its alterity, even if the subject has to suffer through the augmentation of this ever more demanding violence. —

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

86 Sudan Affirmative

Responsibility Creates Effective Politics Responsibility is all encompassing and infinite it transcends death in that it has no limit and establishes a basis for effective politics. Case Turns are Irrelevant. Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. xiv This also means that I am not only answerable for what I initiated in a project or commitment of my will. I am responsible for the situation in which I find myself, and for the existence in which I find myself. To be responsible is always to have to answer for a situation that was in place before I came on the scene. Responsibility is a bond between my present and what came to pass before it. In it is effected a passive synthesis of time that precedes the time put together by retentions and protentions. I am responsible for processes in which I find myself, and which have a momentum by which they go on beyond what I willed or what I can steer. Responsibility cannot be limited to the measure of what I was able to foresee and willed. In fact real action in the world is always action in which the devil has his part, in which the force of initiative has force only inasmuch as it espouses things that have a force of their own. I am responsible for processes that go beyond the limits of my foresight and intention, that carry on even when I am no longer adding my sustaining force to them and even when I am no longer there. Serious responsibility recognizes itself to be responsible for the course of things beyond one’s own death. My death will mark the limit of my force without limiting my responsibility. There is in this sense an infinity that opens in responsibility, not as a given immensity of its horizons, but as the process by which its bounds do not cease to extend — an infinition of infinity. The bond with the alterity of the other is in this infinity. I am answerable before the other in his alterity responsible before all the others for all the others. To be responsible before the other is to make of my subsistence the support of his order and his needs. His alterity commands and solicits, his approach contests and appeals; I am responsible before the other for the other. I am responsible before the other in his alterity, that is, not answerable for his empirical and mundane being only, but for the alterity of his initiatives, for the imperafive appeal with which he addresses me. I am responsible for the responsible moves of another, for the very impact and trouble with which he approaches me. To be responsible before another is to answer to the appeal by which he approaches. It is to put oneself in [their] his place, not to observe oneself from without, but to bear the burden of his existence and supply for its wants. I am responsible for the very faults of another, for his deeds and misdeeds. The condition of being hostage is an authentic figure of responsibility. —

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

87 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

88 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

89 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

90 Sudan Affirmative

Personal Testimony Solves Testimony can reveal the infinite and the original relationship of responsibility Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 106-107 I am going to tell you a peculiar feature of Jewish mysticism. In certain very old prayers, fixed by ancient

authorities, the faithful one begins by saying to God “Thou” and finishes the proposition thus begun by saying “He,” as if, in the course of this approach of the “Thou” its transcendence into “He” supervened. It is what in my descriptions I have called the “illeity” of the Infinite. Thus, in the “Here I am!” of the approach of the Other, the Infinite does not show itself. How then does it take on meaning? I will say that the subject who says “Here I am!” testifies to the Infinite. It is through this testimony, whose truth is not the truth of representation or perception, that the revelation of the Infinite occurs. It is through this testimony that the very glory of the Infinite glorifies itself. The term “glory” does not belong to the language of contemplation.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

91 Sudan Affirmative

Moral Force (Good) Moral force can create change-its empirically warranted. We solve the impact to the Disadvantage Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 12-14 Radical alterity figures in Levinas’ thought not as a flaw, an ignorance, an obscurity, a childishness, a laziness or a deferral, but as the non-thematizable charge through which ethics commands. “What oughtto be” the subject’s response to the Other relates to “what is” being, essence, manifestation, phenomenon, identity not by some subtle or crude conversion into “what is,” but by haunting it, disturbing it, raising it to a moral height of which it is not itself capable. The alterity of the other raises the subject in a severe responsibility which bears all the weight of the world’s seriousness in a non-indifference — with no ontological basis — for the other. When in the late 1930s the British colonial administrators asked Gandhi what he expected from his annoying non-violent agitation, the Mahatma replied that he expected the British would quit India. They would quit India on their own because they would come to see they were wrong. Moral force is a scandal for ontological thinking, whether that thinking is gently attuned to being or imposing its subjective will. The power of ethics is entirely different from the power of identities, whether poetic or political, whether knowledge or administration. It escapes and judges the synthesizing, centralizing forces. Ethics is forceful not because it opposes power with more power, on the same plane, with a bigger army, more guns, a finer microscope or a grander space program, but rather because it opposes power with what appears to be weakness and vulnerability but is responsibility and sincerity. To the calculations of power, ethics opposes less than power can conquer. With their lathi sticks the British occupational police struck their opponents, hurt them dreadfully, but at the same time they were hitting their own injustice, their own inhumanity, and with each blow non-violently received were taught a moral lesson. Not that they were necessarily taught a lesson: ethics is not ontology, it is not necessary, one can kill. Moral force, however, the proximity of the face-to-face, the height and destitution of the other’s face, is the ever patient counterbalance to all the powers of the world, including nuclear power. Moral force is not stronger than the powers of being and essence, the totalizing, synthesizing powers, it is better, and this is its ultimate strength. —

—

—

—

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

92 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

93 Sudan Affirmative

Engaging the Face 1/1 Engaging the face can begin ethical pecularity and deal with humanity-gender modified Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, Ethics and Infinity, 1985, pg. 86-87 E.L.: The face is signification, and signification without context. I mean that the Other, in the rectitude of his face, is not a character within a context. Ordinarily one is a “character”: a professor at the Sorbonne, a Supreme Court justice, son of so-and-so, everything that is in one’s passport, the manner of dressing, of presenting oneself. And all signification in the usual sense of the term is relative to such a context: the meaning of something is in its relation to another thing. Here, to the contrary, the face is meaning all by itself. You are you. In this sense one can say that the face is not “seen”. It is what cannot become a content, which your thought would embrace; it is uncontainable, it leads you beyond. It is in this that the signification of the face makes it escape from being, as a correlate of a knowing. Vision, to the contrary, is a search for adequation; it is what par excellence absorbs being. But the relation to the face is straightaway ethical. The face is what one cannot kill, or at least it is that whose meaning consists in saying: “thou shalt not kill.” Murder, it is true, is a banal fact: one can kill the Other; the ethical exigency is not an ontological necessity. The prohibition against killing does not render murder impossible, even if the authority of the prohibition is maintained in the bad conscience about the accomplished evil — malignancy of evil. It also appears in the Scriptures, to which the humanity of man is exposed inasmuch as it is engaged in the world. But to speak truly, the appearance in being of these “ethical peculiarities” — the humanity of [human]man —is a rupture of being. It is significant, even if being resumes and recovers itself.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

94 Sudan Affirmative

***Derrida***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

95 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

96 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

97 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

98 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

99 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

100 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

101 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

102 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

103 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

104 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

105 Sudan Affirmative

AU Counterplan Frontline 1/1 Perm – Do plan with support from the AU. US Institute of Peace ’94 (United States Institute of Peace, September 28, 1994. Date Accessed: July 11, 2004. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/USContr2.html) A need exists for the creation of an African capability for peacekeeping and for greater cooperation among the UN, OAU, and subregional organizations such as ECOWAS. Although many OAU countries have provided troops for UN peacekeeping operations, including those in Africa, new capacities for peacekeeping can be developed. One proposal is to use African troops for peacekeeping operations on the continent, with support for command, communications, and coordination provided by the UN and logistics and other material support by major powers with interests in Africa, such as the U.S., United Kingdom, France, and Belgium.

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

Solvency Deficit – AU does not have the resources to effectively solve Reuters ’94 (Aljazeera.net, July 5, 2004. Date Accessed: July 11, 2004. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6A482B7D-E8EA-4EE5-8EA9-6867D81F75E4.htm) Ibok said an initial deployment of 300 troops would likely be sent to guard an eventual 60 AU peace monitors as well as to patrol refugee camps and border areas between Sudan and Chad, where some 200,000 Sudanese have fled to safety from attacks by armed groups.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

106 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

107 Sudan Affirmative

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

The AU has no power AFP, 7-7-00 Civil wars, armed separatist movements and territorial disputes continue to dog the continent, where grinding poverty is the lot of nearly half the population. The year since the last summit has seen two peace deals turn sour -- with fighting erupting anew in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- while Ethiopia and Eritrea have yet to reach a definitive peace following a ceasefire agreed last month. A 1994 peace agreement between the Angolan government and the Union for the Total Indendence of Angola (UNITA) collapsed in 1998, and the two sides have remained on a war footing since. Hopes that Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's bold initiative to end his country's civil war, in which some 100,000 people have been killed since 1992, have faded with regular reports of brutal massacres by diehard Islamic extremist groups. Protracted peace efforts have yet to bear fruit for Sudan, Somalia, Burundi and Congo, while "forgotten" conflicts also simmer, such as those in Rwanda and Senegal. The OAU has acknowledged an abysmal record at conflict resolution, but can at least point this year to the Horn of Africa ceasefire, which it brokered.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

108 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

109 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

110 Sudan Affirmative

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

The AU is concerned about Zimbabwe abuses Bloomberg.com – July 4, 2004 (Accessed online at http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aecRKQDRvptk&refer=top_world_news) MH The African Union accused Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and called on President Robert Mugabe's government to repeal laws preventing free political activity, the Sunday Independent said, citing a report by the 53-member body. The report by the African Union's Commission on Human Rights calls on Zimbabwe's government to accept mediators to help solve the country's political impasse, the Johannesburg-based newspaper said. The ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change have been at loggerheads since disputed parliamentary elections in 2000. The report contains the strongest criticism yet of Zimbabwe by other African leaders, the newspaper said. The African Union declared the 2000 elections as free and fair. Other observers, including the U.S. and European Union, said the elections were marred by intimidation of opposition parties and fraud. The African Union's executive council yesterday adopted the report, compiled by observers who visited Zimbabwe shortly before 2002 presidential elections that Mugabe won, over the objections of Zimbabwe's delegates, the Sunday Independent said. The report will be considered by the organisation's annual meeting of heads of state starting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Tuesday.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

111 Sudan Affirmative

AU Cannot Solve The AU has denied U.S. claims before Bloomberg.com – July 4, 2004 (Accessed online at http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aecRKQDRvptk&refer=top_world_news) MH The African Union accused Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and called on President Robert Mugabe's government to repeal laws preventing free political activity, the Sunday Independent said, citing a report by the 53-member body. The report by the African Union's Commission on Human Rights calls on Zimbabwe's government to accept mediators to help solve the country's political impasse, the Johannesburg-based newspaper said. The ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change have been at loggerheads since disputed parliamentary elections in 2000. The report contains the strongest criticism yet of Zimbabwe by other African leaders, the newspaper said. The African Union declared the 2000 elections as free and fair. Other

observers, including the U.S. and European Union, said the elections were marred by intimidation of opposition parties and fraud. The African Union's executive council yesterday adopted the report, compiled by observers who visited Zimbabwe shortly before 2002 presidential elections that Mugabe won, over the objections of Zimbabwe's delegates, the Sunday Independent said. The report will be considered by the organisation's annual meeting of heads of state starting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Tuesday.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

112 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

113 Sudan Affirmative

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

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

114 Sudan Affirmative

The AU is Not Ready to Lead in Conflicts The AU follows the EU and the UN Iol.co.za - July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=87&art_id=qw1089085682435A162) MH Loosely modelled on the European Union and embodying a similar aim of continental integration, the AU was the brainchild of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, even if it falls short of his grandiose idea of a federal United States of Africa with a single African army. The AU constitution was signed at an OAU summit in Lome, Togo, in 2000 and came into effect on May 26, 2001, following its formal proclamation at an extraordinary OAU summit in Libya in March the same year. One of the key organs of the Union is the Peace and Security Council (PSC), an entity loosely modeled on the UN's Security Council. The PSC can authorise peace support missions, such as the observers now in western Sudan's region of Darfur, who are monitoring a ceasefire signed between rebels and Khartoum. In 2002, the PSC mandated troops from South Africa, Ethiopia and Mozambique to deploy in Burundi, where a decade old civil is winding down. The UN took control of this mission in June, mainly because of the AU's funding problems. The PSC can also recommend to heads of state, known as the Assembly in AU parlance, that more robust military interventions be deployed in areas in the case of grave circumstances. The executive branch of the AU is known as the Commission, currently chaired by former Malian president Alpha Oumar Konare, and modeled on the European Union Commission.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

115 Sudan Affirmative

The AU is Ineffective Burundi Proved the AU Cannot Solve Raymond Thibodeaux (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 5, 2004 (Accessed online at http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=4FBB55A7-D87B-4394-8E6BADDD124AD148#) MH Helping to end the 11-year civil war in Burundi was the African Union's first major peacekeeping operation, and it became an important test case for the proposed continental force. The A.U. mission, led by South Africa, was handed over to a United Nations force last month. So far, the results of the A.U. mission in Burundi appear to be mixed. Over the past year, hundreds of families have come to this feeding center in Gatumba, only a half-hour's drive north of Burundi's capital, Bujumbura. Many of the children are emaciated, the mothers themselves undernourished and unable to breast-feed their babies. If they sound happy, it's because they've managed to escape, for the time being, the persistent violence, the raping of women and children and the looting of homes, in the rural areas surrounding Bujumbura. The continued attacks have kept them off their farms. Unable to plant or harvest their crops, they are now forced to depend on aid groups for food and shelter. For these mostly rural Burundians, who bear the brunt of attacks by both rebel and government forces, it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of the African Union's mission in their country. Despite the presence of nearly 3,000 AU peacekeepers in Burundi this past year, most of them from South Africa, Mozambique and Ethiopia, more than 50,000 Burundians have fled their homes, government and rebel militias have killed and raped dozens of civilians and looted and burned their houses, according to a Human Rights Watch report issued last week. In Bujumbura, A.U. soldiers are often scorned by ordinary Burundians. Major Modisame Masebe, a commander for the AU's South African force, says some of his soldiers have had to fend off both verbal and physical attacks by civilians. A 37-year-old woman who gave her name only as Maria says she was forced to flee with her five children, as rebels attacked her village of Masama last month. They now live in a small hut made of dried banana leaves near a feeding center in Kabezi, a village protected by a small contingent of government troops. Maria says, "it doesn't matter if the African Union soldiers are here. They don't do anything for us. The rebels are still attacking us." Like Maria, many rural Burundians say they have never even seen a single A.U. soldier, much less felt protected by them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

116 Sudan Affirmative

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

117 Sudan Affirmative

AU Doesn’t Want into Sudan The AU won’t agree to stop Sudan conflict William Eagle (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=1C3B03FC-25D6-4D9B-A0202A4A45D71338) MHIn Sudan, however, Mr. Landsberg believes the AU delegates will not go as far. "You can imagine if the Sudanese government is going to be seriously rebuked, that will be significant. Whether that drives them to stop the carnage in Darfur, I have my doubts," he said. "But at the very least, it signals a willingness of Africans to consider ostracism and isolation of particular regimes that violate the [principles] of the AU's Constitutive Act. I don't think you can expect 53 countries to show similar eagerness to stop carnage like that. But I do think the task is whether the AU can develop a critical mass or what the Americans and British in Iraq call a 'coalition of the willing' to act." The AU is not concerned with Zimbabwe crisis William Eagle (Correspondent at Voanews.com) – July 6, 2004 (Accessed online at http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=1C3B03FC-25D6-4D9B-A0202A4A45D71338) MH Zimbabwe was not on the official list of African crises to be discussed, but the situation there did come up at an AU council of ministers meeting shortly before the start of the summit. "Something interesting happened with the ministers over last couple of days," he added. "Some of governments took the initiative to almost rebuke President Mugabe, asking him for free and fair elections to level the playing field and called on him to ease the draconian laws that circumscribe freedom of movement and association, and draconian press laws. As long as long as Africans adopt an attitude that there is not real crisis in Zimbabwe, that's how long Mugabe will feel [safe]. He'll feel he has a strong ally in the African Union. They are aware he behaves like that and uses them as a shield. It must come as a huge surprise to Mugabe but is a welcoming one."

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

118 Sudan Affirmative

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

119 Sudan Affirmative

Gonzaga Debate Institute Intermediate Lab

120 Sudan Affirmative