Terrorism DA

File Explanation: The Terror DA is read as a net benefit to the CP while it can also be read independently. The argument is functionally an impact turn to arms control good and a defense for proliferation of arms being key to check back against western imperialist such as the United States and its state sponsored terrorism. The link argument is to the reduction of arms but also is a criticism of the West facilitating the distribution of arms in the first place and the paradigmatic question it raises for how and why the U.S. chooses to engage with countries it constructs as threats or the distinction between justified and unjustified uses of violence. This being the root cause to conflict paradigms or at least the scope of U.S. involvement in how it maps out the conflict and its reduction/ regulation act.

*Additional Note: Go to the Pro-lif core for 2AC defense to prolif. In a later pot-hole edition of the file, some additional UQ for the debate will be provided.

Thank you to the following students who helped with putting together this file: Aymen, Raunak, and David!

NEG

1NCCountries want a proliferation of arms now— Weisgerber 6-1-2019 [Marcus. “Great Power Competition Spurs Arms Purchases By Smaller Asian Countries.” Defense One, 1 June 2019, www.defenseone.com/business/2019/05/great-power-competition-spurs-arms-purchases-smaller-powers/157408/.]Great power competition, the national security buzzword at the center of the latest U.S. National Defense Strategy, is not just about the chess match between nuclear powers. Look no further than the Asia-Pacific region, where defense spending is rising, reflecting the desire of the Philippines and other countries for more sophisticated weapons to ward off Chinese encroachment. “For years, the Philippines military was sort of the El Salvador of Asia and now, for the

first time in the country’s history, they’re taking delivery of new fighter jets from Korea,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group consulting firm. Manila’s plan to buy another dozen South Korean-made FA-50 fighter jets is significant, Aboulafia said, even if they are far less advanced than fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters being purchased by Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Singapore. Related: Shanahan Heads to Asia as White House Beats Drums on Iran Related: Army Secretary Reveals Weapons Wishlist for War with China

& Russia Related: Naval Task Groups Are Proliferating in the Indo-Pacific Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte approved spending $5.6 billion over five years to upgrade military equipment. The Philippines 2019 defense budget is $3.3 billion, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies’ latest Military Balance+, a database of the world’s militaries. Manila’s budget rose 22 percent between 2018 and 2019. (El Salvador’s 2019 military budget is $124 million, according to IISS.) Much of the spending is a response to China’s development of new advanced missiles, ships, and warplanes. “Strong economic growth, regional tension, and aging fleets make for a great market,” Aboulafia said. “There’s great power competition, but with a greater emphasis on self-reliance.” Shifting relations and new wariness about the reliability of the United States as an ally is driving defense spending in Australia, Japan, and South Korea, he said. Another unique aspect in the region is the diverse defense and aerospace industrial bases, such as those of China, Japan, and South Korea. What’s hot Japan and South Korea have been beefing up

missile defenses in response to North Korean missile tests. Intelligence aircraft are another hot commodity in this region of expansive oceans and large distances between nations, Aboulafia said. And anti-submarine warfare has become a priority for Pacific countries. China is expected to add 10 new submarines to its 60-sub fleet by 2020, according to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment . South Korea and New Zealand are among the countries buying the Boeing-made P- 8 Poseidon — the Boeing-made anti-submarine plane replacing the U.S. Navy’s P-3s . India and Australia each have eight P-8s in their respective inventories, according to the IISS Military Balance. In

February, South Korea and New Zealand placed orders for P-8s. Seoul plans to buy six , while Wellington plans to buy four aircraft. Japan is replacing its P-3s with indigenously built Kawasaki P-1. Kawasaki has been pitching the plane to Japanese allies at trade shows in the U.S. and abroad hoping to gain more customers. And the Philippines — one of several nations the disputes China’s territorial claims of islands in the South China Sea — wants old U.S. Navy P-3 submarine hunting planes . “ If they get them, they would be the most capable [aircraft] they ever operated,” Aboulafia said. Defense budgets across the Asia Pacific are expected to rise from about $480 billion in 2019 to $585 billion by 2024, according

to a Teal Group projection. Weapons spending is expected to increase from $134 billion to $165 billion over that same period. For U.S. and European defense companies, India is seen as a potential multi-billion-dollar market.

Right now, counties are jockeying to sell New Delhi more than 100 new fighter jets, a deal

estimated at $15 billion. India is also planning to buy attack submarines, patrol ships and utility helicopters.

The AFF misdiagnosis the conflict paradigm, it is not the presence of arms that leads to conflict but the control and seizure of them by the US that gets to determine and violate countries they deem threats to the international order – proliferation of power for those nations is key for establishing a deterrent against U.S. [insert whatever negotiating sov actor if applicable] terrorist attack. Shellenberger 18, [Michael. “Who Are We To Deny Weak Nations The Nuclear Weapons They Need For Self-Defense?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 28 Aug. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/08/06/who-are-we-to-deny-weak-nations-the-nuclear-weapons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2aa47921522f.]On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush denounced Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” North Korea was “arming with missiles,” he said. Iran “aggressively pursues these weapons” and the “Iraqi regime has plotted to develop...nuclear weapons for over a decade.” One year later, the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq . The ensuing conflict resulted in the deaths of over 450,000 people — about four times as many as were killed at Hirosh ima — and a five-fold increase in terrorist killings in the Middle East and Africa. It all came at a cost of $2.4 trillion dollars. Now, 16 years later, U.S. officials insist that North Korea and Iran need not fear a U.S. invasion. But why would any nation — particularly North

Korea and Iran — believe them? Not only did the U.S. overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after he gave up his nuclear weapons program, it also helped overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 after he too had given up the pursuit of a nuclear weapon . North Korean President Kim

Jong-un may, quite understandably, see his own life at stake Hussein: was hanged and Gaddafi was tortured and killed. Both hawks and doves say North Korea and Iran must not be allowed to have a weapon because both regimes are brutal,

but nuclear weapons make nations more peaceful over time . There were three full-scale wars before India and Pakistan acquired the bomb and only far more limited conflicts since. And China became dramatically less bellicose after acquiring the bomb. Why? “History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable,” notes Waltz, “and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action.” Is it really so difficult to imagine that a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran might follow the same path toward moderation as China, India, and Pakistan? Nuclear weapons are revolutionary in that they require the ruling class to have skin in the game. When facing off against nuclear-armed

nations, elites can no longer sacrifice the poor and weak in their own country without risking their lives. Had Iraq in 2002 been in possession of a nuclear weapon , the U.S. would never have invaded. As such, we should be glad that North Korea acquired the bomb since it guarantees the U.S. will never invaded.

Arms control is a move to position the US as a savior that create a telos around imperialism allowing for it to continue under an ethical frame.Anderson 15 (Prof. Tim Anderson, Professor at the Centre for Research on Globalization, "The Deep Racism of Western Imperial Intervention," [Global Research], 6-29-2015, accessed: 6-22-2019, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-deep-racism-of-western-imperial-intervention/5458977)//DCai

Denying the very existence and integrity of other peoples requires ideologies of systematic exclusion and dehumanisation. That denial is implicit in every coup, proxy war or invasion, under whatever pretext, carried out either for ‘regime change’ or to divide and weaken those peoples

not well embedded in the imperial orbit. The new pretexts often have to do with the ‘protector’ role of the empire, including protection against great crimes and genocide . Yet history tells us that it is almost always imperial interventions that generate those same great crimes. Rafael-Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish lawyer who invented

the term ‘genocide’ spoke of it as a ‘recurring pattern of history’ by which empires displaced and wiped out entire peoples. The deep racism of imperial intervention and war renders as illegitimate, non-existent and worthless entire peoples and their cultures, values and social organisation, including nation-states and alliances. The aim is to create a cultural void into which the imperial powers can step as protectors and saviours, hiding their own strategic and material interests . At best the subordinated peoples are seen as victims, refugees or individuals to be assimilated, never as independent peoples with their own voice and their own forms of social organisation. This is not simply a matter of capitalist logic. Marxists, following Lenin, placed too much emphasis on the financial determinants of contemporary imperialism, saying it was based on the need of financial monopolies to export capital. Yet the USA, leader of today’s imperial cabal, is a massive importer of capital. Contemporary imperialism maintains many features of the more ancient systems of domination, including the ‘civilising missions’ set up to subdue and divide the various ‘barbarian’ cultures. Western Intervention and The Colonial Mindset After more than a century of such interventions, Latin Americans found some protection from intervention through a series of regional agreements – the ALBA, UNASUR and CELAC – all led to fruition by the late Hugo Chavez. Now they mostly resolve their own conflicts. However the big powers remain deeply

engaged in a series of wars of reconquest in the Middle East, dressed up in ‘new-speak’ designed for the post-colonial era. When puppet regimes fail, as they must, the big powers settle for divide and rule . That is what the British, borrowing from the Romans, did with Palestine, Ireland and India; that is what the imperial cabal is attempting with Palestine, Syria and Iraq. Since Baghdad has once again proven itself an unreliable client state, and as Damascus will not surrender, the imperial ‘Plan B’ is to lay the groundwork for the ‘balkanisation’ of both countries though separate deals with the Kurds, Sunni groups, the Iraqi Shia, the Syrian Druze and the Alawis. Ethnic cleansing of Arab Christians by the empire’s proxy armies is consistent with this plan. Fragmentation of the region into sectarian statelets

might also help soften the illegitimacy of the Zionist regime. Yet, as always, there is imperial logic and there is resistance. The Kurds may collaborate with this partition, but the Druze and the Shia will not. Baghdad is slowly building good

relations with its neighbours Iran and Syria. And pluralist Syria still exists, with a coherent national army. Imperial power maintains its focus on the exclusion of perceived rival powers, fearing the influence of Russia and China, and of a re-configured Europe. Yet the greatest threat to the ‘New Middle East’ is that the peoples of the region, sooner or later, will come together in an anti-imperial alliance. None of these schemes have anything to do with international

law. Imperialism always practices double standards. Indeed, most of the core imperial collaborators practice their own versions of ‘exceptionalism’. International rules are said to not apply to these ‘special’ nations. That is why imperialism requires and generates deep racism. ‘Civilising missions’ continue, rebadged as campaigns to rescue peoples from their own ‘brutal dictators’, from Venezuela to

Ecuador, from Libya to Syria. Ordinary people in western cultures adopt those slogans, imagining that they too can be the saviours of other peoples from their barbarian systems. Even where western peoples do not support invasions or proxy wars, they often pretend to support the victims of conflicts caused by their own governments, while attacking the peoples, states and alliances which resist those wars. In the case of Palestine, Syria and Iraq, western liberals often see themselves as rescuing individuals and groups, without opposing the ethnic cleansing, partition and destruction of entire nations, practised by their own governments. Westerners can celebrate the dissident Jews and conscience-struck imperial soldiers of these new wars, but not the Palestinian militia, the Lebanese Resistance and the Syrian and Iraqi soldiers, facing the proxy Islamist armies sent in by NATO and the oil-rich Gulf despots. They criticise Washington, London, Paris, Tel Aviv, but do not cross the invisible lines that prohibit support for The Resistance. They shed tears for the refugees and displaced peoples. There is a place for this within the new civilising missions. I have stressed the racist side of

imperialism here because, as with petty apartheid in South Africa, there is the risk that opposition to petty racism may be seen as absolving the peoples of imperial cultures from their responsibilities to confront and oppose their own countries’ deep racism, most profoundly generated by imperial war and intervention. Colonisers cannot lead de-colonisation, and those from imperial cultures cannot

lead the resistance to imperial intervention . But they can go beyond petty criticism to reject this deep racism by recognising and supporting the Resistance.

U.S. arms control is a tactic of coercion to force weaker countries to comply to imperialistic demands. Walt 12 (Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University,” [Foreign Policy], March 29th 2012, accessed: 6/22/19, https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/29/whatever-happened-to-arms-control/)//DCai

There’s been a lot of needless hoopla over Obama’s "open mic" comment at the Nuclear Security Summit, including an almost

certainly ghost-written piece by Mitt Romney here at FP. Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he "would have more flexibility" to negotiate a deal on missile defense after the election, which is both correct and hardly a state secret. The flap illustrates the main point I was trying to make a few days ago, when I wrote about how the absurdly long U.S. election cycle was a major impediment to a more effective foreign policy. (It may also be an impediment to Romney’s chances, because the longer the campaign goes on, the more opportunities he has for foot-in-mouth moments that expose his ignorance about foreign policy, including his silly comment about Russia being our major geopolitical rival). In any case, the incident got me thinking about how much the arms control agenda has changed since the

heyday of the Cold War. Back then, there was a serious constituency in the United States pushing nuclear arms control, which saw it as key to reducing the risk of nuclear war, managing the U.S.-Soviet relationship, and dampening the danger of international conflict more generally. Arms control was intended to save some money, preserve each side’s second-strike deterrent capabilities, and help stabilize the political relationship between Moscow and Washington . It was thus a key ingredient in the basic agenda of détente, which sought to keep U.S.-Soviet competition within bounds. (One can argue about how effective it was, but it is worth noting that nuclear war didn’t occur, and the U.S. and its allies triumphed over the Soviet

Union without fighting a war with them.) Accordingly, the main items on the arms control agenda involved direct negotiations with our Soviet adversaries (the SALT and START treaties, the INF treaty on intermediate nuclear forces in Europe, etc.). These efforts involved tough and protracted negotiations between more-or-less equals (even though the U.S. and its allies were a lot stronger than the Soviet Union and its various clients), and there was no possibility of either side issuing ultimatums or imposing a one-sided deal on the other. The other main arms control item was the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and this arrangement resulted from tacit collusion between the two superpowers to preserve their own nuclear superiority. After all, the basic NPT deal allowed nuclear powers keep their own arsenals (in exchange for pledges to share nuclear technology and make some sort of long-term effort disarmament), while putting in place a regime that made it much harder for other states to

join the nuclear club. But what about now? Since the end of the Cold War, the "arms control" agenda has become decidedly one-sided. Yes, there’s been a not-very-significant "New Start" treaty with Russia, which didn’t alter

the basic strategic relationship at all and which hardly anybody (including Governor Romney) has paid much attention to. The real action in arms control has been a series of U.S.-led efforts to get states to give up their existing arsenals or abandon existing nuclear programs. In the 1990s, we put tremendous pressure on Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to give up the arsenals they inherited from the former Soviet Union, and we eventually succeeded. Then the United States nearly launched a preventive war against North Korea in 1994, and did various deals (e.g., the "Agreed Framework") to try to head off their

development of nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq in 2003 to stop Saddam’s "Weapons of Mass Destruction" programs (which turned out to be fictitious — our bad), and have been ratcheting up economic sanctions and waging a covert war against Iran to try to keep Tehran from getting too close to the nuclear weapons threshold. And we keep saying "all options are on the table," which is a threat to

use force. In short, instead of "arms control" being the product of mutual negotiation, as it was in the Cold

War, it now consists of the United States making demands and ramping up pressure to get weak states to comply. Instead of being primarily a diplomatic process aimed at eliciting mutually beneficial cooperation (which might also help ameliorate mutual suspicions with current adversaries), arms

control has become a coercive process designed to produce capitulation. This approach may have worked

in a few cases (e.g., Libya, although even there the Bush administration made certain concessions to secure a final deal), but its overall track record is paltry. After all, North Korea eventually went ahead and tested a nuclear device, and escalating

pressure on Iran has yet to convince its leaders to abandon their enrichment program. And as I’ve noted before, using military force would not eliminate Iran’s ability to develop weapons if it wishes, and could easily convince them that they had not choice but to go ahead and weaponize. Because material power is still

the central currency in world politics, this tendency doesn’t surprise me all that much. When the United States has to deal with near-equals, it understands that bargaining is necessary and that a successful outcome requires patience and compromise. But today, we think we can impose our will on almost anybody, so any sort of

compromise is regarded as some sort of craven appeasement. But even a country as powerful as the United States cannot simply dictate to others — as we should have learned by now from our experiences with Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few others — and a disdain for genuine diplomacy (as

opposed to merely issuing ultimatums and imposing sanctions) is getting in the way of potential deals that could reduce the risk of proliferation, dampen the danger of war, and enable U.S. leaders to turn their attention to other priorities. Being the world’s #1 power confers many advantages, but it can also be a potent source of blind and counterproductive arrogance.

The impact is a fabulation of whitewashing that frames the Other as the enemy needed of extermination as a justification for American acts of white supremacy and terror. Pugliese 13 [Pugliese, Joseph] "State Violence and the Execution of Law Biopolitical caesurae of torture, black sites, drones” GlassHouse Book, 2013]//Raunak DuaPaglen’s concept of ‘relational geographies’ can be productively amplified by conjoining it with the concept of ‘relational temporalities,’ that is, diachronic rela- tions that establish critical connections across historical time and diverse geogra- phies. Relational temporalities draw lines of connection between seemingly disparate temporal events: for example, the US state’s genocidal history against Native Americans and the killing of civilians in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan . In her tracking of the violent history of attempted genocide against Native Americans, Andrea Smith writes: ‘the US is built on a foundation of geno- cide, slavery, and racism.’

66 Situated in this context, what becomes apparent in the scripting of

the 9/11 attacks as the worst acts of terrorism perpetrated on US soil is the effective erasure of this foundational history of state-sponsored terrorism against Native Americans . This historicidal act of whitewashing effectively clears the ground for contemporary acts of violence against the United States to be chronologically positioned as the ‘first’ or hierarchically ranked as the ‘worst’ in the nation’s history. The colonial nation-state deploys, in the process, a type of Nietzschean ‘active forgetting’ that ensures the obliteration of prior histories of massacre and terror such as the catastrophic Trail of Tears that resulted from the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This Act enabled the forced removal of a number of Native American nations and their relocation to Oklahoma; in the process, at least four thousand Native Americans died. The Trail of Tears has been described as ‘the largest instance of ethnic cleansing in American history.’67 This example of state terror is what must be occluded in order to preserve the ‘innocence’ of the nation so that it can subsequently claim, post 9/11, to have lost the very thing it had betrayed long ago . Jimmie Durham remarks on the repetition of this

national ruse: ‘The US, because of its actual guilt . . . has had a nostalgia for itself since its beginnings.

Even now one may read editorials almost daily about America’s “loss of innocence” at some point or other, and about some time in the past when America was truly good . That self-righteousness and insistence upon innocence began, as the US began, with invasion and murder.’68 Such acts of white historicide are constituted by a double logic of taken-for- grantedness and obsessive repetition. Steve Martinot and Jared Sexton, in their forensic analysis of the operations of white supremacy, articulate the seemingly contradictory dimensions of this double logic: It is the same passive apparatus of whiteness that in its mainstream guise actively forgets that it owes its existence to the killing and terrorising of those it racialises for that purpose, expelling them from the human fold in the same gesture of forgetting. It is the passivity of bad faith that tacitly accepts as ‘what goes without saying’ the postulates of white supremacy. And it must do so passionately since ‘what goes without saying’ is empty and can be held as a ‘truth’ only through an obsessiveness. The truth is that the truth is on the surface, flat and repetitive, just as the law is made by the uniform.69

The it ‘goes without saying’ is the moment in which the very ideology of white supremacy is so naturalized as to become invisible: it is the given order of the world. Yet, in order to maintain this position of supremacy, a logic of tireless iteration must be deployed in order to secure the very everyday banality, and thus transparency, of white supremacy’s daily acts of violence . For those in a position to exercise these daily rounds of state violence, their performative acts are banal because of their very quotidian repetition; yet, because their racialized targets continue to exercise, in turn, acts of resistance and outright contestation, these daily acts of state violence must be obsessively reiterated. Underpinning such acts of white supremacist violence and historicidal erasures is the official – govern- ment, media and academic – positioning of Native Americans as a ‘permanent “present absence” ’ that, in Smith’s words, ‘reinforces at every turn the conviction that Native peoples are indeed vanishing and that the conquest of Native lands is justified.’70 Precisely what gets erased in the process are the contemporary Indian wars that are being fought across the body of the US nation. These are wars that fail to register as ‘wars’ because the triumphant non-indigenous polity controls the ensemble of institutions – legal, military,

media and so on – that fundamentally determines what will count as a ‘war’ in the context of the nation. In her work, Smith establishes

critical points of connection between the war on terror being waged in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the issue of Indigenous sover- eignty within the context of the US nation : ‘it is important to understand

that the war against “terror” is really an attack against Native sovereignty, and that consol- idating US empire abroad is predicated on consolidating US empire within US borders. For example, the Bush administration continues to use the war on terror as an excuse to support anti-immigration policies and the militarization of the US/Mexico border.’

71 The exercise of the war on terror becomes, in other words, another way of entrenching and legitimating the usurpation of Native American sovereignty in the name of the colonial nation-state. The militarization of the US’s borders has seen the Department of Homeland Security oversee the domestic transposition of military technologies such as drones –

that have been used to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa – to the borders of both Mexico and Canada. Ted Poe, Congressman, 2nd District of Texas, has introduced legislation that ‘mandates the Secretary of Defense transfer 10% of eligible returning equipment from Iraq to state and local law enforcement agencies for border security purposes.’72 Operative here is what Roberto

Lovato has termed ‘ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Al Qaeda-ization of immigrants and immigration policy:

building a domestic security apparatus, one made possible by multi-billion contracts to military-industrial companies like Boeing, General Electric, and Halliburton .’

73 The massive scale of this

militariza- tion of US borders becomes evident in the context of a recent US government report on border security that states that ‘The Department of Homeland security (DHS) has the largest enforcement air force in the world . . . As of September 2011, OAM [Office of Air and Marine] had approximately 267 aircraft, 301 marine vessels, and 1,843 personnel in 70 locations primarily on the southwest, northern and southeast borders.’74 The deployment of such militarized border technologies creates a virtual fence that effectively amplifies the securitizing effects of the concrete and steel fence that is already in place in many sections of the US–Mexico border. Understood in Smith’s terms, the militarization of the US border and the repulsion of attendant ‘aliens’ constitute a re-assertion of colonial sovereignty. The connection between two seemingly disconnected

categories – the US state’s conduct of contemporary wars and Native American sovereignty over country – comes into sharp focus in Winona LaDuke’s delineation of

the violent relational geographies and temporalities that continue to inscribe the operations of the colonial state: The modern US military has taken our lands for bombing exercises and mili- tary bases, and for the experimentation and storage of the deadliest chemical agents and toxins known to mankind . . . The military has named our commu-

nities after forts that once held our people captive and used our tribal names to link military equipment with fierce warrior imagery, such as the Blackhawk, Kiowa and

Apache helicopters. As the Seventh Cavalry invaded Iraq in 2003 in the ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign that opened the war, one could not help note that this was the name

of the cavalry division that had murdered 300 men, women and children at Wounded Knee.75

As LaDuke notes, the colonial state continues to exercise its power of conquest and domination through the exercise of both physical – expropriation of Native American land – and symbolic – expropriation and misuse of Native American names – violence. The war on terror has seen the names of Native American tribes and leaders violently inscribed in atrocities such as the killing of fourteen civilians (who tried twice to surrender as they were being pursued) in Iraq by two Apache helicopters known in US military jargon as Crazy Horse elements – Crazy Horse was the Oglala Lakota warrior who led his people against the colonial invasion of their lands.76

The iterative logic of the colonial nomenclature of occupation and conquest, that has its roots in the wars against Native Americans, is evidenced by the naming of the US colonial war in the Philippines as ‘Injun warfare,’ and the declaration that the islands would not be secure ‘until the niggers are killed off like the Indians’;77

and the naming by the US military of Vietnam, at the time of the Vietnam War, as ‘Indian Country,’ and Vietnamese as ‘Indians.’78 More recently, Iraq was termed by the US military as the ‘Wild West’ and the fortress in Shkin, Afghanistan, as the ‘Alamo.’79 Perhaps the most flagrant example of this symbolic violence is the code-naming of Osama bin Laden as ‘Geronimo’: The president and his advisers watched Leon E. Panetta, the CIA director, on a video screen, narrating from his agency’s headquarters across the Potomac River what was happening in faraway Pakistan. ‘They’ve reached the target,’ he said. Minutes passed. ‘We have a visual on Geronimo,’ he said. A few minutes later: ‘Geronimo EKIA.’ Enemy Killed in Action. There was silence in the Situation Room. Finally, the president spoke up. ‘We got him.’80 Another report quotes the following: a ‘Seal then shot bin Laden in the chest and again in the head with his M4 rifle, and said over his radio: “For God and country – Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo” – the code word for a hit on bin Laden.’81 In this pivotal moment of the war on terror, the Indian wars are contemporized and re-situated at the symbolic heart of this war. The visual of bin Laden is encoded as Geronimo, iconic leader of the Chiricahua Apache in the anti-colonial Apache Wars.

Through this loaded act of superimposition, the Native American warrior is criminalized, conceptually recoded as a terrorist, and the Native American wars against colonial invasion of their lands are scripted as the wars of domestic terror- ists. Geronimo, as enemy killed in action, is symbolically

executed by the US state in the guise of a contemporary terrorist . This is the moment in which the US state reappropriates and secures its imperial sovereignty – precisely through a double death; a twin execution that topologically locates its absolute outside (Arab/ Muslim terrorist) as already inside (Native American insurgent). Geronimo, through this discursive resignification and double death, is transmuted into the trophy of a triumphant imperial power that cannot vanquish too many times its anti-colonial insurgents: even when they are long dead, as in Geronimo’s case, they must be killed again. In a profound meditation on the ongoing cultural valency of Geronimo in US culture, Durham writes: ‘In the American myth, Apaches are a symbol of inscrutable cruelty. Is Geronimo’s name invoked because he evokes American fear – a fear that has been “conquered”? If so, then the fear- some “object” has obviously not been conquered at all.’82 Geronimo, in this latest neo-imperial reincarnation, is the revenant that cannot be killed: as ghost of a dense, unresolved history of colonial violence, he continues to reanimate the colo- nist’s symbolic imaginary and to haunt its very claims to legitimacy. Activated in this heavily mediated moment of state assassination is a palimpsest of repetitions, slippages and collisions of signs, histories and subjects. The historically anachro- nistic enunciation – ‘we have a visual on Geronimo’ – violently sutures two hetero- geneous faces in the process of collapsing two radically different geopolitical histories. This same enunciation, as a moment of obsessive repetition, discloses the state’s tendency to homogenize its various others as interchangeably Other. It also exposes, however, the undiminished contestatory power that Geronimo still magnetizes so that he must be ‘killed’ once again in order to silence questions about the sovereign legitimacy of the colonial nation-state.

2NC

T/ DiseasesThe US are bioterrorists who deploy diseases against racialized bodies. Pugliese 13 [Pugliese, Joseph] "State Violence and the Execution of Law Biopolitical caesurae of torture, black sites, drones” GlassHouse Book, 2013]//Raunak DuaRegardless of the discreditation of such scientific disciplines as eugenics, the practice of using racially targeted population groups for medical experimentation continued well into the twentieth century. The infamous Tuskegee Experiments saw African Americans infected with syphilis, with white doctors denying their sick subjects treatment in order to study the often fatal effects of the disease.34 The Tuskegee Experiments stand as a landmark case of white bioterrorism against black bodies. This particular domestic program of medical experimentation conducted on people of color has been shown to have an international dimension: US researchers, led by the same doctor who conducted the Tuskegee Experiments, deliberately infected ‘female Guatemalan commercial sex workers with gonorrhoea and syphilis and encouraged them to have unprotected sex with soldiers and prison inmates. The subjects were not told what the purpose of the research was nor warned of its potentially fatal consequences.’35 The US government, under the aegis of the CIA’s MK-ULTRA scientifico-medical experimentation program, inflicted various diseases such as yellow fever and dengue fever on its African American citizens and ‘mounted biological-warfare tests on oat crops in the (predominantly black) Virgin Islands.’36 Situated in both domestic and international contexts, medical experimentation on subjects designated by the US government as biopolitically expendable has worked as a crucial element in the conduct of state-sanctioned campaigns of bioterrorism and biowarfare.

Conditions Link The aff’s conditioning of arms sales is an imperialistic ploy to reduce the Other to a non-human that is a compliant and docile subject that can’t challenge imperialism but also that can become a receptical for violence. Pugliese 13 [Pugliese, Joseph] "State Violence and the Execution of Law Biopolitical caesurae of torture, black sites, drones” GlassHouse Book, 2013]//Raunak DuaIn reading this report, I was struck by the seeming incongruity of listing civic health initiatives such as youth smoking and automobile safety with potential bioterrorist threats –

all, furthermore, situated within the larger biopolitical frame of the childhood ‘obesity epidemic.’ In this chapter, I proceed to examine the complex biopolitical relations that suture national issues of obesity prevention to larger transnational frames of state terror,

imprisonment and torture. Specifically, I examine the role of medical personnel in the conduct of torture in places such as Guantanamo and draw attention to the history of US medical science in advancing practices of state violence. In the course of my research, the above quotation worked as a type of incitement; a

provocation to attempt to make sense of what, on the surface, seems like a non-sequitur in the sequence: the term ‘bioterrorist’ appears as a type of category error that seemingly violates the coherence of the lexical set concerned with civic health issues. In order to address this provocation, I will embark on a dilatory itinerary that works to trace a gene- alogy of historical relations that continues to inform a series of dispersed texts, locations and agents. My particular concern is to illuminate the complicit role of medical personnel in the administration and nuanced supervision of regimes of torture at Guantanamo.2 I conclude, as an end-point to this dilatory journey, by materializing the points of connection that biopolitically inscribe national concerns about obesity and terrorists. US bioterrorism and medical experimentation at Guantanamo: the CIA’s experimental laboratory As I outlined in my Introduction,

the Bybee Torture Memo effectively sanctioned a series of torture practices governed by carefully managed intensities and punctu- ated by levels of pain that could be inflicted as long they did not the push the victim over a fatal threshold . As I discuss below, assisting the torturer in keeping their victim from crossing the fatal threshold was an arsenal of medical personnel that effectively monitored the health of the victim in order to ensure that they could be kept alive for interminable torture sessions. Through its radical redefinition of torture, the Bybee Memo established the possibility for the CIA detainee prisons to become laboratories of torture shad- owed by the tenuous limits between life and death . I term these CIA prisons labo- ratories of torture as the torturers proceeded to test a number of torture techniques on their captives. Guantanamo was, in fact, referred to by officials who worked there as a ‘battle lab’ because the torture that was conducted there encompassed a range of experimental practices: ‘MG Dunleavy and later MG Miller referred to GTMO as a “Battle Lab” meaning that interrogations and other procedures there were to some degree

experimental, and their lessons would benefit DoD [Department of Defense] in other places.’3 Abu Zubaydah, whose case I discuss below, draws attention to the

experimental practices of torture he endured: ‘I was told during this period that I was one of the first to receive these interrogation techniques, so

no rules applied. It felt like they were experimenting and trying out techniques to be used later on other people.’4 The experimental torture practices that Zubaydah was forced to endure were set in train under the direction of ‘The apparent leader of the CIA

team . . . a former military psychologist named James Mitchell, whom the intelligence agency had hired on contract.’ Jane Mayer writes: ‘Mitchell announced that the suspect had to be treated “like a dog in a cage,” informed sources said. “He said it was like an experiment, when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while, he’s so diminished, he can’t resist.” ’5 The biopolitics of speciesism at once enables the transmutation of human into animal and the attendant licence to ‘diminish’ Zubaydah through a range of experimental torture practices designed to produce a completely compliant and docile subject.

HR Link Their argument creates a levianistic dialectic that distinguishes between the civilized and failed governments. These distinctions serve as disciplinary tactics: the west believes that regardless of how bad things are, they’re progressing in relation to the anti-civilized east. Turns case: this politic of western modernity is the exact structure that justifies intervention. US values become the benchmark for whether or not the regime needs change.Ventura 16 (Lorella Ventura (2016): The “Arab Spring” and Orientalist Stereotypes: The Role of Orientalism in the Narration of the Revolts in the Arab World, Interventions, DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2016.1231587)//Raunak Dua [[Bracketed for Gendered Language]]

In spite of the criticisms, after approximately three centuries the picture is not very different. The images bound to “Oriental despotism” as defined by Montesquieu in the eighteenth century remain vivid: an arbitrary power, focused on the will and the benefit of the [[monarch]] prince, who does not care for [[their]] his country, which becomes a desert. In some cases, the reference to this

image is even explicit. Goldstone (2011), for example, states that the revolutions of 2011 are to be distinguished from those that took place in Europe in 1848 and 1989 because they are fighting “‘sultanistic’ dictatorship” (329). This definition is very interesting and meaningful. “Sultanistic” regimes “arise when a national leader expands his personal power at the expense of formal institutions. Sultanistic dictators appeal to no ideology and have no purpose other than maintaining their personal authority” (330–1). To do this they need to concentrate great wealth in their hands to “buy the loyalty of supporters and punish opponents” (331). One may ask why it is necessary to refer to the image of the sultan to describe dictators and in particular the rulers of Arab countries – the sultans of the past do not correspond to this abstract image or to the description of Arab rulers in recent times. If it is not historical information, what does the idea of “sultan” add to the description? It can be supposed that it adds a connection to the stereotype of “Oriental

despotism”, which had been criticized centuries ago for lacking historical reliability. However, it is not necessary to refer explicitly to sultans to suggest this link, as it is sufficient to stress some aspects of the description of the actual “despots”, such as the identification of the state with the interests of one person and the pauperization of the people. The stress on such features, irrespective of whether they correspond to reality, yields the impression of a population of slaves subjected to the arbitrary will of the ruler, who keeps the country in profound economic stagnation and moral decadence. Thus, the reference to the picture of “Oriental despotism” entails, besides fear and cruelty – which are the characteristics of tyrannical governments and dictatorships in general – a further implicit characteristic, namely backwardness. This seems to be the key concept. In fact, an important aspect of the idea of Oriental despotism is the link to the “old”, anachronistic feudal world and power, as opposed to the “modern” one. Irrespective of whether Arab countries include aspects of “modern” states, according to the western representation, they appear fixed in the “sultanistic” past. It is for this reason that – inside this picture – they appear static. These considerations can help to explain why the protests or fights against those governments have automatically attracted the approval and support of western public opinion. This normally would need to be justified because not all changes are in general good and democratic and – assuming that one is in favour of western military intervention in

general – not all opposition to governments (albeit bad governments) deserves to be backed by military intervention or the supply of weapons. The fact that this support was given without asking too many questions and that this has not provoked negative reactions in western public opinion can be considered a manifestation of a shared and spread “mythological” way of thinking, according to which the fight against governments presented as “despotic” in an “Oriental” way is considered “right”, regardless. Conversely, in this frame, even the most authoritarian government can be pictured as not despotic by showing that it is not static. Goldstone’s argument aiming to exclude Arab monarchies from the group of “sultanistic” states and even those states that “could quickly crumble in the face of broad-based protests” can be interpreted as an example of this approach because it is based on the fact that “their political structures are flexible” (338). A jump into “modernity” Orientalist discourse is focused both on the idea of a monolithic and static Orient, and – opposed to it – on the idea of a developing and active West, such that the very self-definition of the West as “modern” comes from the contrast to the “Orient” – and needs it. In the Orientalist

discourse, western “modernity” represents progress par excellence and is supposed to be the goal of history for those areas of the world that have yet to reach it. In this pattern, the Arab revolts appeared to have been understood by the

western public as not only attempts to modernize but also as a kind of “jump” into the western coordinates and system of values. The fight against the despotic and “old” power appears automatically libertarian (if not necessarily democratic), “modern” and progressive because it brings movement where there was supposed to be only immobility. Thus, it appears very close to what is considered typically “western”. The idea that, after the uprisings, the immobility of the past can finally be left behind can be discovered, for example, in

Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the gala dinner celebrating the US– Islamic World Forum (2011), in which she poses the question of “whether the people of the region [will] make the most of this historic moment or fall back into stagnation” (479). This is to be determined by their embracing the “spirit of reform” and their capability to answer to “the region’s most pressing challenges – to diversify their economies, open their political systems, crackdown on corruption, [and] respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities” (479). The United States “will be there as a partner, working for progress” (479).

Human Rights discourse is a guise of liberal imperialism that justifies the eradication of other forms of life that does not conform to western ideals.Djolic 17 (Petar Djolic, “Humanitarian Interventions: The Doctrine of Imperialism,” [Global Research], July 3rd of 2017, accessed: 6/23/19, https://www.globalresearch.ca/humanitarian-interventions-the-doctrine-of-imperialism/5597399)//DCai

Hell is full of good wishes and desires” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux Defining the concept of humanitarian intervention is problematic and, therefore, implementation of its conceptualisation is contentious. On the one hand, humanitarian intervention is commonly acknowledged to be an action of ‘last resort’ taken by a state or a group of states to alleviate or end gross violations of human rights on behalf of the citizens or ethnic minorities of the target state, through the use of military force. On the other hand,

humanitarian intervention is perceived to be one of the most subtle and hidden forms of power in contemporary geopolitical systems. That is to say, the ideological structures that provide and underpin legitimacy for the more overt exercise of political and economic powers are manifested through the rhetoric of humanitarian interventionism. Consequently, a phenomenon of humanitarian intervention has been one of the most contentious topics in international law,

political science, and moral philosophy. Nonetheless, by reviewing the evolution of the concept, it can be concluded that the motives for humanitarian intervention are morally and legally intolerable, acting as a force of liberal imperialism. Furthermore, history illustrates that humanitarian intervention is a part of a wider process employed by power states as a strategy to expend their political and economic influence. “International history is rife with interventions justified by high-sounding principles” (Doyle, 2006: 5). From the very beginnings of the world system as it is recognized today, some 500

years ago, ideologies that justify Western power on the grounds that it is based on natural law and universal values were developed and espoused by Euro-American leaders . As such, the power wielded by their actions is presented as a benevolent vehicle through which the common good is spread. According to Wallerstein (2006), the humanitarian intervention debate can be traced back to the origins of European colonization. However, as Chomsky emphasizes, “if we had records we might find that Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun professed humanitarian motives” (1999: 76). Although contemporary humanitarian interventions are carried out in the name of democracy and more specifically human rights, a historical survey of this phenomenon reveals a clear

evolution of such notions over time. As noted by Wallerstein “the intervenors, when challenged, always resort to a moral justification — natural law and Christianity in the sixteenth century, the civilizing mission in the nineteenth century , and human rights and democracy in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries…” (2006: 27). Juan Gines de Sepúlveda (1984) in his book, Democrates Segundo o de las Justas causas

de la guerra contra los indios, outlined “basic arguments that have been used to justify all subsequent ‘interventions’ by the ‘civilized’ in the modern world into ‘noncivilized’ zones” (Wallerstein, 2006: 6). Sepúlveda (1984) accused the indigenous population of barbarism due to their practice of human sacrifice, which violates the divine and natural law. As such, according to Sepúlveda (ibid.), the Spanish had the responsibility to protect the innocent harmed by such hostile practices. In addition, Sepúlveda (ibid.) argued, Spanish rule was essential in bringing the message of Christ to the secular indigenous population. Therefore, as Sepúlveda (ibid.) notes, the positive ends including the spread of the natural law for the great benefit of the barbarians and protection of the innocent justify bellicose means employed by the civilized. Bartolome de Las Casas, the first priest appointed in the Americas in the early 1500s, however, questioned the morality of such intervention. By denouncing the injustices of the Spanish conquest of South and Central America, Las Casas sought to secure the protection of the indigenous population. Las Casas (1999) countered Sepúlveda’s arguments by asserting that irrespective of how prevalent those motives were, they lacked moral significance. Moreover, even if such claims were justified, it did not mean that Spain was the appropriate actor to protect the innocent, or even that it could be done without causing more harm than good (Las Casas, 1999). “Humanitarian” Military

Interventions: “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) and the Double Game Such sentiments, the inability of the barbarians to govern themselves and the consequent need for civilizing missions, followed through to the nineteenth century, and were even shared by the most liberal and progressive of Western thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill. While mainly agreeing with the principle of nonintervention, Mill (1867) argued

the case for ‘benign colonialism’. In other words, Mill’s principles of nonintervention were applicable only to ‘civilized’ nations. According to Mill (1867), ‘uncivilized’ peoples suffer from debilitating infirmities such as anarchy, despotism, familism and amoral presentism, which, in turn, makes them incapable of self-determination and, therefore, unfit for the principles of nonintervention . As such, Mill notes: “…there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack… To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error….” (1867: 166-167). Nevertheless, once Mill’s words are put into the context of the whole paper, it is clear that Mill (ibid.) advocates for neither racial domination nor exploitation; on the contrary, Mill (ibid.) promotes the duty of paternal care, precluding exploitation and oppression while acquiring education

and care so that one day colonized people become fit for independent national existence. That is to say, in order for ‘uncivilized’ societies to advance to the point where they are capable of sustaining liberal institutions and self-government, a temporary period of political dependence or tutelage is necessary. From this perspective, colonialism is not principally a form of economic exploitation and political domination, but rather an empire’s paternalistic practice that exports ‘civilisation’ in order to foster the improvement of indigenous population (Mill, 1867). However, a benign trusteeship is a slippery slope that generally, as history has shown (refer to colonialization of Africa, Latin and Central America as well as Asia), become malign imperialism. After all, as Doyle (2006) notes, how far is it from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and King Leopold’s Congo Free State to the Aborigines’ Protection Society and the Anti-Slavery Campaign? Furthermore, there is a great difficulty of consistently and objectively delineating between the ‘uncivilized’ and ‘civilized’ peoples. The problematic nature of such can, therefore, be exploited in order to legitimize subjugation as a way to facilitate the salvation and

enlightenment of indigenous peoples. With the passage of WWII, and the inception of the United Nations, powerful states shifted their rhetoric from the notions of cultural and racial superiority and consequent ‘civilizing missions’ to human rights. Such sentiments intensified after the end of the Cold War, which subsequently saw a surge in the number of humanitarian interventions, concomitant to the seemingly decreasing prominence of state sovereignty. This “revolution of moral concern” (Davidson, 2012: 129), emphasized through the moral necessity (Teson, 2001) and responsibility to intervene militarily in the face of gross violations of human rights, has, therefore, been promoted heavily within contemporary liberal circles. Up until the beginning of 1990s, an act of self-defence was a predominant justification for intervention,

however, the rise to pre-eminence of liberal ideas regarding states’ responsibilities to individual rights “seemed to be manifesting itself in the interpretation of international law” (Davidson, 2012: 134). Thus, the principle of non-intervention, which was founded on the principle of states’ sovereignty, no longer had the authority

it once did within the international community. Such shift in attitudes regarding the permissibility of military interventions culminated in the formulation of the term ‘Responsibility to Protect’ based on the principle of natural law theory — “our common human nature generates common moral duties — including, in some versions, a right of humanitarian intervention” (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003: 25). However, an absence of international legal mechanism that is able to address and enforce laws formulated on the back of such

principle provides room for powerful states to act flexibly based upon their own political and economic bias and challenges the traditional humanitarian values of “impartiality, neutrality and independence” (Barnett, 2005: 724), ultimately rendering such principle purposeless and, in some cases, even damaging, susceptible to manipulation and exploitation. In sum, the use of military force to

further humanitarian ideals seems, at the very least, a paradox in terms. That is, “wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended, they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone” (Foucault, 1990: 137). According to Dillon and Read (2009), such are the paradoxes inherent in humanitarian intervention — liberal powers are waging war against human life in the name of human life’s protection and preservation. In other words, issues such as poverty, health crises, environmental concerns and civil conflicts are re-conceptualized as international threats that necessitate intervention so that they do not “inundate and destabilize Western society” (Duffield,

2007: 1). Accordingly, those ways of life that do not conform to Western liberal standards are viewed as a threat to society as a whole. This notion is at the root of the drive to liberal interventionism. Considering the above-outlined historical survey, it is difficult to argue that, despite it humanitarian cloak,

liberal interventionism has not, in reality, always been a part of a liberal strategy of global governance. That is to say, liberal imperialism. As such, it can be concluded that liberal enterprise is “quintessentially concerned with the art of global supremacy” (Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991: 14). As illustrated, there are distinct similarities between the

current discussions surrounding liberalism and old rhetoric of the empire. In other words,humanitarian intervention is basically a veil behind which political and economic imperialism can disguise itself. Furthermore, it seems there exists a significant cognitive dissonance between liberal universalism proclaimed through cosmopolitan humanitarianism, and liberal imperialism expressed through high-sounding principles of humanitarian intervention that, in reality, functions as a vehicle through which all forms of life that do not conform to liberal ideals are eradicated or expelled (McCarthy, 2009: 166).

Disease Link The United deviously carries out its acts of biterror – after creating a conflict they create a façade of attempting help the colonized and instead carry out more colonial violence Pugliese 13 [Pugliese, Joseph] "State Violence and the Execution of Law Biopolitical caesurae of torture, black sites, drones” GlassHouse Book, 2013]//Raunak DuaAs I remarked in Chapter 2 in the context of Abu Ghraib, the shadow archive is an historical repository of discursive practices that, although barely discernible because of its shadow status, continues to animate and shape the cultural intelligi- bility of contemporary practices. Haunting this contemporary use of medicine for biopolitical warfare, experimentation, and torture is a dense shadow archive of colonial and racist medicine that has been critical in shaping the biopolitical configuration of the US nation . The brutal literality of the power of colonial disease to determine who would live and who would die is clearly evidenced in the case of smallpox. The colonial settlers of North America deployed smallpox as a technique of biowarfare to advance the destruction of Native Americans in order to facilitate land clearing and white colonization. In their study of the destructive impact of the disease on Native American

communities in colonial North America, Kristine Patterson and Thomas Runge note that: ‘Smallpox ultimately killed more Native Americans in the early centuries than any other disease or conflict. I t was not unusual for half a tribe to be wiped out;

on some occasions, the entire tribe was lost.’25 Referring to the first documented account of the power of smallpox to effect mass extermination, the authors write that: ‘The first epidemic occurred in 1616 along the Massachusetts coast, eliminating nearly 90% of the Massachusetts tribe of the Algonquin nation. This was later referred to as an act of Divine Providence to clear the land for settlers that

landed at Plymouth in 1620.’26 The historical moment that marks the colonial foundation of the white nation is inscribed with an epidemiological case of ethnic cleansing that dovetails perfectly with a germinal form of that providential myth that will expand expo- nentially in its latter guise as Manifest Destiny – with its attendant massive campaign of genocidal expropriation of Native American lands. As a technique of biowarfare, smallpox operated as a ‘Trojan Horse,’ entering Native American communities through gifts of blankets and barrels inoculated with the disease. In an effort to quash Native American resistance against the conquest of their lands, one military officer recommends that: ‘You [Colonel Henry Bouquet] will do well to try and inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method tha[t] can serve

to extirpate this execrable race.’27 This campaign of extir- pation assumed many forms and continued well into the twentieth century, with the US state mobilizing medical personnel in the forced sterilization of Native American women. Native American women, Andrea Smith notes, are ‘threat- ening because of their ability to reproduce the next generation of peoples who can resist colonization’;28 consequently, their bodies become the target of biowarfare practices such as sterilization. Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

steril- ization rates as ‘high as 80 percent’ have been documented on some reserva- tions.29 The practice of obtaining informed consent was either entirely disregarded or ‘consent forms were signed while the patient was anesthetized or in the throes of labor .’30 As a technique of biowarfare deployed in order to neuter and extin- guish the state’s designated enemies, the threat of sterilization reared its contem- porary head in one of the US’s transnational gulags: ‘In January 2004 at a holding facility, an interrogator assigned to a SOF [Special Operations Forces] unit told two detainees that they would be sterilized, then poured the contents of a Chemlight onto one of the detainee’s genitals.’31

Link – IsraelUS imperialism has created an endless war in the Middle East through arms control and military support to Israel – the language of criminality is used to justify the extermination of Black and Native populationsHaiphong 18 (Danny Haiphong, BAR Contributor, “The Defeat of US Imperialism is a Strategic Necessity, not a Single Issue,” [Black Agenda Report], May 23rd in 2018, accessed: 6/23/19, https://blackagendareport.com/defeat-us-imperialism-strategic-necessity-not-single-issue)//DCai

Many in the United States have a hard time seeing beyond single issues or individuals. The ruling class has taken full advantage by relegating the blame for the problems of US imperialism on Trump, Russia, or some combination of the two. This is a uniquely US phenomenon. It is an outgrowth of the US empire’s roots in classical, capitalist liberalism and the vulgar idealism attached to it. The imperatives of race-based slavery and class oppression have made it difficult for workers in the US to see themselves as a collective instead of a diverse set of individuals, each with their own grievances and investments with the US empire. Recent events worldwide point to the urgent need for the struggling masses in the US to

defeat empire, not invest in it. Too often are the particularities of US imperialism, such as the plight of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli settler state, viewed as separate, unrelated issues. The same goes for US provocations toward Syria, Iran, or Russia. Yet none of these strategic priorities for US imperialism stand alone on the world stage. They are all deeply interconnected and point to the common enemy

that all oppressed people share both in the US and all over the planet. The current Israeli assault on Palestinians in Gaza is a case in point. On the day that the US embassy in Jerusalem was opened and just one day before Palestinians

mourned the anniversary of the “Nakba,” Israeli snipers killed over sixty Palestinians and injured thousands more. The mass murder of Palestinians on the colonial border of the Gaza strip was part and parcel of a larger series of violent responses to the Great March of Return that has been going over a month prior to the US embassy’s move to Jerusalem. Palestinian resistance has once again placed a spotlight on Israel’s colonial genocide of the Palestinian people. The Trump Administration has looked away from the carnage due to its strained relationship with much of the world . Only Trump’s advisor Jared Kushner has made a definitive statement on the matter, calling the protesters “part of the problem” for “provoking violence.”

Kushner speaks fluidly in the language of the colonizer. Colonial powers throughout history have used the language of criminality and unruliness of the native population to justify the violent suppression of anti-colonial resistance. Israel is no different. The Zionist settler state has repeatedly criminalized Palestinians as “Hamas terrorists” over the last several years, rendering the population as unworthy of land or life. Lacking allies in the European imperialist camp, Trump has leaned heavily

on strengthening relations with two countries that can always be counted on to fulfill US interests: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel and Saudi Arabia want nothing more than a weakened Palestine as part of their broader policy to keep the region under imperialist domination Israel’s latest massacre of the Palestinian people has engendered legitimate anger across the world. The sheer cruelty of the massacre has been difficult to hide despite the best efforts of the corporate media. The New York Timesand the BBC, for example, have whitewashed Israel’s crimes as “clashes” and described Palestinians as having “died” because of them. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), “Israel has killed 11 Palestinian children, two journalists, one person on crutches and three persons with disabilities.” FAIR adds that “to this point, the only Israeli casualty during the entire cycle of demonstrations has been one “lightly wounded ” soldier, considerable space in coverage of the massacres is devoted to blaming Palestinians for their own slaughter.” In contrast to the distortions of the media, complete silence over the massacre reigns in Washington. Silence protects the politicians or capitalists in control of US policy, all of

which possess a vested interest in maintaining cordial relations with last remaining settler state in the Middle East. US imperialism bears the most responsibility for Israel’s immunity on the world stage. The United States provides nearly four billion dollars per year in military aid alone to Israel, a historic expenditure made possible by the Obama Administration. Trump has shouldered the blame for officially

moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, a site many see as the heartland of Palestine. But it was under the Clinton Administration that the US officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This has been affirmed by the Bush and Obama Administrations in a

number of speeches to Zionist audiences such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Only by taking the issue of Palestine out of the narrow confines of single-issue politics and into the struggle against US imperialism can we answer the real question as to why such unanimous support for Israel exists in Washington. Washington has a nearly a half century long history in keeping the Zionist settler state immune from popular

resistance or international accountability. While Israel is a creation of Western imperialism, the settler state receives over ten million USD per day in military equipment to fulfill US objectives in the region. Israel returns the favor by showering US political officials with campaign donations through its slush-fund, AIPAC . The US-Israeli partnership is not always one of consensus, as proven by Israel’s attack on theUSS Liberty during the Six Day War or Netanyahu’s steadfast opposition to President Obama’s signature “Iran deal,” recently nixed by Trump. When it comes to their strategic interests in the Middle East, however, there is little that the US and Israel disagree upon. Washington’s inaction toward Israeli atrocities is about more than a lack of concern for the lives of Palestinians. The demand for Washington to sanction Israel or withdraw military

support is fruitless unless Palestine is placed in the larger context of imperialist aggression. Washington arms Israel to the teeth because, as imperialist powers, they share a common vision for the region and the world. What foremost unites them is the aim to suppress and destroy Arab nationalism, the anti-colonial movement that has always placed Palestine at the front and center of its political activities. US imperialism has long charted a course to destabilize any independent nation in the Middle East that ascribes to some version of nationalism, whether the Arab nationalism of the Libyan and Syrian states or the Islamic nationalism of the Iranian

state. Anti-colonial nationalism is the antithesis of US imperial rule, which is predicated to the unmitigated corporate and military plunder of the planet. Israel is heavily dependent on US imperialism but

not to the extent where the settler regime is devoid of its own interests. The settler state not only wants to erase the Palestinian population from existence, but also sees the erasure of all sovereign and independent formations in the region as a prerequisite to its own expansionist dreams. Israel called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in the Clean Breakpolicy document authored in 1996. Israel has also provided aid to jihadists operating in Syria since the very beginning of the foreign-backed insurgency against the Syrian government led by Bashar Al-Assad. The Syrian Constitution codifies the Syrian state as the antithesis of Zionist rule in the region. President Assad has made numerous statements in support of Palestine. It is a myth that Palestinians live in a friendless Middle East. Palestine stands at the center of a broader struggle for national liberation that many falsely assumed had come to an end in the late 20thcentury. If the struggle for national liberation has indeed ended, then why does US imperialism militarily occupy part of Northeast Syria to compliment Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights? Why does US imperialism occupy Afghanistan and incessantly pressure the Iraqi government to give up its alliance with Syria and Iran? Why is Israel so concerned about Hezbollah’s growing influence in Lebanon or Iran’s growing influence in the region, generally? The answer is because the Syria-Hezbollah-Iraq-Iran alliance is holding on to dear

life to prevent the complete collapse of the region to US and Israeli rule. In the struggle against imperialism, national liberation is a matter of survival. It is a life or death struggle, a class struggle. Either the national liberation struggles that bore the fruits of independence in Syria and Iran prevail or the boot of the US and its imperial allies suffocates the masses of people

in the region. Israel’s massacre of Palestinians is possible because US imperialism has waged endless war on the region, beginning with Afghanistan in 1979 and moving one by one to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. This has placed the struggle for national liberation in Asia and Africa in a state of siege and underdevelopment. What Palestine needs

most is for this state of siege to end. However, the imperialist siege on national liberation movements has poisoned the politics of what passes as the “left” in the US imperialist orbit. Israelis, like their American brethren, are racist to the core and unable to acknowledge the humanity of the people in Iraq, Syria, or Palestine. The “left” in the imperialist orbit is fully committed to regime change and war as long as it targets “authoritarian regimes”—a euphemism for a nation that the US or Israel doesn’t like. US imperialism is not a system to the left. US imperialism has become a single issue, with many leftists choosing to express solidarity with Palestinians but not for Syrians, Iranians, or Iraqis. Palestine is a worthy cause mainly because Palestinians can be stripped of their class character in the face of an overwhelming enemy in Israel. The Arab and Islamic nationalist sentiments of Syria or Iran pose a real, existing challenge to imperial rule and are thus not afforded any solidarity at all despite the unwavering support that organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) give to them. Of course, this is not to say that solidarity with Palestine should be abandoned. Rather, it should be expanded. Yes, only the people of the United States can truly stop the Zionist state of Israel’s genocide of the

Palestinian people. The question is, how? The US imperial war on the poor, especially the Black and Native

poor inside of its own borders, cannot be ignored. Anti-imperialism must also mean anti-system .

It is a unity of struggles against the oppressor class, against class society itself. Imperialism thus cannot be relegated to a single issue. Its defeat is a strategic necessity for the liberation of humanity.

Link – Military Industrial BaseWe can’t rely on politics to restrict the military-industrial complex – imperialist bombings and weapons exports will continue as long as it benefits the ruling classKrieger 19 (Sonja Krieger, an editor and writer for Left Voice since 2016. She teaches college students and is an active AFT member ,“Made in the USA: How the U.S. Manufactures Death and Destruction in Yemen,” [Left Voice], 1/23/19, accessed: 6/25/19, https://www.leftvoice.org/made-in-the-usa-how-the-u-s-manufactures-death-and-destruction-in-yemen)//DCai

It happened on August 9, 2018, in Sa’ada Province, northern Yemen. A bomb was dropped on a bus at a market in the town of Dahyan, killing 40 little boys, ages 6 to 11. They were on a school trip. The bomb also killed 11 adults and wounded 79 people (including 56 children). The bomb, made in the United States, was Lockheed Martin’s 500-pound laser-guided MK 82. It was likely part of a shipment that had been approved by the State Department during Obama’s presidency. Obama had canceled a sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia in December 2016 due to “human rights concerns,” but that did nothing to save those children in 2018, nor did the

Saudi-led coalition’s subsequent apology for “mistakes made” alter their tragic fate. The fact is that the bomb that targeted and killed those kids was just one of thousands of bombs exported by the United States to Saudi Arabia, and this one ghastly episode was just one of the well over 17,000 airstrikes that have claimed the lives of countless Yemeni civilians since the war began in 2015. The Awful Truth About the “Invisible War” The pictures of Yemeni children with their sad eyes are gut wrenching to look at. Shocking are the images of babies that are but skin and bones, held in the arms of desperate parents. It’s hard to stomach the sight of the human face of what is referred to everywhere as the “the worst humanitarian crisis on earth.” Faced with a devastating famine, 22 million people in Yemen (out of a population of 29 million) urgently need food and other aid. Seventeen million people are suffering from hunger, and according to the UN, 14 million are on the brink of starvation (“seriously food deficient”). According to some estimates, 85,000 people may have already starved to death, most of them children. Only half of the population has access to clean water. Communicable diseases have resurged, including 1.2 million cases of confirmed or suspected cholera since April 2017. Diphtheria, which was all but eradicated in Yemen by the 1980s, has reappeared. One hundred and thirty Yemeni children die each day due to

hunger or disease. Human-made, this famine is the product of war—a war that has been dragging on for well over three years. The Saudi-led coalition has erected a sea, air and land blockade that is preventing import goods and humanitarian aid from getting into the country. Prices have soared, effectively making basic necessities unaffordable for most people. Inflation is, however, only one aspect of the country’s near total economic devastation. Factories, farms and companies have slowed production or shut down; millions of people have no work. This war has caused mass suffering in many ways, but the most

direct, most immediate source of misery remains the world’s advanced military technology. No amount of “precision” targeting changes the fact that this imperialist war is a giant annihilation campaign; it kills and maims, obliterates homes, workplaces and cities. There have been 18,000 air raids since the spring of 2015, or roughly 14 air raids each day. The New York Times reported that over 4,600 civilians have been killed as a result of the air strikes (and 6,500 including other war-related violence). The Guardian wrote that more than 57,000 civilians and combatants have died since the beginning of 2016, and 2 to 3 million have been displaced. The country’s infrastructure is utterly demolished, including half the hospitals. Many people cannot pay for transportation to the nearest medical facility because of the rising fuel prices. Eight civilians die each day as a result of the fighting and the bombardment. War For Profit With no end in sight, the “forgotten war” is finally getting attention. The numbers cited above are all over the media. But while the situation in Yemen is becoming more visible,

a deeper understanding of what is happening requires that we expose the role of the military-industrial complex in creating and perpetuating this crisis. After all, religious and political conflict becomes lethal when weapons are involved, and in a world where global capitalism reigns supreme, weapons are produced and sold by private companies whose sole purpose is to profit from death and destruction. Aided in their objectives by their alliance with the government, defense contractors are literally making a killing. War is big business. Although it is Saudi Arabia and its coalition that is leading the war against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, the war wouldn’t

be possible without the United States, which therefore carries a large part of the responsibility . The United States has been an ally of the Saudis for 75 years. This alliance is built on oil and weapons. Saudi Arabia is the United States’ second-largest supplier of oil, after Canada, and its No. 1 buyer of arms, making up about 18% of total U.S. arms sales.

However, U.S. military support goes beyond the provision of arms. Since the start of the war, the United States has reinforced the blockade, refueled the Saudi military airplanes and supplied the coalition with targeting intelligence and technical assistance. The UK also sells munitions to Saudi Arabia and is quietly training Saudi forces. On a lesser scale, France and China have made deals with Saudi Arabia as well. Spain recently canceled an arms sale to

Riyadh, as did a few other European nations, but it is highly doubtful that there is any real intention to completely stop or even significantly roll back what ultimately amounts to the capitalist countries’ military support of this war. Meanwhile, other countries, including Russia, are looking to get a slice of the pie and profit from this massive and ongoing criminal assault on a people who have nowhere to escape to. According to a Congressional Research Service Report published in December 2016, the Obama administration made sales (in equipment, and training) to Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion, which is more than any prior administration had spent. President Trump then made an agreement with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, according to which Saudi Arabia would purchase $110 billion of arms now and

$350 billion over the course of the next 10 years. So far, “only” $14.5 billion worth have been purchased, but Trump insists that the American people need more arms deals with Saudi Arabia because… jobs! The appalling logic behind Trump’s claims is that the United States should be willing to accept a continuation of the war and mass suffering because American workers benefit from it, that is, manufacturing and selling death is good for the working class. Morality aside, these claims are based on a lie. Yes, weapons production is a significant part of the American economy, making up about 10% of the United States’ factory output. However, the assertion that this most recently negotiated deal would support 500,000 new jobs is a colossal exaggeration; a realistic figure would be closer to a few hundred. More importantly, this is capitalism, and the arms manufacturers are capitalist companies, which means the defense industry executives are the ones raking in the big money, not the

assemblers at Lockheed Martin, who make a little over $16 an hour. Ultimately, the biggest lie is that the interests of American workers are served by politicians making sure that the capitalist class can keep exploiting labor, killing brown people in poor countries, and swimming in more and more wealth while doing so. Geopolitics in the Middle East and Beyond We have all heard the term “proxy war” in connection with Yemen, meaning that Yemen has been made into a battleground where Saudi Arabia and Iran are acting out their political aspirations and aggressions without directly attacking each other. This may well be an accurate description of what’s happening, though it is not

clear to what extent Tehran is actually supporting the Houthis, while it is perfectly clear that Saudi Arabia is waging a war on them and the civilian population of Yemen. Leaving aside for the moment the truth that there is nothing proxy about Yemen serving as yet another, particularly deadly, battleground for the war of the global capitalist class on the rest of humanity, it is useful to take a look at the specific confluence of forces that led a tragedy of immense proportions to unfold in the

poorest country in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iran are two major political powers in the Middle East, locked in a decades-old conflict. Today, this conflict has reached a point where the Saudi monarchy fears it is losing its status as the leader of the Muslim world to the Iranian theocracy, which is in fact expanding its influence in the region. While Saudi Arabia is supported by the United States, Iran is an ally of Russia. These alliances are also critically involved in Syria, where Iran and Russia are supporting Assad while Saudi Arabia is backing some of the rebel groups, making the conflict in Syria today look more and more like a real proxy war. Israel, of course, with the United States as its closest ally, is not altogether opposed to the Saudi military adventures because its foreign policy is mainly

directly against Iran, which supports Hezbollah, the Shia militia in Lebanon. As these global strategic games are being played, with the lives of human beings used as tools in the struggle for power, religious and other divisions are taken advantage of. For most of its recent history, Yemen has been politically divided. Northern Yemen gained independence in 1918 after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, whereas southern Yemen did not become independent from the British until 1967. At that point, there were two Yemeni states: the Yemen Arab Republic in the north (formerly the Zaydi Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen) and the People’s Republic of Yemen (later the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen) in the south, which was oriented toward the Soviet Union. Unification in 1990 did not bring an end to the separation and the conflict. Today, the Saudi-led coalition is exploiting the strife between the Shia al-Houthi rebels in northern Yemen and the Sunni supporters of the former government in southern Yemen while waging war on the former and furthering any effort to bring former president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi back to power. The events over the last two decades have made Yemen more vulnerable to

foreign interference. One of the key sites of the “war on terror” early on, Yemen has been under

drone attack by the United States since the beginning of President Obama’s term . There had been only one drone strike before that (in 2002), but after 2009, there was a massive escalation of the drone war, which has already claimed the lives of up to 1,700 people in Yemen, including hundreds of civilians with no connection to al-Qaida. In 2011, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed near the town of Khashef in the province of Jawf by a CIA drone. That same year, the corrupt and autocratic then-president Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced out of office as the Arab Spring reached Yemen. After Saleh escaped to Riyadh, he was replaced by his vice president Hadi, who was facing more unrest as economic and social problems were worsening, adding fuel to an already volatile political situation. The Houthis took over the capital city of Sana’a in 2014 and forced Hadi to flee, first to Aden in the south and then also to Riyadh, which launched its military campaign in 2015. The other parties that are actively responsible for the attacks on Yemen are the members of the coalition assembled by Saudi Arabia, including Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Senegal, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar (which was suspended in 2017). For its part, Saudi Arabia is using its military spending to buy itself control over the region. Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest arms importers, by many accounts the largest, and has significantly increased its import of arms over the last few years. The United States accounts for more than half of

Saudi Arabia’s imports. Even though Saudi Arabia is procuring more weapons than it is using, the war in Yemen would clearly not be what it is without U.S. military equipment. Ending the arms sales would therefore have a major impact on the Saudis’ ability to continue bombing Yemen . At the same time, it is untrue that doing so would significantly affect the U.S. economy, though individual companies would be affected, including Lockheed Martin, which stands to gain $28 billion in sales in the $110 billion deal negotiated by Jared Kushner. End the

War: Demanding More than Symbols Congressional Democrats have recently called for an end to U.S. arms deals with Saudi Arabia and an end to U.S. support for Saudi military operations in Yemen. These include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff (the chair of the House Intelligence Committee) and others. Some of them took this position after President Trump responded tepidly to the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, on the orders of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The brazen manner in which this heinous crime was committed shows that the royal house thinks itself free to commit grotesque acts of violence with impunity. So far, any pressure coming from progressive Democrats has yielded few results, although the United States suspended mid-air refueling of Saudi warplanes, which was likely negotiated by the Trump administration and the Saudis to prevent Congress from taking more serious measures. Given that only a fifth of the coalition airplanes depend on U.S. refueling, this decision makes very little difference. In March 2018 the Senate voted on a resolution to end support for the war, but it lost. In November, Republicans blocked another resolution. Then, at the end of the year, Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 54, which had been sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), passed the Senate 56-41. Sanders acknowledged that this resolution would not affect foreign policy (because of the subsequent transition to the 116th Congress) but emphasized its symbolic significance. Unfortunately, symbolic gestures are not enough to save Yemeni lives and end this bloody war. Regardless of what, if anything, is going to happen to the Sanders-Lee resolution, a resolution like it will probably pass in the now Democrat-controlled House. For example, a bipartisan bill has been introduced by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), and cosponsored, among others, by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). This Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018 would halt “certain weapons transfers” to Saudi Arabia, prohibit refueling of coalition aircraft and place sanctions on any parties that block humanitarian access in Yemen or aid to the Houthis, and on persons responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. It also mandates reports on human rights and accountability for harm to civilians. All this may sound comprehensive, but even if such a bill is passed, it will likely not alleviate the suffering in Yemen,

and it certainly won’t bring the peace that Yemenis need so badly. The truth is that we can’t rely on politicians, proposing and passing this or that resolution, this or that legislation, no matter how “progressive” these politicians are. In the capitalist system, political decisions are made based on whether they ultimately benefit the ruling class, or at least do not significantly interfere with their interests and ability to amass wealth. Even Sanders’ resolution does not call for an end to the drone strikes in Yemen or the end to the war on terror. Instead, it invokes the War Powers Act of 1973 to demand the “removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress”. It is significant that this is the first time since 1973 that the authority of the War Powers Resolution has been used in the Senate to assert congressional responsibility for

war over the president. And it is not a bad idea to attempt to rein in President Trump. However, the U.S. Congress has authorized drone strikes and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed 210,000 civilians. Congress clearly does not protect people around the world against U.S. imperialism. The struggle for peace in Yemen must rely on the international workers’ movement. Workers in countries that trade with Saudi Arabia must engage in workplace actions demanding their governments cut off ties and send humanitarian aid to Yemen. They must call for an end to the embargo and the immediate and direct delivery of food and medical supplies to the people of Yemen. In the United States, workers must organize against Trump’s anti-refugee policies and for an end to all arms sales and the drone war. The socialist left must defend the Yemeni people’s right to self-determination, condemn Saudi Arabia’s attacks on civilians and denounce all Republican and Democratic representatives who feed the war industry. The working class cannot wait for the political elites to put an end to their own complicity with the capitalist profiteering from the devastation of human lives. The working class must build international solidarity to fight against the corporate-driven projects of destruction and imperialist domination.

Prolif GoodThe terrorist elite of the world continue to deploy empty promises of de-escalation while simultaneously exercising the threat of imperial control – only a consistent flow of power back to the hands of smaller countries can ensure global stability Shellenberger 18, [Michael. “Who Are We To Deny Weak Nations The Nuclear Weapons They Need For Self-Defense?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 28 Aug. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/08/06/who-are-we-to-deny-weak-nations-the-nuclear-weapons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2aa47921522f.]In a 2012 cover story for Foreign Affairs, Bomb, “Waltz notes that “ nuclear balancing would mean stability .” Why?

Because, “It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis .” Israeli air strikes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and destroyed a Syrian reactor in 2007. Wrote Waltz: Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored ." Little surprise that Israeli hardliners responded with outrage to Waltz’s essay. “Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after Foreign Affairs

published Waltz’s article. “I think people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.” But

was Israel stupid for acquiring the bomb in 1968 to protect itself from its neighbors? No doubt

Netanyahu would say no . How do nuclear-armed nations justify their double-standard on nuclear weapons? Mostly through fear-mongering . “Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse ,” noted Waltz, “and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been.” Nuclear-armed nations perpetuate two fictions , the first of which is that they will give up their weapons . They point to the weak language in the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which says treaty members will “pursue negotiations” to achieve the goal of “complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” And yet no nuclear-armed nation in the world is pursuing negotiations with the goal of “complete

disarmament.” Indeed, most nuclear-armed nations are upgrading, not downgrading their arsenals. The second fiction is that nuclear-armed nations will protect their unarmed allies with nuclear weapons . But ask yourself: would President Donald Trump risk New York for Montenegro (population 643,000) — the newest member of NATO? In July, Trump suggested he was would not, even though the US is obligated to under NATO rules.

The non-proliferation regime is faltering under the weight of its own contradictions as the disparity between armed and un-armed nations grows – a move towards equalizing the playing field through proliferation is key for the end of terroristic invasions of weak nationsShellenberger 18, [Michael. “Who Are We To Deny Weak Nations The Nuclear Weapons They Need For Self-Defense?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 28 Aug. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/08/06/who-are-we-to-deny-weak-nations-the-nuclear-weapons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2aa47921522f.]

The end of extended deterrence provided by the U.S. to Europe should not come as a surprise. Its temporary nature was foreseen as early as 1962, when André Fontaine wrote in Le Monde: “It is inconceivable, unless we are resigned to an interminable cold war, that Europe forever relies on America for its security and for the orientation of its diplomacy.” As to be expected, the usual fears are being drummed up against why a militarily-weak nation like Germany shouldn’t get the bomb. “If Germany was to relinquish its status as a non-nuclear power, what would prevent Turkey or Poland, for example, from following suit?” a former German ambassador to the U.S., wrote in response to Hacke’sessay. “Germany as the gravedigger of the international nonproliferation regime? Who can want that?” In truth,

it’s remarkable the nonproliferation regime has lasted as long as it has. It made sense for nuclear-armed nations in the 1950s and 60s to try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons .

After all, nations weren’t accustomed to the revolutionary new technology, and the likelihood was far higher back then that a weapon could get used accidentally or fall into the wrong hands . But

60 years later, in a multipolar world where the dominant power, the U.S., has grown tired of its role as global hegemon , the non-proliferation regime is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions. The division of the world into nuclear-armed and unarmed nations has long been arbitrary and unfair. Nuclear-armed nations, except for France, hypocritically punished India for decades with trade

sanctions for acquiring a weapon. People rightly worry about accidental or unauthorized use of weapons, such as by terrorists, but nations today safeguard their weapons and materials far better than they did in the past. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States spent $10 billion to help Russia maintain control of and destroy many of its nuclear weapons, and intelligence agencies around the world work together to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of non-state actors. As for terrorism, why would a nation like Iran go to all the trouble of getting a bomb only to give it to a non-state actor like Hamas or Hezbollah? Not only would doing so risk retaliation from Israel, but the bomb could be used by those groups to gain leverage over Iran itself. Today,

the greatest opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons to weak nations like North Korea and Iran comes from militaristic figures like U.S. national security advisor John Bolton, who advocated the disastrous invasion of Iraq, and who now advocates “the Libya model” for North Korea. It’s easy to see why. “In a world without nuclear weapons,” a U.S. nuclear weapons designer explained,

“the U.S. would have uncontested military dominance .” In other words, a world without nuclear weapons would be a world where relatively weak nations — like France and Britain before World War II and

North Korea and Iran today — are deprived the only power on Earth capable of preventing a military invasion by a more powerful adversary . Who are we to deny weak nations the nuclear weapons they need for self-defense? The answer should by now be clear: hypocritical, short-sighted, and imperialistic.

Fear is key for dismantling of the possibility for terroristic invasions – only through the proliferation of power for weaker nations can we instill fear against terror itselfWaltz 81 [Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)]

States coexist in a condition of anarchy. Self-help is the principle of action in an anarchic order, and the most important way in which states must help themselves is by providing for their own security . Therefore, in weighing the chances for peace, the first questions to ask are questions about the ends for which states use force and about the strategies and weapons they employ. The chances of peace rise if states can achieve their most important ends without actively using force . War becomes less likely as

the costs of war rise in relation to possible gains . Strategies bring ends and means together. How nuclear weapons

affect the chances for peace is seen by considering the possible strategies of states. Force may be used for offence, for defence, for deterrence, and for coercion. Consider offence first. Germany and France before World War 1 provide a classic case of two adversaries each neglecting its defence and both planning to launch major attacks at the outset of war. France favoured offence over defence, because only by fighting an offensive war could Alsace-Lorraine be reclaimed. This illustrates one purpose of the offence: namely, conquest. Germany favoured offence over defence. believing offence to be the best defence, or even the only defence possible. Hemmed in by two adversaries. she could avoid fighting a two-front war only by concentrating her forces in the West and defeating France before Russia could mobilize and move effectively into battle. This is what the Schlieffen plan called for. The Plan illustrates another purpose of the offence: namely, security. Even if security had been Germany's only goal, an offensive strategy seemed to be the way to obtain it. The offence may have either or both of two aims: conquest and security.

An offence may be conducted in either or in some combination of two ways: preventively or pre-emptively. If two countries are unequal in strength and the weaker is gaining, the stronger may be tempted to strike before its advantage is lost. Following this logic, a country with nuclear weapons may be tempted to destroy the nascent force of a hostile country . This would be preventive war, a war launched against a weak country before it can become disturbingly strong. The logic of pre-emption is different. Leaving aside the balance of forces, one country may strike another country's offensive forces to blunt an attack that it presumes is about to be made . If each of two countries can eliminate or drastically reduce the other's offensive forces in one surprise blow, then both of them are encour-

aged to mount sudden attacks, if only for fear that if one does not, the other will. Mutual vulnerability of forces leads to mutual fear of surprise attack by giving each power a strong incentive to strike first . French and German plans for war against each other emphasized prevention over preemption - to strike before enemies can become fully ready to fight, but not to strike at their forces in order to destroy them before they can be used to strike back. Whether pre-emptive or preventive, an offensive first strike is a hard one. as military logic suggests and history confirms Whoever strikes first does so to gain

a decisive advantage. A pre-emptive strike is designed to eliminate or decisively reduce the opponent's ability to retaliate . A preventive strike is designed to defeat an adversary before he can develop and deploy his full potential might. Attacks. I should add, are not planned according to military logic

alone. Political logic may lead a country another country to attack even in the absence of an expectation of military victory, as Egypt did in October of 1973. How can one state dissuade another state from attacking? In either or in some combination of two ways. One way to counter an intended attack is to build fortifications and to muster forces that look forbiddingly strong . To build defences so patently strong that no one will try to destroy or overcome them would make international life perfectly tranquil. I call this the defensive ideal. The other way to inhibit a country's intended aggressive moves is to scare

that country out of making them by threatening to visit unacceptable punishment upon it. 'To deter' literally means to stop someone from doing something by frightening him . In contrast to dissuasion by defence, dissuasion by deterrence operates by frightening a state out of attacking, not because of the difficulty of launching an attack and carrying it home, but because the expected reaction of the attacked will result in one's own severe punish ment . Defence and deterrence are often confused. One frequently hears statements like this: 'A strong defence in Europe will deter a Russian attack'. What is meant is that a strong defence will dissuade

Russia from attacking. Deterrence is achieved not through the ability to defend but through the ability to punish . Purely deterrent forces provide no defence. The message of a deterrent strategy is this: 'Although we are defenceless, if you attack we will punish you to an extent that more than cancels your gains' . Second-strike nuclear forces serve that kind of strategy. Purely defensive forces provide no deterrence. They offer no means of punishment. The message of a defensive strategy is this: 'Although we cannot strike back, you will find our defences so difficult to overcome that you will dash yourself to pieces against them'. The Maginot Line was to serve that kind of strategy. States may also use force for coercion. One state may threaten to harm another state not to deter it from taking a certain action but to compel one. Napoleon III threatened to bombard Tripoli if the Turks did not comply with his demands for Roman Catholic control of the Palestinian Holy Places. This is blackmail, which can now be backed by conventional and by nuclear threats. Do nuclear weapons increase or decrease the chances of war? The answer depends on whether nuclear weapons permit and encourage states to deploy forces in ways that make the active use of force more or less likely and in ways that promise to be more or less destructive. If nuclear weapons make the offence more effective and the blackmailer's threat more compelling, then nuclear

weapons increase the chances of war—the more so the more widely they spread. Lf defence and deterrence are made easier and more reliable by the spread of nuclear weapons, we may expect the opposite result. To maintain their security, states must rely on the means they can generate and the arrangements they can make for themselves. The quality of international life therefore varies

with the ease or the difficulty states experience in making themselves secure. Weapons and strategies change the situation of states in ways that make them more or less secure , as Robert Jervis has brilliantly shown. If weapons are not well suited for conquest, neighbours have more peace of mind . According to the defensive-deterrent ideal, we should expect war to become less likely when weaponry is such as to make conquest more difficult,

to discourage pre-emptive and pre ventive war, and to make coercive threats less credible. Do nuclear weapons have those effects? Some answers can be found by considering how nuclear deterrence and how nuclear defence may improve the prospects for peace. First, wars can be fought in the face of deterrent threats, but the higher the stakes and the

closer a country moves toward winning them, the more surely that country invites retaliation and risks its own destruction. States are not likely to run major risks for minor gains . Wars between nuclear states may escalate as the loser uses larger and larger warheads. Fearing that.states will want to draw back. Not escalation but de-escalation becomes likely. War remains possible. but victory in war is too dangerous to fight for. If states can score only small gains because large ones risk retaliation, they

have little incentive to fight. Second, states act with less care if the expect ed costs of war are low and with more care if they are high . In 1853 and 1854, Britain and France expected to win an easy victory if they went to war against Russia. Prestige abroad and political popularity at home would be gained. if not much else. The vagueness of their plans was matched by the carelessness of their acts. In blundering into the Crimean War they acted hastily on scant information, pandered to their people's frenzy for war, showed more concern for an ally's whim than for the adversary's situation, failed to specify the changes in behaviour that threats were supposed to bring. and inclined towards testing strength first and bargaining second. In sharp contrast, the presence of nuclear weapons makes States exceedingly cautious. Think of Kennedy and Khruschev in the Cuban

missile crisis. Why fight if you can't win much and might lose everything ? Third, the question demands a negative answer all the more insistently when the deter rent deployment of nuclear weapons contributes more to a country's security than does conquest of territory. A country with a deter-rent strategy does not need the extent of territory required by a country relying on a conventional defence in depth.

Proliferation of firearms has the potential to symbolically stand in the face of white masculinity that is sutured within American imperialism – only through the proliferation of such goods can nations project symbols of group power against imperial terroristsFisher 18 [Fisher, Ryan J. "Defending the American Way: White-Masculine Gun Ownership and the Projection of Power." (2018).]In recent years, the organized opposition to Queer Rights and threats of violence have caused some to turn to firearms as symbols of power . Gun clubs such as Trigger Warning and the Pink Pistols argue that guns can combat homophobia and transphobia. 282 Trigger Warning formed in 2017 in Rochester, New York. Its members cited a year marked by political protests and the 2017 “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia as having increased their anxiety of armed and organized conservative extremists.283 A founding member of the group, Jake Allen told the Associated Press that “[Trigger Warning is] a way to assert our strength … Often, Queer people are thought of as being weak, as being defenseless, and I think in many ways this pushes back against that. And I want white supremacists and neo-Nazis to know that Queer people are taking steps necessary to protect themselves.”284 Founded in 2000, the Pink Pistols are a similar Queer gun club that has created dozens of chapters across the country. 285 Expressing anger over the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, an article in Salon by Jonathan Rauch called for gay communities to arm themselves against violence and inspired the founding of the Pink

Pistols. 286 Groups such as Trigger Warning and the Pink Pistols exemplify that guns can be used to symbolize and project both individual and group power , even without instigating violence . These Queer gun clubs lack the strongly developed ideology of the Black Panthers and Black Nationalists who took up arms to defend

themselves and project their power against white supremacy. Nonetheless, they have created unique social spaces for gun use in support of progressive social principles , defying the binary rhetoric of conservative “gun nuts” versus progressive “gun grabbers.” Through the mid-to-late twentieth century, post-war progressive social movements challenged the structures of racism, sexism, and homophobia within American society. In these movements, American white-masculinity faced its most dangerous threat. Previously under the sole direction of white-men citizens,

the post-war state and especially the Federal Government used its power to advance the causes of Civil Rights, Feminism, and Queer Rights through legislation, the courts, and executive action. African, women, and Queer Americans began to enter public spaces and politics previously reserved for white men. As these movements interrogated the white-masculine social order, United States politics

and economics contributed to the growing white-men perception of American decline…Throughout American history, the dominant gun culture has borne firearms as a symbol of white masculine power, enforcing a social order that oppresses African, women, Queer, and immigrant Americans. Groups such as the Black Panthers, Trigger Warning, and Pink Pistols have used guns in a progressive manner, arming themselves against the white-masculine social order.

AFF

2AC

UQThere are movements for arms reduction. being organized globally right now and they are being led by the global south. The capacity for global disarmament through delegitimization has empirical success – now is the opportune moment for denuclearization. Ray Acheson 18, director of Reaching Critical Will, the disarmament program of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. She represents the WILPF on the international steering group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, 02-02-18, “Resisting Nuclear Weapons Means Resisting Injustice and Oppression,” https://www.thenation.com/article/resisting-nuclear-weapons-means-resisting-injustice/

Every minute since July 1945, when the United States tested its first nuclear weapon in New Mexico, we have been living under the threat of massive nuclear violence. Nuclear weapons are designed to incinerate cities, to burn and irradiate human bodies, to destroy everything we have built and that we love. They are

perhaps the ultimate symbol of the extreme edge of human power and hubris—the ability to devastate the entire planet. In his latest book, The Doomsday Machine, Daniel Ellsberg uses classified materials and personal notes to describe the seven decades of US policies and practices related to nuclear

weapons as “immoral,” “insane,” and “a chronicle of human madness.” Today we have to look no further than Twitter. 2018 more or less began with the president of the United States using social media to taunt another nuclear-armed country’s president about the

size of his… arsenal. A few weeks later, the wrong push of a button led to Hawaiians’ being terrified by a notification that there was an incoming ballistic missile. While there may be no real nuclear button for anyone to actually push, the use of nuclear weapons is not that far away. It never really has been. “Fire and fury” have put the threat of nuclear war back in the headlines, but it was never off the table. And, where there was once only one, there are now nine countries that can unleash this fire and fury, with North Korea

the latest to join the group. There is one difference, however, between now and decades past. In 2017, activism and advocacy against the bomb, combined with diplomatic action on the international stage, achieved a legal ban on nuclear weapons.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), comprised of 468 nongovernmental organizations in 101 countries, helped to outlaw nuclear weapons—for which it was then awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. This treaty is a feat of collective action by people who came together to do something that had not been tried before. Like anything created by people, it has its imperfections. But it gives a glimpse of what is possible in this world—including that it is possible to do something that all of the “great powers” in the world collectively forbid. Resistance may take time to have an effect, but it can make a difference. On July 7, 2017, 122 governments voted for the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which outlaws the development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition , possession, stockpiling, stationing, deployment, transfer, use, or threat of use of nuclear weapons, or assisting with any of these prohibited activities. You can’t do anything with nuclear weapons under this

treaty—except get rid of them. You might not have heard about the ban, though media did cover it at the time—albeit sparsely, and with skepticism. The skepticism was greatly encouraged by the nine countries that possess

nuclear weapons: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They did not participate in the negotiations. Nor did the countries that claim security from US nuclear weapons, countries that rely on the fantasy

of “extended nuclear deterrence” for their perceived protection (those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as Australia, Japan, and South Korea). Meanwhile, the governments supporting the ban were largely those of the Global South . Most of the countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia led the initiative to ban the bomb. A cross-regional “core

group” of countries, comprising Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa, together with a number of others such as Costa Rica, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Thailand, drove the process forward despite the opposition to it. They were compelled to do so by a simple logic, one that seems lost to policy makers in nuclear-armed states. Nuclear weapons have catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences and must never be used again. The only way to ensure that they are never used again is to eliminate them. The nuclear ban was conceived as part of a set of tools that could help change the politics and economics related to nuclear weapons. It was also a departure from the past practice of allowing the nuclear-armed states to dictate terms to the rest of the world. The representatives of

nuclear-armed states have been dismissive and disrespectful of the views of the rest of the world for decades. Attempts to convince or cajole the nuclear-armed states into nuclear disarmament have been unsuccessful. While the United States and Russia dismantled thousands of warheads after the Cold War, they and the other nuclear-armed states have continued to invest billions since that period in “modernizing” and extending the lives of their nuclear arsenals. These countries broke disarmament

commitments made to each other and to the rest of the world. The situation has been untenable for years, but those without nuclear weapons felt unable to change it. Until now. A flame was lit around 2010, and it grew into a raging fire by 2017. At the beginning of this decade, US President Obama spoke about nuclear disarmament. His rhetoric ignited the imaginations of those who wanted a nuclear-weapon-free world, and this new sense of urgency did

not wither away even when Obama’s failed to deliver. In addition, while progress had stalled on nuclear disarmament, two other weapons causing serious humanitarian harm had been banned: antipersonnel landmines in 1997 and cluster munitions in 2008. International treaties prohibited the possession, use, manufacture, and trade of these weapons, and provided for their clearance and elimination. These treaties also set the standard for a new concept of humanitarian disarmament, containing provisions for victim assistance. Facing pressure from well-organized divestment campaigns, banks and pension funds withdrew investments from companies that produced these illegal weapons. During this period, nuclear weapons had

also arguably become more visible as a symbol of oppression and inequality in international relations. Rivalry

between the United States and Soviet Union, which had resulted in conflict as well as economic and political inequality around the globe, had ended—but the conflicts and inequalities had not. Even while nuclear war was a fading threat in the consciousness of the general public, the injustice of nuclear weapons was only growing among diplomats representing countries without them. Given the vested interests of a few powerful countries in favor of retaining nuclear weapons, a key goal was further stigmatize these weapons. Making them illegal, for everyone, is a key part of this stigmatization process. This has been true for biological and chemical weapons, land mines, and cluster bombs. These

weapons have not magically disappeared, but their prohibition has led to their stigmatization, to elimination processes, and to condemnation of their use . Those supporting the nuclear ban expect that the prohibition of nuclear weapons will have similar effects . Stigmatizing nuclear weapons is easier than you might think . Even the handful of countries that possess nuclear weapons of declare US weapons essential for their security suddenly burst with righteous indignation

and economic sanctions against any new country that may be developing a nuclear-weapon capacity—at least, against any country that they don’t particularly like. If a North Korean or Iranian bomb is so awful that anything is justified to stop it, how is an American

or Russian bomb any different? The recent process to ban the bomb has, more than any other disarmament initiative before it, exposed the cognitive dissonance of “nuclear deterrence,” illuminating its corrupt self-serving rationale and its influence over international affairs . Those engaged in banning nuclear weapons took away the veil of

legitimacy and authority of the nuclear-armed states—dismantling their arguments, disrupting their narratives, and ultimately standing up to their projection of power. It took governments to negotiate the treaty banning nuclear weapons. But governments alone did not ban nuclear weapons . They could not have done so without the ideas,

support, advocacy, analysis, and coordination of activists. In negotiating and adopting the nuclear-ban treaty, Ambassador Courtenay Rattray of Jamaica explained last October, “we

acted on behalf of a grand coalition of committed activists, survivors, civil society, scholars and politicians. They were the ones who steadfastly set aside the entreaties of the naysayers—that band of skeptics who at every turn told us we were embarked on a fool’s errand.”

Link Turn – Human RightsEnding arms sales on the basis of human rights is ethical and good – key to challenge US imperialism and the lies of mediaBall 18 (Zach Ball, “https://www.epreview.org/opinion/2018/10/13/the-syrian-conflict-a-call-to-end-us-imperialism”, [The Emory Political Review], October 13th of 2018, accessed: 6/27/19, https://www.epreview.org/opinion/2018/10/13/the-syrian-conflict-a-call-to-end-us-imperialism)//DCai

On the night of April 13th, 2018, global news media exploded with wall-to-wall coverage of a joint air strike launched by the United States, Britain, and France against various research and military facilities in Syria. The attack came in response to reports earlier in April that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had purportedly launched a chemical weapons attack against civilians, killing at least 42 people and leaving many others hospitalized. While American involvement in the Syrian civil war has been ongoing since 2014 (in the form of military aid to various rebel factions in the region), the most recent airstrike, along with a separate air strike launched by President Donald J. Trump in April 2017, constitute direct

attacks by the United States on the Syrian government. The Trump administration announced in January that it plans to sustain American military presence in the country in order to continue working toward overthrowing the Assad regime. As America ramps up involvement in the Syrian civil war, it is imperative for the world’s sole superpower to reflect on potential geopolitical outcomes of regime change operations. With an increased American military

presence in Syria on the horizon, it is essential, now more than ever, for American voters and government officials to push back against mainstream media narratives about the true motives behind modern United States imperialism. It is deceptive to suggest that the United States’ desire for geopolitical dominance and the campaign contributions of defense contractors who stand to profit from war do not play a significant role in the United States’ international military presence. The most notorious example of international United States involvement with unintended consequences is the American occupation of Iraq, which began in 2003 after the Bush administration reported that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, a claim which later turned out to be false. When the United States military successfully toppled the government of President Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, it created a power vacuum that increased tensions between domestic Sunni and Shia Islamic groups, and allowed jihadist terrorist organization Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (I.S.I.S.) to gain significant influence in the region. While President Hussein was no friend to human rights, President George W. Bush’s decision to oust him and implement a regime change inadvertently resulted in the destabilization of the region and paved the way for I.S.I.S. to come about. These ends certainly do not seem to justify the means, with there being tens of thousands of American military deaths and more than a hundred thousand Iraqi civilian casualties, not to mention the $1 trillion used to fund the Iraq war. Back in 2011, the Obama administration approved military operations that were instrumental in ousting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The United State gave military support to rebel factions and militias who sought to remove Gaddafi from power to end the ongoing civil war. The effects of United States involvement in Libya are just now beginning to be observed, and they do not appear promising. Libya is now afflicted with similar political instability and violence to that of Iraq. Additionally, slave markets have become more widespread in the region ever since the overthrow of Gaddafi, as African migrants arriving on ships are being forced into servitude. In the aftermath of the conflict, Libya has been branded a “failed state” by prominent media outlets, yet there seems to be little to no means for the United Nations to effectively stop these inhumane practices. Once again, United States military intervention in the

Middle East has destabilized another country and can be argued to have aided in the expansion of slavery in the 21st century. If the United States were truly concerned with human rights and the well-being of the innocent around the world, then the United States would not be providing military support and arms to Saudi Arabia, a country which is currently blockading supplies to Yemen and, just recently, accused of killing a Saudi journalist and staunch critic of the government. The United States would also not be providing aid to the state of Israel, which upholds an apartheid system that discriminates heavily against Palestinian civilians and suppresses opponents by firing bullets at them. If there is anything to be learned from Iraq and Syria, then it is that America cannot and should not police the entire world, even if that means that repressive governments like that of al-Assad retain power. With torture advocate Mike Pompeo as secretary of state and Iraq War apologist John Bolton as

national security advisor, the Trump administration appears almost destined to reflect that of the second Bush administration.

Americans must dissent against skewed media narratives and politicians who champion these types of irresponsible interventions. In addition, Americans must push for those in positions of power, regardless of their political affiliation, to oppose needless war and bloodshed. Oftentimes, the evil left unknown is greater than that which is known.

Link Turn – Saudi ArabiaEnding US arms sales to Saudi Arabia is a step in ending the war in Yemen – sends a signal of commitment to allies that inspire international responseSpindel 19 (Jennifer Spindel, assistant professor of international security at the University of Oklahoma, and the Associate Director of the Cyber Governance and Policy Center, "The Case for Suspending American Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia," [War on the Rocks], 5-14-2019, accessed: 6-27-2019, https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/the-case-for-suspending-american-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/)//DCai

Arms embargos are often dismissed as symbolic, and therefore ineffective. But just because something is symbolic, doesn’t mean that it won’t have an effect. A U.S. arms embargo against Saudi Arabia would be a clear signal of American disproval of Saudi actions in Yemen, and would be an equally important signal to Washington’s allies, who are left wondering if the United States is ambivalent or uninterested in the growing Yemeni humanitarian catastrophe. By continuing to provide weapons, President Donald Trump tacitly endorses Saudi policies. This signal is strengthened by Trump’s recent veto of the resolution that called for an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen. While Trump justified the veto by saying that the resolution was a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities,” statements from Congressional representatives show they are aware of the powerful signals sent by arms sales. Sen. Tim Kaine said that the veto “shows the world [Trump] is determined to keep aiding a Saudi-backed war that has killed thousands of civilians and pushed millions more to the brink of starvation.” An arms embargo against Saudi Arabia would be a signal both to leaders of that country, and other states, that the United States does not endorse Saudi actions. Those arguing against a ban are correct on one point: Embargos as blunt force instruments of coercion are rarely effective. But arms embargos are effective as signals of political dissatisfaction, and serve an important communication role in international politics. Arms Embargos Are Signals and Can Build Coalitions Policymakers and

scholars agree that arms embargoes are not effective “sticks” in international politics. Rarely do states cave when faced with punishment in the form of an embargo. But even if an arms embargo isn’t a direct tool of coercion, an embargo would be an important political signal . There are at least two reasons for the United

States to seriously consider an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia. First, arms sales are signals that cut through the noise of the international system. Cutting off arms transfers is a common way that states express their dissatisfaction with others and try to influence behavior. As Lawrence Freedman observed in 1978, “refusing to sell arms is a major political act. It appears as a calculated insult, reflecting on the stability, trust, and credit-

worthiness, or technical competence of the would-be recipient.” Yet this crucial point seems to have been lost in the current policy debate about whether or not the United States should continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia. My research shows that stopping arms transfers or denying requests is an effective way to signal dissatisfaction and causes the would-be recipient to re-think their behavior. Take, for example, the U.S. relationship with Israel in the 1960s. The United States sold Israel Hawk surface-to-surface missiles in 1962, M-48 Patton tanks in 1964 and 1965, and A-4E Skyhawk bombers in 1966. Israeli leaders understood that these transfers signaled a close U.S.-Israeli relationship. As diplomat Abba Eban wrote, the arms transfers were “a development of tremendous political value.” Even against this backdrop of close ties and significant arms sales, Israeli leaders were extremely sensitive to arms transfer denials. In April and May 1967, the United States denied Israeli requests for armored personnel carriers and fighter jets. Approving the transfers would have signaled support, and likely emboldened Israel, as tensions were growing in the region. Israeli leaders believed these transfer denials overruled prior signals and demonstrated that the United States was not willing to be a close political ally for Israel. Eban described Israel as “isolated,” and the head of Israel’s intelligence service said that the arms transfer denials made it clear that “in Israel, there existed

certain misperceptions [about the United States].” If arms transfer denials could have such a significant effect on Israeli thinking — keeping in mind that there was a close and significant political relationship between the US and Israel — imagine what a transfer denial would mean for U.S.-Saudi relations. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia would have to re-think its impression that it has political support and approval from the United States. We can, and should, ask whether or not withdrawal of U.S. support would affect Saudi behavior, but it’s important that this question not get overlooked in the current debate. Because arms transfers (and denials) are powerful

signals, they can have an effect even before a transfer is actually completed. This suggests that even the announcement of an embargo against Saudi Arabia could have an effect. Take, for example, Taiwan’s recent request for a fleet of new fighter jets. As reports mounted that Trump had given “tacit approval” to a deal for F-16 jets, China’s protests increased. The United States has not sold advanced fighter jets to Taiwan since 1992, partially out of fear of angering China, which views Taiwan as a renegade province. Even if the deal for F-16s is formally approved, Taiwan is unlikely to see the jets until at least 2021, and the balance of power between China and Taiwan would not change. As one researcher observed, the sale would be a “huge shock” for Beijing, “But it would be more of a political shock than a military shock. It would be, ‘Oh, the U.S. doesn’t care how we feel.’ It would be more of a symbolic or emotional issue.” Yet China’s immediate, negative reaction to even the

announcement of a potential deal shows how powerful arms transfer signals can be. If this same logic is applied to an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, an arms embargo would signal that Saudi Arabia does not have the support of the United States. This signal would be an important first step in changing Saudi behavior because it would override other statements and actions the United States has sent that indicate support. And Trump has given Saudi Arabia a number of positive signals: He called Saudi Arabia a “great ally” and dismissed reports that that the Saudi government was involved in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He has expressed interested in selling nuclear power plants and technology to Saudi Arabia. And he has repeatedly claimed that he has made a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia (he hasn’t). With these clear signals of support, why should Saudi Arabia alter its

behavior based on resolutions that come out of the House or Senate, which are likely to be vetoed by Trump, anyway? An arms embargo would be a clear and unambiguous signal that the United States disproves of Saudi actions in Yemen. The second reason for supporting an embargo concerns U.S. allies and the logistical difficulties of making an

embargo have an effect. One of the reasons embargoes have little material impact is because they require cooperation among weapons exporting states. A ban on sales from one country will have little effect if the target of the embargo can seek arms elsewhere. Germany, instituted an arms ban against Riyadh in November 2018, and German leaders have pressured other European states to stop selling arms to the Saudis. Germany understands the importance of the embargo as a political signal: as a representative of the German Green Party explained, “The re-start of arms exports to Saudi Arabia would be a fatal foreign policy signal and would contribute to the continued destabilization of the Middle East.” But the German embargo has had minimal effect because Saudi Arabia can get arms elsewhere. According to the 2019 Military Balance, most of Saudi Arabia’s equipment is American or French in origin, such as the M1A2 Abrams and AMX-30 tanks, Apache and Dauphin helicopters, and F-15C/D fighter jets. Saudi Arabia has some equipment manufactured wholly or in part in Germany, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Tornado ground attack craft, but these weapons are a small

portion of its complete arsenal. A U.S. embargo would send an important signal to the allies who also supply Saudi Arabia, allowing them to explain participation in the embargo to their own domestic constituencies. This is especially important for countries like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, that need to export arms to keep their own production lines running. While the research shows that sustaining an arms embargo is often the most difficult step, embargoes can restrain sending states’ arms

exports. Even if a U.S. embargo won’t have a direct effect on Saudi Arabia on its own, an embargo is important for building coalitions for a more expansive embargo that could affect Saudi behavior. The Difficulty of Stopping Atrocities Beyond signaling, we know U.S. arms sales often end up in the wrong hands, and have been used in Yemen. The Saudi-led war in Yemen has led to starvation conditions, caused thousands of civilian casualties, and has led to the displacement of millions of people. The United Nations estimates that 80 percent of Yemen’s population – 24 million people – require some form of humanitarian or protection assistance, and that the severity of the situation is increasing. Would an arms embargo create

meaningful change in Yemen? An initial effect of an embargo is that Saudi Arabia would have to work harder to access war materiel. As Jonathan Caverley noted, more than 60 percent of Saudi Arabia’s arms delivered in the past five years came from the United States. Even if this percentage decreases over time, it will be costly for Saudi Arabia to

transition to a primarily Russian- or Chinese-supplied military. Though Saudi Arabia might be willing to pay this cost, it would still have to pay, and take the time to transition to its new weapons systems. This would represent a brief break in hostilities that could facilitate the delivery of aid and assistance in Yemen. The United States could, in theory, impose stricter end-user controls on Saudi Arabia. This would have the advantage of keeping Saudi Arabia within the world of U.S. weapons systems, and might prevent it from diversifying its suppliers, which would ultimately weaken any leverage the United States might have. Longer-term, it would not be to America’s advantage if Saudi Arabia

takes a lesson from Turkey, and starts courting Russia as a new arms supplier. It is difficult to enforce end-user controls, since, once a weapon is transferred, the recipient can use it however it wishes. It might also be the case that Saudi Arabia would object to stricter

end-user controls, and would seek new suppliers as a result. An arms embargo will not be a panacea. But not doing something sets a problematic precedent, and allows the difficulty of coordinating an arms embargo outweigh the potential benefits of one. An embargo is unlikely to have an immediate effect on Saudi behavior, because an embargo would be a political signal, rather than a blunt instrument of coercion. It will take time for a multilateral embargo to emerge and be put into place, and the United States should work with its allies to help support their ability to participate in the embargo. Not acting, however, would continue to implicitly endorse Saudi behavior, and would make it more difficult for U.S. allies to believe that future threats of an embargo are credible.

Ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia can limit the war and open avenues for key humanitarian aid in the Yemen regionWeber 18 (Emily Weber, Staff Writer, “The United States Should End Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia,” [International Affairs Review], November 18th of 2018, accessed: 6/25/19, http://www.iar-gwu.org/content/united-states-should-end-arms-sales-saudi-arabia)//DCai

Recently, UN-sponsored peace talks between the Houthi movement and the internationally recognized Yemeni government failed after members of the Houthi delegation did not attend. The talks should have ended the brutal three-year Yemeni civil war. Violence began when the Houthis, a Shia movement supported by Iran, took over the city of Sana’a and announced their plan to take over the rest of the Yemeni government. When the internationally recognized government began to falter, Saudi Arabia came to their aid by

establishing a coalition of Arab states to stop the Houthi revolt and restore the Hadi government. Saudi-led coalition air strikes have led to the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians. Many of these strikes use imprecise munitions such as cluster bombs that deliberately target civilian sites such as hospitals, schools, markets, and mosques. These weapons that unnecessarily harm civilians are made and sold by the United States to Saudi Arabia for use in this conflict. The United States needs to re-evaluate, and limit, its strategy and instead focus its efforts on protecting suffering civilians through ending Saudi arms sales. Millions of Yemenis have become displaced due to the Yemeni civil war. These refugees strain an already destabilized Middle East region and increase the severity of the migrant crisis that began with the Syrian civil war. Displacement will put pressure on U.S. allies in Europe and spread across the Middle East and Africa. In addition, the

famine caused by the civil war led to the deaths of 50,000 children and a cholera outbreak that killed over 2,000 Yemenis. The United States has been involved in this conflict from the outset because this conflict is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Many, if not all, of these strikes used American-made munitions and equipment. Under President Obama, arms exports increased significantly, and Saudi Arabia was the second largest customer. Under President Trump, the arms trade with Saudi Arabia has increased again, including an agreement to sell the Saudi government over $100 billion worth of military equipment. The United States also has helped the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen

by sharing intelligence, assisting with air strikes, and even putting U.S. troops on the ground. Other U.S. interventions in the Middle East to promote democracy and state-building have proven ineffective at best. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were intended to end the threat of terrorism and build democratic states but have not achieved their goals. The Taliban is still controls a great deal of Afghanistan. In Iraq, Al-Qaeda and

ISIS continue their incursion. Both of the latter groups have become widespread in Yemen because of the war. Although it is reasonable that the United States would want to prevent these groups from gaining more power in the region, similar U.S. interventions in the Middle East have failed. Ground troops, special

forces operations, and air strikes are not long-term solutions for preventing the spread of these non-state actors. The United States should end its current level of military involvement and instead focus on humanitarian

efforts and stabilizing Yemen. Yemen’s civil war has led to immense destruction and instability in what is essentially a

Shia and Sunni proxy war. Additionally, the United States should limit its role in this conflict by suspending current and future arms sales and instead, increase its humanitarian presence. It is time to re-evaluate what role the United States will play, since its current strategy in Yemen and the Middle East is not working. In 2016 the United States canceled a million-dollar weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as a result of a Saudi-led coalition airstrike on a funeral that killed over

a hundred Yemeni civilians. Even though the United States had already sold Saudi Arabia millions of dollars’ worth of weapons by that point, the canceled sale demonstrated consequences for the Saudis’ complete disregard of civilian casualties. It also showed that a country’s ability to pay for weapons was not the only factor the United States would consider when selling arms. The United States should continue suspending current arms sales and abandon any promise of future arms sales to Saudi Arabia while this proxy war in Yemen continues. The United States should consider foreign arms sales on a case by case basis, instead of offering a “blank

check” to a government without considering their foreign policy and human rights record. U.S. supporters of arms deals with Saudi Arabia argue that the revenue generated from these sales are too beneficial to end. However, the arms sales and continued conflict create larger and farther-reaching costs. The U.S. government should redirect its involvement towards humanitarian actions in Yemen. This policy would help to stabilize Yemen and enhance U.S. soft power in the region. Additionally, the United States should focus on relieving the famine and disease ubiquitous throughout the country. The danger from both Saudi forces and terrorist organizations makes aidwork nearly impossible. The United States should try to create safe zones for aid organizations. These zones would be in a few areas throughout the country providing food and medical care to civilians caught in the crossfire. These areas would allow the United States to target aid depending on civilians’ changing needs. Since the UN already provides designated refugee areas, safe zones could use existing UN

aid management infrastructure. By limiting its interventions in Yemen to delivering humanitarian aid, the United States would create more stabilization in the region and work more effectively to end the civil war. U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia along with U.S.- led military interventions create chaos and unnecessarily involve the United States in a proxy war. Ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia would improve relations with other countries in the Middle East and would force other countries we consider our allies to ensure their actions were in line with international and U.S. norms. Overall, this action would improve our entire strategy for managing conflicts across the region.

Link – 1033 ProgramReducing arms sales participates in the militarization of US police – this makes communities and protests less safeNeyfakh 17 (Leon Neyfakh, former Slate staff writer, “Cops Can Already Get Military Gear. Trump’s New Policy Ensures They Can Use It Recklessly.” [Slate], August 28th of 2017, accessed: 6/27/19, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/cops-can-already-get-military-gear-trumps-new-policy-ensures-they-can-use-it-recklessly.html)//DCai

Jeff Sessions wants you to believe that the Obama administration made it impossible for police departments to obtain military gear from the federal government—and that Donald Trump, by signing an executive order that reverses that restrictive policy, is triumphantly turning that faucet back on. As Sessions said in a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police on Monday, “The executive order the president will sign today will ensure that you can get the lifesaving

gear that you need to do your job.” What Sessions did not say is that, with a few small exceptions, law enforcement agencies could already acquire whatever military equipment they want, so long as they committed to certain best practices, maintained consistent policies about when the equipment could be deployed, and could demonstrate that the officers who would be using the equipment were properly trained. The fact that the Trump administration wants to get rid of these conditions tells you everything you

need to know about what’s driving the change in policy. This is not about making communities safer. It’s about handing America’s police departments the kind of unshackled power and authority that Trump and Sessions think they intrinsically deserve. The Obama policy went into effect in October 2015, about a year after demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, provoked local authorities to send terrifying military vehicles and police officers dressed in riot gear to confront Black Lives Matter protesters. Obama’s executive order set forth two categories of military equipment: “prohibited equipment” and

“controlled equipment.” The first category, which law enforcement agencies could no longer procure through federal grants under any circumstances, was relatively small, and included such weapons of war as bayonets, grenade launchers, and tanklike armored vehicles. The second category was broader, and included less extreme items like riot helmets, battering rams, Humvees, drones, and helicopters. Despite what Sessions suggested at his speech on Monday, Obama’s policy in no way prohibited law enforcement agencies from obtaining items in this second category. It merely asked them to provide assurances

that the gear would be used safely and appropriately. “The prohibited list is a tiny list of equipment that, honestly, when we talked to law enforcement agencies no one could reasonably defend the use of that equipment. Truly no one,” said Roy L. Austin, a former Justice Department official who worked with Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.* “What we ran into were sheriffs who said we had no right to monitor what they get or how they use what they get, even though they all acknowledged the fact that this was taxpayer-funded equipment. All we were asking for was this: Don’t just acquire the equipment and use it willy-nilly. If you’re going to get it, have a reason.” Ed Chung, a former Justice Department official who headed the working group that developed the Obama administration’s policy, explained that the training rules and other protocols—which you can read starting on Page 17 of this document—were “about good governance: making sure that people who received equipment through federal programs had common-sense policies in place prior to acquiring them.” Chung, who is now vice president for criminal justice reform at the Center for American Progress, added, “These weren’t

crazy requirements.” Trump’s dismantling of those requirements is yet another step his administration has taken to unleash and embolden law enforcement officers for ideological as opposed to pragmatic reasons. For Trump and Sessions, a society that does not worship its police officers and trust them blindly is a society hurtling toward dysfunction and depravity. It is a worldview that aligns the administration with the most radical voices in the law enforcement community while alienating the many decorated and ambitious police executives who have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince Trump that force alone will not solve the crises of legitimacy

that police departments around the country are confronting. “We will not put superficial concerns above public safety,” Sessions said during his speech to the FOP. The implication was that the Obama administration insisted on reining in the use of military vehicles and weapons by state and local police because they looked scary. That was indeed part of it. But

worrying about how it looks when a tank drives down an American street is not superficial. What’s superficial is thinking you can achieve “law and order” by making cops the most powerful people in our cities and telling them they can do whatever they want.

I/L-US Restraint KeyReduction in arms sales is the first step in resolving US primacy abroad—restrained foreign policy limits military presence and funds that aid in foreign tensions. Doremus 6-25-2019 [“Say Goodbye to American Primacy and Hegemony · 71 Republic.” 71 Republic, 25 June 2019, 71republic.com/2019/06/25/goodbye-american-primacy-hegemony/.]The United States has been involved in four military conflicts since the end of the Cold War: Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Of course, this is not counting proxy wars. The U.S. has spent an enormous amount of money and blood in regions that are known to be unstable. There needs to be

increased restraint in how the government involves itself in foreign affairs. Over the past decade, the United States has engaged in a policy commonly referred to as primacy, or liberal hegemony . Its advocates argue that the U.S. needs to preserve its power advantage and defend Western values such as democracy, universal human rights, and open markets. In Washington D.C., it is a strategy that has bipartisan support.

Yet, the American populace has seemingly rejected this policy at the polls. The Values of Primacy Primacists argue that it is a moral good to spread Western values across the world. Proponents of this foreign policy see failed, rogue, and illiberal states as threats to the rule-based international system they claim the U.S. was built to be. Failed states are a threat because they could

potentially harbor terrorists. States that are deemed to be rogue are ones that are estimated to use weapons of mass destruction. An illiberal state is considered a threat because it opposes the U.S. from acting freely. To counter all these threats, the U.S. is required to invest in its military and increase international political commitments, which is an enormous task. Restraining the American Empire A restrainer believes that the U.S. should modify its foreign policy. Primacy, historically, has been counterproductive and costly. The U.S. is surrounded by weaker powers and two bodies of water, making it easy to defend. National interests should be narrowed from the ambitious strategy to remake the world. A foreign policy of restraint would lead to a decrease in excessive government spending. Restrainers are supportive of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) which “identifies property and improvements that are surplus to [the] military…” According to the Department of Defense, infrastructure excess is estimated to be at 19%. Annually, the closure of excess bases would save the government $2 billion. The power of the U.S. military is dependent on a strong economy. Prosperity has allowed the military to have capabilities that are unmatched by other countries. Excessive spending only weakens the country over time. In a world where the global system is changing, the U.S. needs to be prepared, economically, for the new realities. Sacrificing the needs at home for the ambitions abroad has resulted in a middle- and lower-class revolt against the establishment. The country is unprepared for a multipolar world. It is unknown if the major powers will decouple or co-exist. The U.S. should reduce its commitments to the world. Primacy prioritizes preserving the liberal order over U.S. interests with proclamations that the U.S. is the defender of democracy and universal human rights, thus it is easy to become entangled in conflict across the world. Partners and allies should be responsible for their own security and not rely on America to do their fighting. If the Europeans and

Asians have their own security interests, they should be the ones investing and defending their own countries. The U.S. should deter attacks on its soil from other states. Reducing its international presence means that the country will be “ a less attractive target for violent political entrepreneurs motivated by identity politics …” In other words, reduce presence in the Middle East to avoid blowback. Restrainers recognize that nuclear weapons are here to stay . While the nuclear club (U.S., Russia, China, France, and the United

Kingdom) does not want another nuclear peer emerging, the abolition of such weapons is a fantasy. The technology is becoming more accessible that small countries such as Pakistan have nuclear weapons . For small states, “ nuclear weapons are the great equalizer .” The destructive nature allows smaller states to defend their country from predatory states. Even if the majority of countries want to abolish nukes, it only takes

a holdout to prevent everyone from following through. These weapons of mass destruction provide a real deterrent,

“Nuclear weapons permit Israel to insure itself against the more populous Arab states even if it lost the support of the United States, Pakistan to insure itself against a much more populous and powerful India, and Russia to ensure itself against a rapidly developing and more populous China.” A restrained foreign policy is an alternative to primacy. It reduces military spending, bases located domestically and abroad, and ends projecting power across the world. Primacy is an attempt to preserve the U.S. power advantage and spread liberal ideas across the world. It was an expensive ambitious plan that led interventions on global humanitarian arguments. Restraint argues that the U.S. should stop pursuing idealistic adventures and prioritize security at home. International commitments would have to diminish to avoid foreign entanglements. The benefit of this

policy is that money would not be wasted on foreign military endeavors and the possibility of blowback would potentially be lowered. With a

strong defense, the U.S. can deter aggressive state actors but can still economically trade and prosper with other countries.

Impact

Counter-TerrorismT/!— global spread of the bomb locks in repressive governments and causes crackdown on their populations. Roy 16 (Roy, Arundhati. The End of Imagination, Haymarket Books, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wfu/detail.action?docID=4596388.Created from wfu on 2018-09-24 11:27:41.,

I am prepared to grovel. To humiliate myself abjectly, because, in the circumstances, silence would be indefensible. So those of you who are willing: let’s pick our parts, put on these discarded costumes, and speak our secondhand lines in this sad secondhand play. But let’s not forget that the stakes we’re playing for are huge. Our fatigue and our shame could mean the end of us. e end of our children and our children’s children. Of everything we love. We have to reach within ourselves and nd the strength to think. To ght. Once again we are pitifully behind the times— not just scienti cally and technologically (ignore the hollow claims), but more pertinently in our ability to grasp the true nature of nuclear weapons. Our Comprehension of the Horror Department is hopelessly obsolete. Here we are, all of us in India and in Pakistan, discussing the finer points of politics, and foreign policy, behaving for all the world as though our governments have just devised a newer, bigger bomb, a sort of immense hand grenade with which they will annihilate the enemy (each other) and protect us from all harm. How desperately we want to believe that. What wonderful, willing, well-behaved, gullible subjects we have turned out to be. The rest of humanity (yes, yes, I know, I know , but let’s ignore them for the moment. They forfeited their votes a long time ago), the rest of the rest of humanity may not forgive us, but then the rest of the rest of humanity, depending on who fashions its views, may not know what a tired, dejected heartbroken people we are.

Perhaps it doesn’t realize how urgently we need a miracle. How deeply we yearn for magic. If only, if only , nuclear war was just another kind of war. If only it was about the usual things— nations and territories, gods and histories. If only those of us who dread it are just worthless moral cowards who are not prepared to die in defense of our

beliefs. If only nuclear war was the kind of war in which countries battle countries and men battle men. But it isn’t. If there is a nuclear war, our foes will not be China or America or even each other. Our foe will be the earth herself. e very elements— the sky, the air, the land, the wind and water— will all turn against us. eir wrath will be terrible. Our cities and forests, our elds and villages will burn for days. Riv- ers will turn to poison. e air will become re. e wind will spread the ames. When everything there is to burn has burned and the res die, smoke will rise and shut out the sun. e earth will be enveloped in darkness. ere will be no day. Only interminable night. Temperatures will drop to far below freezing and nuclear winter will set in. Water will turn into toxic ice. Radioactive fallout will seep through the earth and contaminate groundwater. Most living things, animal and vegetable, sh and fowl, will die. Only rats and cockroaches will breed and multiply and compete with foraging, relict humans for what little food there is. What shall we do then, those of us who are still alive? Burned and blind and bald and ill, carrying the cancerous carcasses of our children in our arms, where shall we go? What shall we eat? What shall we drink? What shall we breathe? e head of the Health, Environment and Safety Group of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Bombay has a plan. He declared in an interview ( Pioneer , April 24, 1998) that India could survive nuclear war. His advice is that if there is a nuclear war, we take the same safety measures as the ones that scientists have recommended in the event of accidents at nuclear plants. Take iodine pills, he suggests. And other steps such as remaining indoors, consuming only stored water and food and avoiding milk. Infants should be given powdered milk. “People in the danger zone should immediately go to the ground oor and if possible to the basement.” What do you do with these levels of lunacy? What do you do if you’re trapped in an asylum and the doctors are all dangerously deranged? Ignore it, it’s just a novelist’s naiveté, they’ll tell you, Doomsday Prophet hyperbole. It’ll never come to that. ere will be no war. Nuclear weapons are about peace, not war.

“Deterrence” is the buzzword of the people who like to think of themselves as hawks . (Nice birds, those. Cool. Stylish. Predatory. Pity there won’t be many of them around after the war. “Extinction” is a word we must try and get used to.) Deterrence is an old thesis that has been resurrected and is being recycled with added local avor. e eory of Deterrence cornered the credit for having prevented the Cold War from turning into a ird World War. e only immutable fact about the ird World War is that if there’s going to be one, it will be fought after the Second World War. In other words, there’s Roy, Arundhati. The End of Imagination, Haymarket Books, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wfu/detail.action?docID=4596388. Created from wfu on 2018-09-24 11:27:11. no fixed schedule. In other words, we still have time. And perhaps the pun (the ird World War) is prescient. True, the Cold War is over, but let’s not be hoodwinked by the ten-year lull in nuclear posturing. It was just a cruel joke. It was only in remission. It wasn’t cured. It proves no theories. After all, what is ten years in the history of the world? Here it is again, the

disease. More widespread and less amenable to any sort of treatment than ever. No, the theory of Deterrence has

some fundamental flaws. Flaw Number One is that it presumes a complete, sophisticated understanding of the psychology of your enemy. It assumes that what deters you (the fear of

annihilation) will deter them. What about those who are not deterred by that? e suicide-bomber psyche

— the “We’ll take you with us” school— is that an outlandish thought? How did Rajiv Gandhi die? In any case who’s the “you” and who’s the “enemy”? Both are only governments. Governments change. ey wear masks within masks. ey molt and reinvent themselves all the time. e one we have at the moment, for instance, does not even have enough seats to last a full term in o ce, but demands that we trust it to do pirouettes and party tricks with nuclear bombs even as it scrabbles

around for a foothold to maintain a simple majority in Parliament. Flaw Number Two is that deterrence is premised on fear. But fear is premised on knowledge. On an understanding of the true extent and scale of the

devastation that nuclear war will wreak. It is not some inherent, mystical attribute of nuclear bombs that they automatically inspire thoughts of peace. On the contrary, it is the endless, tireless, confrontational work of people who have had the courage to openly denounce them, the marches, the demonstrations, the lms, the outrage— that is what has averted, or perhaps only postponed, nuclear war. Deterrence will not and cannot work given the levels of ignorance and illiteracy that hang over our two countries like dense, impenetrable veils. (Witness the Vishwa Hindu Parishad— VHP— wanting to distribute radioactive sand from the Pokhran desert as prasad all across India. A cancer yatra?) e eory of Deterrence is nothing but a perilous joke in a world where iodine pills are prescribed as a prophylactic for nuclear

irradiation. India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs now and feel entirely justi- fied in having them .

Soon others will, too. Israel, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Nepal (I’m trying to be eclectic here),

Denmark, Germany, Bhutan, Mexico, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bosnia, Singapore, North Korea, Sweden, South Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan . . . and why not? Every country

in the world has a special case to make. Everybody has borders and beliefs. And when all our larders are bursting with shiny bombs and our bellies are empty (deterrence is an exorbitant beast), we can trade bombs for food. And when nuclear technology goes on the market, when it gets truly competitive and prices fall, not just

governments, but anybody who can afford it can have their own private arsenal— businessmen,

terrorists, perhaps even the occasional rich writer (like myself ). Our planet will bristle with beautiful missiles. There will be a new world order. The dictatorship of the pro-nuke elite . We can get our kicks by threatening each

other. It’ll be like bungee jumping when you can’t rely on the bungee cord, or playing Russian roulette all day long. An additional perk will be the thrill of Not Knowing What to Believe. We can be victims of the predatory imagination of every green card– seeking charlatan who surfaces in the West with concocted stories of imminent missile attacks. We can delight at the prospect of being held to ransom by every petty troublemaker and rumormonger, the more the merrier if truth be told, anything for an excuse to make more bombs. So you see, even without a war, we have a lot to look forward to. But let us pause to give credit where it’s due. Whom must we thank for all this? e Men who made it happen. e Masters

of the Universe. Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America! Come on up here, folks, stand up and take a bow. Thank you for doing this to the world. Thank you for making a di erence. Thank you for showing us the way. Thank

you for altering the very meaning of life. From now on it is not dying we must fear, but living. It is such supreme folly to believe that nuclear weapons are deadly only if they’re used. The fact that they exist at all, their very presence in our lives, will wreak more havoc than we can begin to fathom . Nuclear weapons pervade our thinking. Control our behavior. Administer our societies. Inform our dreams.

They bury themselves like meat hooks deep in the base of our brains. They are purveyors of madness.

They are the ultimate colonizer. Whiter than any white man that ever lived. The very heart of whiteness. All I can say to every man, woman, and sentient child here in India, and over there, just a little way away in Pakistan, is: take it personally. Whoever you are— Hindu, Muslim, urban, agrarian— it doesn’t matter. e only good thing about nuclear war is that it is the single most egalitarian idea that man has ever had. On the day of reckoning, you will not be asked to present your credentials. e devastation will be undiscriminating. e bomb isn’t in your backyard. It’s in your body. And mine. Nobody , no nation, no government, no man, no god, has the right to put it there. We’re radioactive

already, and the war hasn’t even begun. So stand up and say something. Never mind if it’s been said before. Speak up on your own behalf. Take it very personally.