Aff Shunning K - Michigan7 2013

8/13/2019 Aff Shunning K - Michigan7 2013

1/12


2/12

Shunning Aff


3/12

U.S. Violations Undermines its Credibility

U.S. human rights violations undermines its credibility to push forrights internationallyHalperin, 7(Morton H., Testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs'Subcommittee on International Organiations, Human !ights, an" O#ersight, $Human !ightsan" %.S. Foreign &olicy, )*+)+,

---.americanrogress.org/issues/+//halerin0testimony.html1

The %nite" States shoul" also acti#ely -or2 -ith the %nite" 3ations an" esecially the Human!ights Council to hel to a"#ance human rights an" to rotect human rights acti#ists. Here, aselse-here, -e nee" to recognie that by failing to obser#e internationally recognie" humanrights oursel#es -e re"uce American cre"ibility to chamion human rights for others. Iun"erstan" that many in the Congress an" else-here are trouble" by the first year of oerationsof the ne- Council. I share those concerns. Ho-e#er, it is far too soon to gi#e u on the Councilor to cut its fun"ing. I am confi"ent that human rights acti#ists in Cuba, 4gyt, an" Aerbai5anshare this #ie-.


4/12

Human Rights Should be Vieed Conse!uentially

Human rights concerns should be eighed pragmatically"ennedy, #(6a#i", &rofessor of 7a- at Har#ar", Har#ar" Human !ights 8ournal, $TheInternational Human !ights Mo#ement9 &art of the &roblem: #ol. *;, Sring ++,

---.la-.har#ar".e"u/stu"ents/orgs/hr5/iss*;/2enne"y.shtml1

I. Thin2ing &ragmatically About Human !ightsMy urose in ulling these concerns together is to encourage other -ell)meaning legalrofessionals to a"ot a more ragmatic attitu"e to-ar" human rights. My hoe is that -e -ill"e#elo a stronger ractice of -eighing the costs an" benefits of their articulation,institutionaliation an" enforcement. Of course, the best human rights ractitioners are alrea"yintensely strategic an" ractical in thin2ing about their -or2. ist or are $5ust the ro"uct of efforts to articulate an" use them. Although I fin" it har" tota2e too seriously the i"ea that rights e>ist in some -ay, let us assume that they "o, an" that thehuman rights mo#ement is getting better an" better at "isco#ering an" articulating them. If itturne" out that "oing so cause" more misery than it alle#iate", as a goo")hearte" legalrofessional, I -oul" a"#ocate our "oing all -e can to 2ee the e>istence of rights a secret. In asimilar -ay, if it turns out that rights are $5ust a fantasy, a social construction, an" so forth, thattells us nothing about -hether they are useful or not. If they are more useful than not, moreo-er to the society that constructe" them.

%ust e&amine the actual impacts of protecting human rights $

hether a social consensus e&ists is irrelevant"ennedy, #(6a#i", &rofessor of 7a- at Har#ar", Har#ar" Human !ights 8ournal, $TheInternational Human !ights Mo#ement9 &art of the &roblem: #ol. *;, Sring ++,

---.la-.har#ar".e"u/stu"ents/orgs/hr5/iss*;/2enne"y.shtml1

Tra"itional "ebates about -hether human rights "o or "o not e>ress a social consensus, in onesociety or across the globe, are similarly besi"e the oint. In"ee", -e coul" see them as u"ate"

-ays of as2ing -hether human rights really e>ist. 7et us say they "o e>ress a social consensus?


5/12

ho- "oes this affect their usefulness: &erhas being able to say they e>ress consensus -ea2ensthem, thins them out, s2e-s their usefulness in #arious -ays, erhas it strengthens them. To"eci"e, as my gran"mother use" to as2 $-hether that@s a goo" thing or a ba" thing -e still nee"to 2no- -hether once strengthene" or s2e-e" or -ea2ene" or -hate#er they are useful, an" ifso for -hat an" for -hom.Similarly "ebate about -hether human rights $tal2 is or is not coherent. 7et@s say the human

rights #ocabulary, institutional aaratus, e#en the soul of the human rights a"#ocate, is ri""le"-ith contra"ictions that -oul" not stan" u to logical scrutiny for a minute. no-ing only this"oes not mo#e us any closer to an un"erstan"ing of -hether they are art of the roblem or thesolution. &erhas ambi#alent orosity is their secret strength?to the e>tent human rights isuseful, -e shoul" then be grateful for the contra"ictions. &erhas incoherence is a fatal

-ea2ness, but if human rights creates more roblems than it sol#es, this -oul" be all to thegoo".


6/12

'ther Concerns 'uteigh

'ther obligations override the duty to shun $ self preservation andinterests of state(eversluis, )*(4ric H. Aril *BB. $On Shunning %n"esirable !egimes9 4thics an"4conomic Sanctions. &ublic Affairs Duarterly, Aril, #ol. E, no. +1

hat 2in"s of obligations can o#erri"e the "uty to shun: A clear e>amle is the obligation ofself)reser#ation. If to shun the only grocer in to-n means to star#e, then my "uty of self)reser#ation o#erri"es the "uty to shun. On the le#el of relations bet-een states the essentialinterests of the state ha#e a similar claim. If there are such essential interests of a state (fore>amle, reser#ation of bor"ers an" internal security1, then the "uty to rotect those interestsmay -ell o#erri"e a "uty to shun. An argument that too much %nite" States ressure on theSo#iet %nion regar"ing human rights -oul" un"ermine the relationshi bet-een thesecountries necessary for -oul" eace -oul" be of this 2in". Another e>amle might be anargument that a nation ought not to alienate a tra"ing artner -ho is the only source of a #italimort. hile these arguments might surely be use" in ba" faith to a#oi" an incon#enient "utyto shun, that "oes not ren"er them in#ali". Thus there may be, but nee" not be any hyocrisy orinconsistency in shunning one nation for a certain attac2 on the moral or"er but not shunninganother for an e=ually serious attac2


7/12

+uclear ar 'uteighs

Any use of nuclear eapons ris-s e&tinction $ this nullifies allcalculations of costs and benefits and must be avoided at all costs"ateb, *#))) &rofessor of &olitics an" 6irector of the &rogram in &olitical &hilosohy at&rinceton(George, The Inner Ocean, .**)***1

The highest -orth of Schell's boo2 lies in his insistence that -e shoul" all contemlate thenuclear situation from the ersecti#e of ossible human e>tinction an" be o#ercome by theobligation, no matter -hat, to try to a#oi" human e>tinction. et as Schell says, humane>tinction (as -ell as the e>tinction of most secies in nature1 is not the intention of anyone ino-er. hat must be seen is that the absolute en" can come about e#en though no one inten"sit. e can "o it, he says, only if -e "on't =uite 2no- -hat -e're "oing.Schell's -or2 attemts to force on us an ac2no-le"gment that soun"s far)fetche" an" e#enlu"icrous, an ac2no-le"gment that the ossibility of e>tinction is carrie" by any use of nuclear

-eaons, no matter ho- limite" or ho- seemingly rational or seemingly morally 5ustifie". Hehimself ac2no-le"ges that there is a "ifference bet-een ossibility an" certainty. tinction, -e are oblige" to treat a ossibility)a genuine ossibility)as acertainty. Humanity is not to ta-e any step that contains even the slightest ris- ofe&tinction.The "octrine of no)use is base" on the ossibility of e>tinction. Schell's ersecti#e transformsthe sub5ect. He ta2es us a-ay from the ari" stretches of strategy an" as2s us to feel continuously,if '-e can, an" feel 2eenly if only for an instant no- an" then, ho- utterly "istinct the nuclear

-orl" is. 3uclear "iscourse must #i#i"ly register that "istincti#e)ness. It is of no moral accountthat e>tinction may be only a slight ossibility. 3o one can say ho- great the ossibility is, butno one has yet cre"ibly "enie" that by some se=uence or other a articular use of nuclear

-eaons may lea" to human an" natural e>tinction. f it is not impossible it must be

treated as certain/ the loss signified by e&tinction nullifies all calculations ofprobability as it nullifies all calculations of costs and benefits.

Any nuclear use ris-s e&tinction"ateb, *#))) &rofessor of &olitics an" 6irector of the &rogram in &olitical &hilosohy at&rinceton(George, The Inner Ocean, .**)**+1

Abstractly ut, the connections bet-een any use of nuclear -eaons an" human an" naturale>tinction are se#eral. Most ob#iously, a siable e>change of strategic nuclear -eaons can, by achain of e#ents in nature, lea" to the earth's uninhabitability, to nuclear -inter, or to Schell'sreublic of insects an" grass.


8/12

the unleashe" emotions of in"ignation, retribution, an" re#enge -hich, if not acte" onimme"iately in the form of escalation, can be counte" on to see2 e>ression later.Other than full strategic uses are not confine", no matter ho- small the e>losi#e o-er9 each

-oul" be a cancerous transformation of the -orl".All nuclear roads lea" to theossibility of e>tinction. It is true by "efinition, but let us ma2e it e>licit9 the "octrine of no)usee>clu"es any first or retaliatory or later use, -hether siable or not. 3o)use is the imperative

"eri#e" from the ossibility of e>tinction.


9/12

1ngagement (est 2 Sanctions 3ail

4he empirical evidence necessitates economic engagement based onthe situation, not absolute principles3orcese, #(Craig,


10/12

&resent %.S. olicy to-ar"


11/12

US sanctions do more harm than good, they have caused more deaththan Hiroshima and +agasa-i combinedS1A441 8'S4May **, 9***(MICHA47 &A%7SO3, S4ATT74 &OST)I3T477IG43C4!!4&O!T4!, $History of %.S. sanctions sho-s most ha#en't -or2e",htt9//seattlei.n-source.com/ira=/sanction.shtml1

For more than t-o millenia, countries ha#e been attemting to influence one another's beha#ior by imosing economic sanctions. In NE+ orts of sensiti#e military e=uiment. 4stimates of the

brea"th of economic sanctions #ary -i"ely. The 3ational Association of Manufacturers claims that N+ ercent of the -orl"'s oulation li#es in countries sanctione" by the

%nite" States. Accor"ing to the Congressional !esearch Ser#ice, by the en" of *BB there -ere *B* "ifferent sanctions being imose" by the %nite" States. Sanctionsare imose" or threatene" against ; countries, ranging from Angola to Paire, for beha#iorsranging from suort for terrorism to failure to a"e=uately rotect sea turtles, accor"ing to astu"y by Clinton's 4>ort Council. hat you'#e got no- is a situation -here if the e>ecuti#e

branch -ere to imlement e#erything in sanctions la-s, there's har"ly a country on 4arth -e-oul"n't ha#e trouble -ith, sai" !e. 8im Mc6ermott, 6)ash., a sanctions critic. The State 6eartmentagrees that the use of sanctions has multilie" in the *BBs. That agency says the %nite" States has alie" sanctions for foreign olicy uroses **; times since orl" ar I,inclu"ing * times since *BBE. Ho-e#er you "o the arithmetic, there certainly ha#e been =uite a number of sanctions initiati#es coming out of the Congress recently, an" some

of them ha#e been relati#ely high rofile, sai" Assistant Secretary of State Alan 7arson. Some of the sanctions are =uite e>tensi#e. The %nite" States maintains broa" unilateralsanctions against Cuba, Iran, Ira=, 7ibya, 3orth orea an" the Su"an, although there are no- some e>emtions for foo" an" me"icine. Together -ith the %nite" 3ations, the%nite" States also suorts broa" multilateral sanctions against Angola, 7iberia, !-an"a, Sierra 7eone, Somalia an" ugosla#ia. ensi#e an" less contro#ersial than military inter#ention. This has been a henomenon of the last fi#e

years, an" it has come about because members of Congress, an" sometimes the a"ministration, -ant to sho- "isleasure to #arious countries -ho ha#e a"ote" human rightsolicies -ith -hich -e "isagree, or ha#e curtaile" free"om of religion, or ha#e threatene" their neighbors, sai" Sen. !ichar" 7ugar, !)In"., the lea"ing congressional critic of

%.S. sanctions olicy. &utting a sanction on a country al-ays seems to be an ine>ensi#e -ay to a""ress


12/12

the roblem. . . . %nfortunately, almost none of these sanctions ha#e brought about change . . .an" I thin2 they ha#e le" to a siable loss of foreign tra"e.

Aff Shunning K - Michigan7 2013

Documents

Transcript of Aff Shunning K - Michigan7 2013