Latin America - Open Thread
This subject has produced extensive discussion in recent days. We have some folks who volunteered at the last minute to help pick up the process, but we are very uncertain about what recommendations will be submitted. More updates as they become available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: 4/22 - Thanks to Kris Willis and Scot Koslow we have a Latin America proposal. This paper will be considered alongside the rest of the topic submissions.
Please feel free to leave feedback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: 4/22 - Thanks to Kris Willis and Scot Koslow we have a Latin America proposal. This paper will be considered alongside the rest of the topic submissions.
Please feel free to leave feedback.
Latin America and the Caribbean is a fertile topic area rich in history and policy. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine, the US has viewed this hemisphere as its own territory but recent events have begun to challenge this control. Relations with the LAC (Latin America and Caribbean) have been on a downward spiral since the end of the 90’s. With China, and to a lesser extent Japan, influence growing in the region the US can no longer afford to ignore the any for Geo-political reasons. There are also direct challenges to US Hegemony from within LAC as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is openly defiant of the US and its policies in his promotion of his Bolivarian revolution. But the harms area don’t stop there: Agriculture reform, disease, drug war, civil war, democracy promotion, free trade, immigration, economic collapse, China, to name a few. These harms areas are only going to get worse until the US changes its focus and reprioritizes the LAC.
Considering these papers are designed as the starting point for discussion, my belief is that the topic needs to be worded and formed around “changing foreign policy.” While I agree that a trade or aid focused approach could work, I do agree with the general concern for Policy solution advocates as well as a topic that would allow for some critical reflexivity (i.e. the US examines and eliminates its bad policies etc.). I do recognize the general concerns for this kind of resolution (to large, hurts small schools, etc) but I believe affirmative flexibility to be a greater concern (I believe it would help with Aff wins percentage and encourage more teams to read topical cases and policies) and the realization that most small schools that would be negatively impacted by a large topic (like mine) also tend to choose more critical arguments or strategies that don’t require a lot of updates and constant research regardless of the topic mechanism. This practice continued on the last two topics, which were specifically designed to try and “help” these schools and produce good case debates. In this regard, I consider the last two resolutions failures.
LAC should be chosen as the topic area because we need to discuss this area and our community continues to ignore it. Much like the Africa topic a few years back, the LAC has been ignored by our community. It is time (and a good time at that—read some of the below literature) for us as a community to examine and debate about the USFG policies toward the LAC. I recognize other areas are of concern and a case could be made for each of them as well, the LAC is to large and rich with history of an area to ignore anymore. Also, it almost never is even afforded any discussion on other topic areas, unlike Russia which has been debated on the China topic and Middle East topic—as far DA’s. The closest the LAC came is a politics scenario for free trade. Not good enough.
Reply to this
I have written a few edebate posts on the viability and desirability of a LATIN America topic. The following link is to one of those posts, where I included a good listing of background materials, etc.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074578.html
Reply to this
I guess I have become the default person for this controversy paper, and I can use some help. Below are some ideas I have put together and I need some help. I need help with policy options and wording help. Steve (Gordon said you might help) and frankly, I think you wrote the best topic paper I have ever seen for this past year and can use any help you want to give. Two sample resolutions I have though about are below. Specifically, I wanted change FP but I realize that would probably never get off the ground. So I opted for a more directed approach of FA. The second idea uses the terms from USAID as areas and directs the topic a bit more. I didn't want to have "development assistance" in the topic as the sole mechanism (backlash from an old topic fear) but I believe it can and should be included in the area because it allows for harm areas like the environment, Democracy, economic reform and corruption to name a few. All of which should provide great debates and solvency advocates.
“Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance toward one or more of the Latin American and Caribbean countries.”
“Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance toward one or more of the Latin American and Caribbean countries in one of the following areas: Andean Counterdrug Initiative, Child Survival and Health Programs, Development Assistance.”
Reply to this
The other direction for the topic I originally posted I have strong interest in as well. Namely a topic that would do something along the below lines:
Hakim 06'
Types of policies: (Agricultural reform, immigration and AID)
Still, there are some U.S. policy initiatives that could improve hemispheric relations. What Latin American governments consistently press hardest for are changes in U.S. farm policy that would lower barriers to the region's food and fiber exports. In particular, they want cuts in U.S. subsidies to agricultural producers and reductions of tariffs and quotas on key commodities. These changes would not only increase Latin American exports and create jobs, but they would also revive negotiations toward the proposed FTAA and open the way to more secure access to U.S. trade, investment, and technology -- precisely what the region desires from its relationship with the United States. OR
For many Latin American countries, especially Mexico, U.S. immigration policy has become the most important issue in their bilateral relations with the United States. U.S. and Latin American policymakers largely agree on the basic principles that should guide a new U.S. approach to the issue -- including a substantial increase in the number of temporary workers granted lawful entry to the United States, the development of procedures for some undocumented immigrants to earn legal status, and the effective enforcement of any new legislation. OR
Nearly all Latin American governments would welcome U.S. aid to accelerate their countries' economic and social progress. The Bush administration has made available modest amounts of new development financing for Latin America through the Millennium Challenge Account. But the program is designed to assist well-governed but very poor countries, and because Latin America's income levels are relatively high, only a few states in the region are likely to be eligible.
Reply to this
With the help a a few good folks like Scott from Oklahoma, I have stepped in and finished a topic paper for Latin America. It should be posted soon.
Reply to this
i am interested in this topic area.
i have reservations about the debatability of it though. specific disads, counterplans, kritiks? answers to those?
Reply to this
Bilateral is not hyphenated. Also, hegemony ought not be capitalized. Also, what about the neg? I dont think there is any.
Reply to this
We had 4 days to research and write this topic paper, so these are some initial thoughts to answer the question of CP and DA grounds. The K ground was already established by Scott in the paper and I think he does a nice job of highlighting new K arguments that are unique to this topic, but some of the old generics still work as well. Cap and Empire for trade etc.
CP Ground:
Organization of American States. One of the major CP for a Latin America topic is the OAS. This organization is very active and believes the US’s involvement in most LA issues is not warranted or needed. This is the organization which recently handled the Columbian and Ecuador situation and specifically kept America at bay.
China. China is quickly becoming a major player in the LA region. China specifically targets the LA for trade, military cooperation, and political influence. While it may not solve all cases, this can be a pretty stable CP strategy.
Specific Organization CPs. With a broad topic like “change FP,” I believe agency specification arguments with counter agent CPs are also likely to be used. For example, any plan that might use the USAID could CP another agency or NGO to handle the legal reform.
Alternative Policy CPs. One of the better debates I saw this year was for poppy licensing and whether leaving the threat of eradication on table or not was the better policy. A topic of “change FP” generates numerous opportunities for alternate policy CP strategies to solve the core controversies on the topic.
DA Ground:
China is a built in DA for this topic. Generic I know, but effective nonetheless in the hands of good teams. Combine this with a good China CP (also help uniqueness) a politics debate and good case cards why US action sucks or isn’t wanted (see the topic paper) and this could be a good strategy for the start of the season.
Hakim 06’ [Peter, Is Washington Losing Latin America? Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006]
Washington also worries about China's growing presence in Latin America, a concern that has already been the subject of congressional hearings. In fact, some members of Congress view China as the most serious challenge to U.S. interests in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They cite the huge financial resources China is promising to bring to Latin America, its growing military-to-military relations in the region, and its clear political ambitions there all as potential threats to the long-standing pillar of U.S. policy in the hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine.
Hegemony. I believe this is a core argument as well for the topic. LA is long been considered by the US as “its” territory as policies regarding it can only bolster or weaken our international credibility. With built in issues like trade, democratic reform, and labor rights and good soft power story can certainly be spun here. The war on drugs and terrorism is also a part of this debate but more lies on the hard power side of the hegemony question.
Reply to this
LA Relations. Depending on which country an aff chooses to debate, a good relations DA for the others is in the waiting. If you choose to engage Columbia by granted FTA etc, then Venezuela encirclement becomes a big one to debate with a FARC story perhaps as the impact. If you engage Venezuela, then the opposite is the case. Just some samples, but the tensions abound between the countries of LA and the more the US is involved the more heated to differences can become.
Politics. Election year, nuff said.
Iran (for Venezuela). Recent activity seems to indicate the Chavez and Iran have begun to engage one another. I guess “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario is playing out in this regards. Nonetheless, Iran can be a DA for a Venezuela aff and perhaps more.
Russia. Don’t really know how this works yet, but I am sure it will become an argument for this topic as well. (-:
Reply to this
For effs sake - There is no "U" in COLOMBIA. At least you could pay minimal attention and spell the damn country right. As in "COLOMBIAN FTA" or whatever. Nothing instills credibility by mispelling the name of a core country.
Reply to this
Something people might be underestimating is that a lot of the negative “generics” wouldn't be so generic for this topic.
Elections: Obama and Clinton both look like they're going to withdraw from Latin America, while McCain wants to push through a FTA and increase pressure on Venezuela and Cuba.
Politics: Columbia FTA, the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act, etc. Kris writes about this in the topic paper at length.
Kris explained why China, hegemony, and relations are particularly relevant and strong.
Reply to this
"Obama and Clinton both look like they're going to withdraw from Latin America"
Uh, really? Obama said he'd be willing to sit down with Hugo Chavez. Both have talked about engagement in general, although with only passing reference to LA.
Reply to this
Withdraw probably isn't the best word choice. Rather it is "soft-line" vs. "hard-line" and it is specific to the country and politician at hand. Obama soft-line to Venezuela and Hard-line on Columbia. McCain is hard-line on Venezuela and soft-line on Colombia. You get the picture. Nonetheless, these are still very relevant arguments to make on this topic and also makes the politics arguments more expansive at the beginning of the season, until the election is over.
Reply to this
I'm sorry, withdraw is altogether the wrong word. However, Obama - with his "13 words on Latin America" - and Clinton - who's hardly payed any more attention to the region - are well on their way to ignoring Latin America even more than past presidents.
Reply to this