Summary

• Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[26]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[27]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 14:06:49.933
	1	+2016-10-16 14:06:49.0

Caselist.RoundClass[27]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 14:07:50.913
	1	+2016-10-16 14:07:50.0

Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,23 @@
	1	+The 1AC’s prohibition on African nuclear power is a representation of fear of lack of Western control and is an act of colonial violence. Hecht 10
	2	+Gabrielle Hecht, The Power of Nuclear Things, January 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40646990.pdf VC
	3	+The salience of "uranium from Africa" - both in the lead-up to the war and in subsequent opposition to it - traded on three sets of fears and assumptions widespread in the American public sphere: • the fear of nuclear weapons, and the assumption that acquiring "uranium" is tantamount to building an atomic bomb; • the fear of "Africa" as a dark, corrupt continent, and the assumption that actions there are ultimately unknowable or incomprehensible; • the fear of any nuclear materials not within direct Western control, and the assumption that the difference between licit and illicit nuclear trade is clear-cut. Commentators on the Iraq war spilled a lot of ink on the first of these, very little on the second, and only a bit more on the third. But they largely missed the complex technological and political threads that bind these three outlooks together. In this essay I attempt to break these restraints by offering three genealogies for "uranium from Africa." First, I consider the problem of when uranium counts as a "nuclear" thing, when it doesn't, and what Africa has to do with it. Before "uranium" becomes weapons-usable, it must be mined as ore, processed into yellowcake, converted into uranium hexafluoride, enriched, and pressed into bomb fuel. At what stage in this process does it come to count as a "nuclear material"? The answer, I argue, has depended on time, place, purpose, and markets. Second, I excavate the phrase's more specific rendition, displaying fragments of a history of "yellowcake from Niger." Places matter. Niger is not merely an avatar for global threats, but a nation with its own politics, priorities, and conflicts, all of which have significant bearing on the production and distribution of its uranium. Third, I examine another moment when African provenance of uranium was geopolitically contested: the flow of Namibian uranium to the U.S., Japan, and Europe during the height of international sanctions against apartheid. In this instance, licit trade and black markets were materially entwined in ways that made African things invisible
	4	+
	5	+Taking nuclear technology away from South Africa is founded upon the racist legacy of apartheid. TNO 13.
	6	+- White people in South Africa dismantled their nukes because they didn’t want them in the hands of a black gov.
	7	+- The US supplied SA with HEU to build the bombs, but now they’re pressured to get rid of it post-apartheid
	8	+The New Observer, The Bomb That Never Could Be Used: South Africa’s Nuclear Weapons, 7/31/13, http://newobserveronline.com/the-bomb-that-never-could-be-used-south-africas-nuclear-weapons/ VC
	9	+White South Africa built six atom bombs by 1989 at the Pelindaba nuclear research facility which was to the west of Pretoria. In 1989, the ruling National Party decided to hand power to black majority rule, but did not wish to see the weapons handed over to either a black government or one of the African National Congresses’ allies such as Libya. The nuclear weapons project serves as testament to two important facts about white South Africa. Firstly, it is yet another proof, if any was needed, of the falsity of the “environmental” theory of development. South Africa did not develop nuclear technology “just because” of its geographic location. The development was possible because of the race of the people who lived there, and had nothing to do with the geography, climate, or any other factor. Secondly, the fact that white South Africa developed these weapons for supposed use against its enemies, shows the delusion under which the apartheid leaders lived. The policy of apartheid guaranteed that white South Africa would inevitably be overrun with blacks, and the possibility of using these weapons in any operational thereafter was, therefore, nonexistent. White South Africa’s reliance on black labor meant that no matter where such a weapon might be aimed, whites and blacks alike would be targeted. The nuclear weapons project stands as a tribute to Afrikaner technological and scientific ability, but was an exercise in political self-delusion, just like apartheid. Additional information: – The South African nuclear weapons project was publicly acknowledged in March 1993 by then state president F.W. de Klerk. It was only announced after the weaponry had been fully dismantled and the core elements destroyed or removed. – The United States supplied South Africa with its first supply of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) for use at the Safari-1 research reactor, commissioned in 1965 at Pelindaba. The US supplied South Africa with about 100 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium fuel until 1975, when anti-Apartheid sanctions stopped the shipments. – Apartheid South Africa then turned to Israel for further assistance with its nuclear weapons programme. It is still a matter of debate as to how much technology Israel supplied, but it was probably limited to tools rather than actual weaponry.
	10	+
	11	+Nuclear energy symbolizes power and leadership – the affirmative’s control of other nations is imperialist. Koutonin 13
	12	+Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN - a world peace activist who relentlessly works to empower people to express their full potential and pursue their dreams, regardless of their background. He is the Editior of SiliconAfrica.com, Founder of Goodbuzz.net, and Social activist for Africa Renaissance. Koutonin’s ultimate dream is to open a world-class human potential development school in Africa in 2017. “The Dark Truth About Why South Africa Destroyed Its Nuclear Weapons in 1990.” June 17, 2013. Silicon Africa. http://www.siliconafrica.com/the-dark-truth-about-why-south-africa-destroyed-its-nuclear-weapons-in-1990/JN ‘20
	13	+Why would any country voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons which take years and billions to develop? South Africa is the only country which ever give up its nuclear dissuasion power. But Why? Did they dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons because they believed in a vision of an Africa free of nuclear weapons, as the press reported? NO. The white apartheid regime didn’t want a Black Nation to possess nuclear weapon, a dissuasive power in our contemporary world. Foreseeing a democratic South Africa where Black people will be in power, the white regime destroyed all the country’s main military facilities, ballistics missiles and dismantling all six complete nuclear weapons shortly after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990. South Africa hastily joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and seven weeks later the country signed a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to Greg Mills “South African authorities co-operated fully with the IAEA during the whole verification process, and were commended by the then director-general of the Agency in 1992, Dr. Hans Blix, for providing inspectors with unlimited access and data beyond those required by the Safeguards Agreement“ In less than 3 years all South Africa’s ballistic missiles were scrapped, its six nuclear weapons dismantled, and any remaining missile engines destroyed. To prevent any future attempt by any upcoming South African administration to empower the country, the apartheid regime enacted the most self-restricting legislation in the form of the “Act on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that makes provision for a South African Council for Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to control exports of dual-use materials, equipment and technology. While South African apartheid leaders’ actions were met with praise by the western medias and leaders, many saw this speedy destruction of all the country main military infrastructures as a sign that the racist apartheid regime and many western countries didn’t want the upcoming Black leaders to inherit such a powerful arsenal. “The whole thing was dressed up as an honourable retreat from a nuclear Africa”said Frans Cronje, deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a Johannesburg-based think tank. “A nuclear African state would be taken more seriously and would have a stronger leadership role – it forces people to take you seriously. In leadership terms, renouncing nuclear weapons does the opposite – it reduces your influence in foreign affairs and international politics. If renouncing nuclear weapons grows your influence, others would be falling over themselves to surrender their nuclear arsenals.” continued Frans Cronje While a racist, violent, and brutal oppression white apartheid regime was trusted to have and manage nuclear weapons, a Black and democratically elected regime was not trusted to manage them. That historic decision was all about racism. Nothing else. South Africa would today be stronger on the international stage if it had retained a nuclear arsenal.
	14	+
	15	+US imperialism causes violence against marginalized populations – leading to increased racism, sexism, and oppression of queer and trans* communities. Mohanty 06
	16	+CHANDRA TALPADE MOHANTY - Syracuse University, New York, USA. “US Empire and the Project of Women’s Studies: Stories of citizenship, complicity and dissent.” Routledge. Febraury 2006. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.7401andrep=rep1andtype=pdfJN ‘20
	17	+Both US foreign policy and domestic policy at this time are corporate and military driven. Both have led to the militarization of daily life around the world and in the US—specifically for immigrants, refugees, and people of color—and militarization inevitably means mobilizing practices of masculinization and heterosexualization.4 Both can be understood through a critique of the racialized and gendered logic of a civilizational narrative mobilized to create and recreate insiders and outsiders in the project of empire building. Thus, for instance, as Miriam Cooke (2002) argues, ‘saving’ brown women in Afghanistan justifies US imperial aggression (the rescue mission of civilizing powers), just as the increased militarization of domestic law enforcement, the border patrol, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now renamed the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration) can be justified in the name of a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty, and now a War on Terrorism. The clearest effects of US empire building in the domestic arena are thus evident in the way citizenship has been restructured, civil rights violated and borders repoliced since the commencement of the war of drugs, and now the war on terrorism and the establishment of the homeland security regime. While the US imperial project calls for civilizing brown and black (and now Arab) men and rescuing their women outside its borders, the very same state engages in killing, imprisoning, and criminalizing black and brown and now Muslim and Arab peoples within its own borders. Former political prisoner Linda Evans (2005) calls the US a ‘global police state’ one that has adopted a mass incarceration strategy of social control since the Reagan years. Analyzing the militarization of US society, Evans argues that the new definition of ‘domestic terrorism’ heralds the now legal return of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) that conducted illegal covert operations in the 1960s and 1970s against the Black Panther party, the American Indian movement, the Puerto Rican Independence movement, and left/socialist organizations. Racial profiling, once illegal, is now legitimated as public policy, including a requirement that Arab and Muslim men from over 25 countries register and submit to INS interrogation. Similarly, Julia Sudbury analyzes the global crisis and rise in the mass incarceration of women, suggesting that we must be attentive to ‘the ways in which punishment regimes are shaped by global capitalism, dominant and subordinate patriarchies and neocolonial, racialized ideologies’ (see Sudbury, 2005, p. xiii). This prison industrial complex is supported by the militarization of domestic law enforcement. As Anannya Bhattacharjee (2002) suggests, there have been dramatic increases in funding, increasing use of advanced military technology, sharing of personnel and equipment with the military, and the general promotion of a war-like culture in domestic law enforcement and also in a range of public agencies (welfare, schools, hospitals—and now universities?) that are subjected to an accelerated culture of surveillance and law enforcement (see Silliman and Bhattacharjee, 2002). The effects of these conjoined economic/military policies of the US imperial state represents an alarming increase of violence against women, children and communities bearing the brunt of US military dominance around the world. In the US, policies clearly target poor and immigrant communities. In her new work, Jacqui Alexander (2005) analyzes the primacy of processes of heterosexualization in the consolidation of empire. She suggests that the mobilization of the loyal heterosexual citizen patriot is achieved through the collapse of constructions of the enemy, the terrorist and the sexual pervert. Similarly, Jasbir Puar and Amit Rai (2002) analyze the ‘terrorism’ industry since 9/11, exploring the production of the monster, the fag, and the terrorist as figures of surveillance and criminalization. This clearly gendered, sexualized, and racialized culture of militarism and surveillance is buttressed by a hegemonic culture of consumption and neo-liberal conservatism wherein discourses of advancement and technological superiority, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiments dovetail with ideologies of patriotism, and faith-based initiatives and ideologies to justify the war at home and the war abroad. Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Zillah Eisenstein (in progress) claims that Abu Ghraib is ‘hypermasculinity run amok. Females are present to cover over the misogyny of building empire’. Racialized, gendered and sexualized relations of torture, triumphant power, and voyeurism weave explicitly through the images of Abu Ghraib. White women dominate the rape and abuse of brown men. Brown women are all but invisible. White American women are responsible and accountable—they are collaborators, buttressing the project of racist, masculinist empire. They are also gender decoys (Eisenstein, in progress) in uniform, leaving masculinized/racialized gender in place, and furthering the building of empire. Bob Wing (2004) analyzes the color of Abu Ghraib, focusing on the war on terrorism as a racial and religious war, a crusade of the ‘civilized’ against the ‘uncivilized’. He draws on the historical continuities and similarities of the war abroad and the war at home to make his argument. Muslims demonized as bloodthirsty terrorists just as Native peoples were demonized as savages out to scalp white settlers. Both groups of men need civilizing—and, of course, Christian salvation. The sexual humiliation of Iraqis recalls the rape of black slaves—the triumphant smiling perpetrators recall the trophy photos of the lynching of black men. The random jailing of 3000 Iraqis is continuous with the incarceration of black men in the US—more black men in prison than college graduates. Finally, Wing (2004) points to the similarities between the mass roundup and detention of Arabs and Muslims and the internment of Japanese Americans as enemy aliens during WWII. All stories of racialized masculinity and heteronormative imperial power—all stories of the US nation trafficking and recycling colonizing practices. Linda Burnham (2004) claims the Abu Ghraib photos reveal as much about the nation as about the particular company of soldiers—the 372nd. They reveal the sexualization of national conquest and the sexual sacrifice of some portion of the population of the conquered nation—usually women and always poor women. The militarized US State and its imperial projects are thus a crucial site of feminist struggle both in terms of the violence and urgency of the struggles themselves, but also in terms of the potential interventions feminists could make to unsettle these particular stories and practices of the US nation/state and thus pave the way for transnational anti-imperialist solidarities. In this context there are numerous institutional practices and their effects that feminist scholars could examine. These include detailed analysis of the contradictions of national security/homeland security, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and 2002, and the corporate/military nexus in the academy. It is to this last site that I turn now to explore stories of the nation and of citizenship in Women’s Studies projects, as a way to engage in feminist anti-imperialist praxis. The question I want to ask concerns the place of Women’s Studies in the academy—an academy that is corporatized, militarized, and deeply contradictory in terms of its citizenship projects. The above discussion suggests that stories of citizenship and belonging are central to the consolidation of empire. Let us now turn to a discussion of the US academy, and a provisional cartography of three decades of Women’s Studies in relation to this analysis of the US imperial state and questions of citizenship. For the purposes of this discussion I define citizenship as that particular form of belonging to the nation/state that is based on rights, participation and obligations and anchored in historical geographies of racial and cultural identities.
	18	+
	19	+The ROTB is to vote for the debater who best challenges the oppressive politics of colonialism.
	20	+
	21	+Vote neg to reject the 1AC’s imperialist mindset and critically challenge the structures of imperialism which dominate society. McLaren and Kincheloe 08
	22	+Peter McLaren - Professor in Critical Studies, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, where he is Co-Director of the Paulo Freire Democratic Project and International Ambassador for Global Ethics and Social Justice. Joe Kincheloe - professor and Canada Research Chair at the Faculty of Education, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. “The Landscape of Qualitative Research.” Sage Publications. Page 407-409. 2008.
	23	+In this context, it is important to note that we understand a social theory as a map or a guide to the social sphere. In a research context, it does not determine how we see the world but helps us devise questions and strategies for exploring it. A critical social theory is concerned in particular with issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy; matters of race, class, and gender; ideologies; discourses; education; religion and other social institutuions; and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system (Beck-Gernsheim, Butler, and Puigvert, 2003; Flecha, Gomez, and Puigvert, 2003). Thus, in this context we seek to provide a view of an evolving criticality or a reconceptualized critical theory. Critical theory is never static; it is always evolving, changing in light of both new theoretical insights and new problems and social circumstances. The list of concepts elucidating our articulation of critical theory indicates a criticality informed by a variety of discourses emerging after the work of the Frankfurt School. Indeed, some of the theoretical discourses, while referring to themselves as critical ,directly call into question some of the work of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse. Thus, diverse theoretical traditions have informed our understanding of criticality and have demanded understanding of diverse forms of oppression including class, race, gender, sexual, cultural, religious, colonial, and ability-related concerns. The evolving notion of criticality we present is informed by, while critiquing, the post-discourses – for example, postmodernism, poststrucuralism, and postcolonialism. In this context, critical theorists become detectives of new theoretical insights, perpetually searching for new and interconnected ways of understanding power and oppression and the ways they shape everyday life and human experience. In this context, criticality and the research it supports are always evolving, always encountering new ways to irritate dominant forms of power, to provide more evocative and compelling insights. Operating in this way, an evolving criticality is always vulnerable to exclusion from the domain of approved modes of research. The forms of social change it supports always position it in some places as an outsider, an awkward detective always interested in uncovering social structures, discourses, ideologies, and epistemologies that prop up both the status quo and a variety of forms of privilege. In the epistemological domain, white, male, class elitist, heterosexist, imperial, and colonial privilege often operates by asserting the power to claim objectivity and neutrality. Indeed, the owners of such privilege often own the “franchise” on reason and rationality. Proponents of an evolving criticality possess a variety of tools to expose such oppressive power politics. Such proponents assert that critical theory is well-preserved by drawing upon numerous liberatory discourses and including diverse groups of marginalized peoples and their allies in the nonhierarchical aggregation of critical analysts (Bello, 2003; Clark, 2002; Humphries, 1997). In the present era, emerging forms of neocolonialism and neo-imperialism in the United States move critical theorists to examine the ways American power operates under the cover of establishing democracies all over the world. Advocates of an evolving criticality argue – as we do in more detail later in this chapter – that such neo-colonial power must be exposed so it can be opposed in the United Stated and around the world. The American Empire’s justification in the name of freedom for undermining democratically elected governments from Iran (Kincheloe, 2004), Chile, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to Liberia (when its real purpose is to acquire geopolitical advantage for future military assaults, economic leverage in international markets, and access to natural resources) must be exposed by criticalists for what it is – a rank imperialist sham (McLaren, 2003a, 2003b; McLaren and Jaramillo, 2002; McLaren and Martin, 2003). Critical researchers need to view their work in the context of living and working in a nation-state with the most powerful military-industrial complex in history that is shamefully using the terrorist attacks of September 11 to advance a ruthless imperialist agenda fueled by capitalist accumulation by means of the rule of force (McLaren and Farahmandpur, 2003). Chomsky (2003), for instance, has accused the U.S. government of the “supreme crime” of preventive war (in the case of its invasion of Iraq, the use of military force to destroy an invented or imagined threat) of the type that was condemned at Nuremberg. Others, like historian Arthur Schlesinger (cited in Chomsky, 2003), have likened the invasion of Iraq to Japan’s “day of infamy,” that is, to the policy that impe-rial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor. David G. Smith (2003) argues that such imperial dynamics are supported by particular epistemological forms. The United States is an epistemological empire based on a notion of truth that undermines the knowledges produced by those outside the good graces and benevolent authority of the empire. Thus, in the 21st century, critical theorists must develop sophisticated ways to address not only the brute material relations of class rule linked to the mode and relations of capitalist production and imperialist conquest (whether through direct military intervention or indirectly through the creation of client states) but also the epistemological violence that helps discipline the world. Smith refers to this vio-lence as a form of “information warfare” that spreads deliberate falsehoods about countries such as Iraq and Iran. U.S. corporate and governmental agents become more sophisticated in the use of such episto-weaponry with every day that passes.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-16 14:07:54.405

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Bekah Boyer

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Earl Warren NO

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+27

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Enge Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Orientalism K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks