Landmines Neg - 5th Week

7/27/2019 Landmines Neg - 5th Week

1/79

SDI 2007 15 Week Landmines Neg

Index

Strategy Sheet..............................................................................................................................................................................2T PHA...........................................................................................................................................................................................5

AT: WOT Adv...............................................................................................................................................................................6US-Ethiopian/Eritrean Relations Alt Causes................................................................................................................................ 7

Relations Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................9AT: Readiness/Hegemony..........................................................................................................................................................10Demining Now............................................................................................................................................................................11Overstretch Turn.........................................................................................................................................................................14Readiness low alt cause..........................................................................................................................................................16Heg High Now............................................................................................................................................................................17

AT: Environment Adv..................................................................................................................................................................18AT: Death and destruction/landmines Adv.................................................................................................................................19AT: Malaria Adv..........................................................................................................................................................................20Solvency Frontline......................................................................................................................................................................22China CP 1NC Shell...................................................................................................................................................................24

AT: US cooperates internationally..............................................................................................................................................26AT: US tech key..........................................................................................................................................................................27

AT: US has moral obligation.......................................................................................................................................................28AT: Training locals key...............................................................................................................................................................29AT: US=most experienced.........................................................................................................................................................30Canada CP 1NC.........................................................................................................................................................................31

AT: US=international signal........................................................................................................................................................33AT: US experience/signal key....................................................................................................................................................34Canada SoPo NB.......................................................................................................................................................................352NC Small Arms Outweigh.........................................................................................................................................................36Ottawa CP 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................37US key to Ottawa Ext .................................................................................................................................................................39Ottawa key to long term Solvency.............................................................................................................................................. 40US SoPo NB...............................................................................................................................................................................41SoPo Key to Heg........................................................................................................................................................................432NC AT: North Korea DA...........................................................................................................................................................44Ottawa = Unpopular/Flip Flop.....................................................................................................................................................46Ottawa = bipartisan....................................................................................................................................................................47Ottawa = popular w/ public.........................................................................................................................................................48Spending 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................49Spending Link Ext.......................................................................................................................................................................51Politics Links Bipart .................................................................................................................................................................52Politics Links Public.................................................................................................................................................................53China DA Links...........................................................................................................................................................................54Dept of State DA.........................................................................................................................................................................55Dept of State DA Ext ..................................................................................................................................................................581AC Reconstruction U Mich.......................................................................................................................................................591AC Reconstruction GDI............................................................................................................................................................71


2/79


Strategy Sheet

1AC Summaries:Most plans basically offer straight US tech and then training for locals. There are some reasonably creativeadvantages stemming from interactions in the countries where wed do the de-mining, WOT and relations type stuff,and then some obvious ones like landmines screwing up the environment and peoples lives. Then there are prettydecent solvency cards about how sweet US tech is.

Advantage Areas:The landmines affs put out thus far contain one or more of the following advantages if you read any of these noteson advantages and think the internals might be terribly sketchy, thats because youre right and they are:

Death and destruction/landmines:-Pretty much what it sounds like landmines kill people who walk through them-A lot of people die or are maimed each day-Some affs read a Cuomo-like criticism of not focusing on structural violence (i.e. landmines)

War on Terror:-Goes with the Ethiopia, Eritrea specific aff-Relations with Ethiopoa/Eritrea are supposed to help the US gain a foothold there to win WOT- Ethiopia is probably not key to global WOT, but thats what they say-The impact card is from someone who writes for Right Wing News might want to point that out

Readiness/Hegemony:-Apparently de-mining is critical for readiness-This is clearly a lie-The idea is that soldiers get experience

Agriculture:-Landmines jack agriculture because farmers cant plant when there are bombs in the ground

-People starve because there isnt enough food

Environment:-Landmines kill species and disrupt the foodchain-Loss of bioD-Thats extinction

Malaria:-Landmines create craters-Craters collect puddles-Mosquitoes breed in the puddles-Mosquitoes have malaria, and malaria kills people

Plan Texts:U Mich: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its landmineclearance, training, and risk education efforts in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Well clarify.

GDI: The United States Federal Government should


3/79


Strategy 1:-T PHA-China CP-Politics-Spending OR Dept. of State DA-Case

The T argument is pretty solid. Most of the aff cards saying that landmines are PHA are warranted with landminescause injuries and deaths. This argument is pre-empted in the 1NC shell with the limits standard allowing affs tobe topical based on solving injury and death would probably explode the topic any aff with an advantage mightmeet that interpretation. Also, the violation card in the shell here is pretty good about why the approaches tohumanitarian de-mining and PHA are fundamentally different.

I think the China CP is the best counterplan in this file theres specific evidence to answer all of their US keywarrants. Expect 1) tech, 2) good at training locals, and 3) moral obligation because the US is a huge exporter ofmines. But the cards that Chinese tech is good are pretty good; Chinas successfully trained locals before, theresevidence on that too, and the good news (ironically enough) is that China is also a huge exporter or landmines, sotheyd have a reciprocal obligation. Theres also evidence of empirical success in Africa more empirical success

evidence than theyll have, since the US really doesnt do that much de-mining in Africa. Obviously it doesnt solvethe readiness/heg advantages, but those internals are pretty sketchy. Pulling mines out of the ground is probably notkey to readiness.

Politics Bush bad is probably the right side of the link debate. The plan would obviously be a flip flop, but seriously,no one doesnt like saving helpless people from mines. Even the GOP likes it, shockingly enough, as do the publicand Democrats, so Im not even sure who the flip flop would hurt him with.

Youll have to make a choice between spending and the DOS DA obviously the spending links are pretty good; de-mining is incredibly expensive, then its just your standard spending debate. It surprised me a little how good theDOS cards were; that being said, theyre still not the most fantastic cards ever. Spending is certainly safe, but if youwant to surprise them a little with something, DOS is definitely viable.

You should obviously load up on the advantages that the counterplan doesnt solve you can probably win theinternal link debate on heg. There arent that many cards, but you really dont need that many. Seriously, teachingsoldiers to pull mines out of the ground isnt going to make them any more badass in combat. Then theres the WOTadvantages, relations being the internal link. Theres some good relations defense its true that US/Eritreanrelations might be a good thing, but de-mining isnt going to cut it. Thats probably a pretty winnable debate. Otherthan that, the case defense is pretty self explanatory. The Dyck solvency turns are fairly solid, I think, and the notimeframe card is probably also worth throwing in there.**Also the Ottawa CP solvency cards can be read as solvency takeouts on case if Ottawa is key to real successdemining, its a reason the plan doesnt solve


4/79


Strategy 2:-T PHA-Canada CP-Canada SoPo NB-Politics-Spending OR Dept. of State DA

-Case

Most of this stuff is explained above. The only real difference is the Canada CP and its SoPo NB. I think Chinaprobably solves the case better most of the solvency in this file just speaks to Canadas experience de-mining inSSA. If theres any kind of morality argument in the case, China/US undoubtedly fulfill it better, because Canada justdoesnt export that many mines. That solvency deficit is hardly damning, but its something to be aware of also,theres no specific evidence that Canada can train locals. Not all affs train locals; the ones that do dont seem to haveamazing evidence that thats key. Also, in the 1NC shell is a cardCanada does have a couple of distinct advantages over China they started Ottawa, so they have a pretty goodinternational signal, and they probably have more experience than almost any other actor, and the evidence in thisfile speaks to that. Also, theres the Canada soft power net benefit. The cards arent absolutely fantastic, but theyrealright, and its worth reading if you read this CP. The impact is light arms, so you can get on their level of impact

calculus with structural violence and other probability warrants.**When running either Canada, or China, or any intl agent for that matter, be sure to use the relations alt causes asreasons China/Canada/whatever would solve better because the US and Eritrea cant play nice

Strategy 3:-T PHA-Ottawa CP-Politics-Spending-Case

The Ottawa CP Ottawa has to be the biggest de-mining effort to date. Well over one hundred countries are

signatories. The cards as to why the US is key to give Ottawa teeth are pretty good. Youd have bigger I/Ls to theirimpacts, for the Ethiopia specific aff and even for the SSA aff, because the CP would be done on a much largerscale. Most of the aff answers Ive seen so far say something to the effect of the Ottawa treaty isnt enforceable/noone listens. The solvency cards in this file assume those arguments Ottawa sucks it up because the US isntbehind it.The net benefit is spending costs wouldnt be incurred immediately, as they would be with the plan, and theyd alsobe defrayed by other actors.

Also, some cards were included about Ottawa being key to soft power, and soft power being key to hard power. ThatI/L is probably bigger and better than the one on case CP might solve heg better.I went ahead and chose terrorism as the soft power impact to put in this file, but obviously that could be mixed up. Itsnot like theres a shortage of soft power impacts.

Also, the politics debate politics can probably be a net benefit. There are politics cards both ways in this file for the

CP. The plan is pretty definitely popular. Heres the story on the CP: Bush and his cronies hate the Ottawa treatybecause it would force them to remove mines from the Koreas, where we have definite security interests. Its prettyunpopular on that front. But there are actually some cards in here about how its pretty popular in a DemocraticCongress and with the public, which makes some sense, but on the truth side of the debate, Ottawa is probablyunpopular***Note with this counterplan, dont read any of the mines good/key to readiness arguments. They definitely linkmore to the CP.


5/79


T PHA

A. Interpretation: Public health assistance is the provision of general health services designed toprotect the health of the general publicCodeofFederalRegulations2007

B. Violation: de-mining is not PHA doesnt use public health techniquesDaniel Wolfand StevenBarmazel, President and Publications Director of Terra Segura International, 2001 (TheNecessity of Implementing a Public Health Approach to Humanitarian De-mining, http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/5.2/notes/danielwolf.htm, hl)

Landmines are an epidemic, yet unlike other programs fighting epidemics, humanitarian demining does notconscientiouslyapply public-health techniques. National mine-clearing projects conform to inflexible military modelsthat maximize central control while stifling local initiative. Intensive mine-at-a-time clearing efforts, though urgent inheavily trafficked areas, are applied across the board, dissipating demining resources. This makes reducingrisks across large areas and populations impossible, resulting in continuing and unnecessary deaths fromunaddressed mine fields. Clearing every mine field is beyond the worlds demonstrated willingness to expendcapital. Speeding reclamation and reducing casualties within existing resources requires more emphasis on

overall risk reduction, more efficient methods and technologies and increased incentives for private action.Public-health programs do this by balancing what is best for individuals with what is best for all. Expensive acutecare, such as caring for the sick during cholera epidemics, is the smaller part of the solution; the larger part isgeneralized threat reduction (e.g., providing reliable, potable water systems). The goal is to achieve the highest society-wide health benefit for the available funds, which are always insufficient.

C. Standards

1. Ground: they take the core of the topic aid and PHA bad away, which is key for all negstrategy K links, international CPs, disad links

2. Limits: the aff justifies solving for any issue that injures people or results in death meansaffs that negotiate with North Korea not to develop the bomb or counseling to prevent

suicide would be topical3. Predictability: no way the neg can be forced to prepare for non public health issues

D. Voters topicality is a voter for fairness and education


6/79


AT: WOT Adv

Relations with Ethiopia dont solve terrorismBerteHabte-Giorgis, professor at Rowan College, 11-18-2005 ( Why the War on Terrorism in the Horn of Africa CanNever Succeed, http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/articles/Berhe_HabteGiorgis_why_the_war

_on_terrorism_in_the_horn_of_ Africa_cannot_succeed.html, hl)

"Islamic extremism" can be fought militarily from outside. There are two types of terrorism: state sponsored andcommitted in other countries (external); "home grown" (internal). War against external terrorism, both againstthe sponsor countries and the terrorists can be effectively fought by governments from outside. However,internal terrorism, especially religious extremism, which relies on sentiments that reside in the minds and beliefs ofpeople can be tackled internally by political, religious, and social action, by people and governments in those countries.

A regional or global consortium of religious leaders and governments may be useful to develop a common approach andappeal to fight extremism in respective countries. Sheer military action from outside is bound to fail. If at all, it mayproduce the opposite result. As for Ethiopia, the country will be lucky if it succeeds in curbing the infiltration of"Islamic extremism" in its own country.

Turn: Relations building with Ethiopia incites Somali backlash and more terrorismBerteHabte-Giorgis, professor at Rowan College, 11-18-2005 ( Why the War on Terrorism in the Horn of Africa CanNever Succeed, http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/articles/Berhe_HabteGiorgis_why_the_war


Use a neighboring country that is viewed as the eternal enemy of the Somali people in the fight againstterrorism. Ethiopians and Somalis have age-old enmity. Putting the war on terrorism in the same bundlechanges the perception of the people. The war is viewed as an extension of the fighting Somalia and Ethiopiawaged over the Ogaden, and the essence of Greater Somalia. U.S. involvement in this situation creates theimpression that the U.S. is assisting Ethiopia in destroying Somalia, the same way the U.S.S.R. and the Sovietblock countries fought Somalia on the Ethiopian side in 1977. The issue unites "Islamic extremists" and nationalisticSomalis against the U.S. and Ethiopia. Embracing the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, was a kiss of death forU.S. anti-terrorism strategy in the region.

Relations wont solve terrorism Ethiopian interests are contrary to the U.S.sBerteHabte-Giorgis, professor at Rowan College, 11-18-2005 (Why the War on Terrorism in the Horn of Africa CanNever Succeed, http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/articles/Berhe_HabteGiorgis_why_the_war


The expectation that Ethiopia can serve a useful purpose as an ally in the war on terrorism in Somalia. As acountry in the hinterland, Ethiopia cannot have a role in preventing infiltration of terrorists into Somalia fromoutside or to curb their activities inside the country. Preventing incursions by Al Qaeda from outside requires controlof the coastline. Ethiopia does not have this capability. The attack on a cruise ship recently demonstrates that terroristshave freedom of movement on the sea and should be a warning of a possible catastrophic attack on civilian targets in thefuture. All Ethiopia can do is mount occasional raids into Somalia from across the border, thereby stiffening theresistance by the Somali people and increasing support for extremists. Going too deep inside Somalia will entailthe raiders being cut off and destroyed. Complete occupation of Somalia is unthinkable, even militarily. Such attempt willbe the death-knell for Ethiopia as a country. The Somalis are exceptionally good fighters, and Somalia is a member of

the Arab League. A prudent policy by the U.S. would find ways of bringing the Somali people to its side . It has touse its allies in the region, such as Yemen, Kenya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, and Eritrea for advice and assistance.First order of priority should be to create a viable government. Then assist the new government to take care of theextremists.The Ethiopian regime's policy runs contrary to the interest of the U.S. Ethiopia's strategy is to preventthe creation of an independent and strong government. Instead, it wants to create a puppet government inSomalia and keep the country unstable, with the hope of weakening the guerilla war in the Ogaden, which has beengoing on for almost half a century. To use the regime in Ethiopia as an ally is alienating Washington from the Ethiopianpeople, who were, until now, some of the most die-hard supporters of the U.S. Historically, there will be a price to be paidfor this mistake. As Dr. Weinstein mentions in his article, and as events during the last ten days testify, the regime inEthiopia is very unpopular in its own country. As far as the fight on terrorism in Somalia goes, to trust such a regimeis tantamount to putting all eggs in one basket, and give them to a blind man, to carry them across a river.


7/79


US-Ethiopian/Eritrean Relations Alt Causes

Alt causes for bad US/Eritrean and Ethiopian relations, plan cant overcome

A) U.S. objection to peace agreementsBBC 5-11-2007 (Eritrean President on Ties with US, Ethiopia, Somalia, Domestic Issues, p. Lexis, hl)

Asked about Eritrea's relations with the United States, Afewerki says the main reason for the "lukewarm"relations between Eritrea and the United States is the latter's "objection" to the implementation of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border agreement reached in 2002. Asked why the United States would object to the implementation ofthe agreement reached with Ethiopia, he says the United States has its own strategy in Africa. Responding toanother question, he denies that the United States has asked for military bases in Eritrea.

B) Eritrean crackdown on civil libertiesUSFedNews 4-1-2007 (State Department Issues Background Note on Eritrea, p. Lexis, hl)

Eritrea is a member ofthe Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the African Union (AU) butdoes participate actively in the AU. Eritrea maintains diplomatic relations with the United States, Italy, and several

other European nations, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands. Relations with thesecountriesbecame strained as a result of the 2001 government crackdown against political dissidents and others,the closure of the independent press, and limits on civil liberties.

C) History of mistrustUSFedNews 4-1-2007 (State Department Issues Background Note on Eritrea, p. Lexis, hl)

The U.S. consulate in Asmara was first established in 1942. In 1953, the United States signed a mutual defensetreaty with Ethiopia. The treaty granted the United States control and expansion of the important British militarycommunications base at Kagnew near Asmara. In the 1960s, as many as 4,000 U.S. military personnel were stationed atKagnew. In the 1970s, technological advances in the satellite and communications fields were making thecommunications station at Kagnew increasingly obsolete. In 1974, Kagnew Station drastically reduced its personnelcomplement. In early 1977, the United States informed the Ethiopian Government that it intended to close Kagnew

Station permanently by September 30, 1977. In the meantime, U.S. relations with the Mengistu regime wereworsening. In April 1977, Mengistu abrogated the 1953 mutual defense treaty and ordered a reduction of U.S.personnel in Ethiopia, including the closure of Kagnew Communications Center and the consulate in Asmara. In

August 1992, the United States reopened its consulate in Asmara, staffed with one officer. On April 27, 1993, theUnited States recognized Eritrea as an independent state, and on June 11, diplomatic relations were established,with a charg d'affaires. The first U.S. Ambassador arrived later that year. In the past, the United States hasprovided substantial assistance to Eritrea, including food and development. In FY 2004, the United Statesprovided over $65 million in humanitarian aid to Eritrea, including $58.1 million in food assistance and $3.47million in refugee support. In 2005, the Government of Eritrea told USAID to cease operations. At the EritreanGovernment's request, the United States no longer provides bilateral development assistance to Eritrea.

D) Anti-US statements and funding terrorist organizationsStatesNewsService 1-30-2007 (Press Conference at AU Summit in Ethiopia, p. Lexis, hl)

We have an ambassador in Eritrea. Eritrea has an ambassador in the United States, so we continue to have ourdiplomatic relations. As I said, the lines of communications aren't that great right now. But, we are not asconcerned about the statements coming out of Eritrea against the U.S. Government. We think those statements havemore to do with the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue than anything else. I think that President Issaias felt that the UnitedStates government could somehow solve the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission. It has been fairly aggressivein terms of their government statements towards us since then. But we don't mind. We can manage and for us,where there is a real threat is the fact that the CIC was being highjacked by extremists and terrorists. And that was athreat against our interests and the neighbors' interests, and it was unfortunate that Eritrea's government wasfunding, assisting and training those extremists and those terrorists.


8/79


E) Tensions over Somalia and weapons tradingSaladDuhul, writer for the Associated Press, 10-29-2006 (Islamic Group Says Peace Talks Off Unless Ethiopian TroopsWithdraw, p. Lexis, hl)

The top U.S. diplomat to Africa, Jendayi Frazer, on Oct. 19 accused Eritrea of using Somalia to open a secondfront against Ethiopia. Relations between the two sides are at a low with Frazer claiming Eritrea is shipping in

weapons to the Islamic group, whom the U.S. believe are harboring al-Qaida terrorists.

F) USs perceived agendaSaladDuhul, writer for the Associated Press, 10-29-2006 (Islamic Group Says Peace Talks Off Unless Ethiopian TroopsWithdraw, p. Lexis, hl)

Eritrea, meanwhile, claimed the U.S. is using its arch rival Ethiopia to carry out a war in the country. A statementposted on the Eritrean Information Ministry's Web site late Saturday said the U.N. troop claim was an attempt "tocover up the U.S. governments plans and the war it is carrying out in Somalia and the Horn of Africa in general"through the Ethiopian government.


9/79


Relations Bad

Turn Relations based on counter-terrorism focus are bad they allow glaring human rightsabusesLynnFredriksson, Advocacy Director for Africa Amnesty International USA, 5-10-2007 (Human Rights in Africa, p. Lexis,

hl)

U.S. foreign policy's focus on counter-terrorism has also played a significant role. It has contributed to theglaring absence of public statements and policy decisions in response to diminishing political space and theabusive treatment of prisoners of conscience and other political prisoners in Ethiopia. Given the close and long-standing relationship U.S. government policymakers have enjoyed with the Government of Ethiopia, are we leftto assume that they have chosen to ignore universally recognized human rights norms in exchange for militarybases, political intelligence and the facade of national stability? U.S. policy toward Ethiopia should make the protectionof all human rights, including the fundamental rights of physical integrity, expression, assembly and fair trial central toU.S. relations with the Government of Ethiopia and Ethiopian civil society. And it should recognize even if thegovernment in Addis Ababa currently does not that in order to achieve Ethiopia's goal of domestic and border security,both the Government of Ethiopia and the international community must listen to and respect the rights ofminority groups and opposition parties and in particular leading human rights defenders whose perspectives onnational priorities and the nature of their own rights have been too long ignored.


10/79


AT: Readiness/Hegemony

Landmines have diverse uses and are a key part of military strategyMichael Sholz, senior in engineering at U of Wisconsin, 1996 (Landmines: A Global Crisis to Challenge this University,http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/Steuber/papers/1996/landmines.html, hl)

A landmine is an explosive device left on the ground, or buried just beneath the surface. The two major categories oflandmines are anti-personnel and anti-tank. Anti-personnel mines are triggered by a force as little as 5-10 pounds, whileanti-tank mines are made to detonate under a vehicle [1]. Millions have been spent to advance their capabilities.Landmines are becoming easier to employ, harder to detect and nearly impossible to disarm. For example,

landmines can now be delivered by remote means. A packet of mines can be launched over enemy lines andscattered by an artillery shell. Once there, the mines can interfere with enemy supply routes and impede thearrival of reinforcements. These tactics have allowed landmines, previously considered defensive weapons, tobe used offensively. As a result, the number of active mines in place around the world has increased at a startling rate.Last year alone, another two million of these lethal weapons were planted

Landmines are a key part of military strategy multiple warrantsMichael Sholz, senior in engineering at U of Wisconsin, 1996 (Landmines: A Global Crisis to Challenge this University,http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/Steuber/papers/1996/landmines.html, hl)

Many countries -- including the United States--are reluctant to support restrictions on the use of landmines due tothe significant role that they play in military strategy. Mines are used to slow or restrict enemy movement, toprotect friendly forces or even to funnel enemy troops into areas where they can be easily attacked. Mines often

maim instead of actually killing, which can be seen as favorable from a military standpoint. One officer states,&quotNot only are [the victim's] fellow soldiers forced to witness the distress of one of their own, but transporting a singlevictim behind the lines for medical care can force the redeployment of several combatants away from the battle zone" [1].In addition, mines are inexpensive and require almost no upkeep to perform their function.

US military leaders maintain landmines key to readinessMelvinGoodman, writer for Washington Monthly, December2000 (Shotgun Diplomacy, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi m1316/is_12_32/ai_68148602, hl)

The debate over the ICC isn't the only place where the interests of the uniformed military have pushed the United Statesto oppose its allies and support dubious policies. Take the campaign to ban land mines. The Pentagon opposes theinternational effort because of its deployment of mines near the border between North and South Korea.

Antipersonnel mines, unable to tell the difference between a combatant and a child, have created havoc in such

disparate places as Cambodia, Angola, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Bosnia, and Mozambique. But the cincs have madeland mines a readiness issue and will not budge. Not even the inauguration of a tentative peace between the twoKoreas and the beginning of summit diplomacy between the United States and North Korea has led to newthinking at the Pentagon.


11/79


Demining Now

Status quo solves were demining now in

A) BosniaUSFedNews 4-11-2007 (US Funding Support for Humanitarian Demining in Bosnia, Herzegovina, p. Lexis, hl)

In order to maximize the cost-effectiveness and productivity of demining efforts funded by the United States inBosnia and Herzegovina, the U.S. Department of State has decided to channel its funding in the future to thosedemining organizations that are capable of efficiently and effectively executing larger projects, or a greaternumber of smaller projects combined, than has been the case in the past.

B) KosovoUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

KOSOVO: NATO used cluster munitions as well as conventional unitary bombs against Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (FRY) military targets in Kosovo. After the withdrawal of FRY forces, the United States and otherdonors launched a clean-up of all ERW and landmines. In addition to providing air strike data within 6 months of the

end of hostilities to facilitate ERW clearance, the United States provided $15.5 million in clearance aid. By the end of the2001 demining season, the United Nations declared that Kosovo was free from the humanitarian impact of all ERW andlandmines. The United States continues supporting indigenous Kosovar clearance capabilities as new suspect areasare discovered.

C) SerbiaUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

SERBIA: Limited cluster munitions strikes occurred within Serbia as part of NATO operations to force thewithdrawal of FRY forces from Kosovo. The United States has provided more than $2 million for ERW clearancein Serbia (and Montenegro) through the Slovenian International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance.Clearance of all known contaminated areas in Serbia is expected to be complete later in 2007. Additional United Statesresources will be provided to further survey unverified ERW contamination in suspect areas.

D) MontenegroUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

MONTENEGRO: Some NATO air strikes that employed cluster munitions occurred within Montenegro, then partof the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), during the campaign to force a withdrawal of (FRY) forces fromKosovo. A portion of the more than $2 million that the United States allocated for ERW clearance in Serbia viathe Slovenian International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance (see above) was used to cleanup unexploded cluster munitions and other ERW in Montenegro as well.

E) AfghanistanUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

AFGHANISTAN: In late 1988, the United States and other concerned donors began to clear landmines and ERWin Afghanistan, including unexploded cluster munitions used by the former Soviet Union. In 2002, the UnitedStates provided strike data for air- delivered ordnance, including cluster munitions, to the United Nations withinthree months of the cessation of hostilities against the Taliban. Concurrently, the U.S. Department of Stateexpanded existing demining efforts to address the danger of unexploded cluster munitions with a $3 millionproject that was successfully concluded in July 2002. That $3 million is a small part of the more than $152 million inERW and landmine clearance that the United States has funded in Afghanistan since 1993. United States assistancecontinues.


12/79


F) AlbaniaUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

ALBANIA: Most of the unexploded cluster munitions present in Albania resulted from FRY forces firing artillery-delivered cluster munitions during the Kosovo crisis in 1999.A total of 15 square kilometers of Albanian territorywere ultimately affected by ERW and landmines stemming from that conflict, with about 50 per cent of that area

considered to have been affected to some degree by unexploded cluster munitions. By the end of 2006, thanks in partto more than $7 million of United States assistance, approximately 13 square kilometers of that total affectedarea was cleared. United States ERW clearance and demining assistance continues.

G) CambodiaUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

CAMBODIA: Cambodia suffers from extensive contamination from persistent landmines as well as ERW of alltypes, including unexploded cluster munitions delivered by United States forces. In addition to air strike targetdata, the United States has provided with over $32 million in U.S. funding since 1993 to clear both landminesand ERW of all types, including unexploded cluster munitions. United States ERW clearance and deminingassistance continues.

H) IraqUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

IRAQ: Immediately after the Second Gulf War in early 2003, clearance of ERW, including cluster munitions andlandmines, was extended to all of Iraq. This effort was significantly facilitated by United States provision of strikedata to the United Nations, often in as little as 72 hours after a particular attack while hostilities were ongoing. The U.S.Department of State's Quick Reaction Demining Force was deployed to Baghdad and other population centers incentral Iraq in September 2003 to assist with the initial clearance of unexploded cluster munitions and otherERW at military targets situated among the civilian infrastructure. From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006,the U.S. Department of State invested over $111 million to clean up all war detritus generated by all combatants. Itsclearance assistance continues.

I) LaosUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

LAOS: This is the one country in the world where the predominant long-standing ERW threat comes primarily fromunexploded cluster munitions as opposed to other ERW or landmines or . Laos has benefited from the sharing by theUnited States of strike target data and of over $21 million in U.S. assistance since 1993, the majority of whichhas gone to address the problem of unexploded cluster munitions. United States ERW clearance assistancecontinues.

J) LebanonUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

LEBANON: Immediately following the most recent conflict in Lebanon , the United States dedicated more than

$9 million for quickly and safely clearing ERW, including cluster munitions, over and above the $17 million thatthe United States provided for ERW and landmine clearance there since 1993. See the Department of State pressrelease, "Update on United States Aid to Lebanon to Clear Explosive Remnants of War," atwww.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/73579.htm for more details. United States ERW clearance and demining assistancecontinues.


13/79


K) VietnamUSFedNews 2-23-2007 (US Clearance of Unexploded Cluster Munitions, p. Lexis, hl)

VIETNAM: Similar to its efforts in Cambodia and Laos, Vietnam has received United States air strike data that hasenabled its authorities, and the Veterans for America (formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation), whichis conducting a U.S. Department of State-funded survey of the humanitarian impact of landmines and ERW in

Vietnam's central provinces, to better focus ERW survey and clearance efforts. Since 1993, the United States hasprovided over $14 million to help clear all forms of ERW, including unexploded cluster munitions and landmines inVietnam, regardless of their origin. United States ERW clearance and demining assistance continues.


14/79


Overstretch Turn

A. US Special Forces are key to victory in Iraq unfortunately they are dangerously stretched to thebreaking point any draw down causes collapseMartinSieff, UPIs managing editor of international affairs, 1-8-2007 (This Year Rumsfelds Dream Died, p. Lexis, hl)

One taboo phrase is not yet being heard anywhere: that is "Imperial Overstretch" -- the phenomenon that facesan over-extended global hyperpower when its strategic commitments around the world exceed its military andresource ability to support them. The British Empire faced this dilemma of "Imperial Overstretch" in the 1930s, as documented by Britishhistorian Corelli Barnett in his classic book, "The Collapse of British Power." Significantly, the problem was exacerbated by a continuing Sunni MuslimArab insurgency in the Middle East in a small country that eventually engaged up to 25 percent of the effective ground combat forces of the BritishArmy. That insurgency in Mandate Palestine, the territory now occupied by the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority territories, was eventuallytotally crushed by the British. The ground commander responsible for defeating it was Bernard Law Montgomery, who later won world renown as thegreatest British combat general of World War II. During the three years from 1936 to 1939 that the Arab Revolt raged in Palestine, Britain's potential

enemies such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy grew increasingly bold. The longer the Iraq insurgency lasts and the more U.S.troops are tied up in combating it or trying to separate rival factions there, the greater is the likelihood that theUnited States will face increasingly serious challenges to its commitments and interests in other parts of theworld. The growing sentiment in Congress to approve a boost in the size of the U.S. Army reflects these concerns that are increasingly felt withinthe Washington Beltway, even when they are not so explicitly articulated. Rumsfeld's successor, former director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates,has lost no time in signaling that he wants to step up recruitment for U.S. ground forces and the initial response in theWhite House and on Capitol Hill has been highly favorable. Obviously, increasing the size of U.S. ground forces does not mean abandoning theenormous Pentagon investment in advanced weapons systems and force multipliers. But the Rumsfeld vision was a very explicit one: Rumsfeld wasdetermined to shrink the size of the conventional army, boost the size of and budget of Special Forces, and pour unprecedented sums into high-tech

weapons and IT systems that the Army and Marines could use in real time. Now, U.S. policymakers are coming up against thebedrock reality that they cannot afford to shrink ground forces any more and that regular conventional forces aswell as the Special Forces Rumsfeld favored will have to grow. The failure to prevent or quickly defeat the Iraq insurgency hasbrought home forcibly the old truth, repeatedly emphasized by such old Army men as retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, that there is no substitute forhaving enough boots on the ground, and well-trained soldiers to put in them. Rumsfeld never admitted that to the day he left the Pentagon. Hissuccessor has already acknowledged it. That is the lasting strategic change that bitter experience in Iraq in 2006 has taught the policymakers of theUnited States.

B. Plan uses Special Forces to do de-miningMajor Michael F. Lizelman, Civil affairs operations officer, special operations command, Ph.D. in Public Policy, August

2002 (Benefit/Cost Analysis of U.S. Demining in Ethiopia and Eritrea, http://maic.jmu.edu/Journal/6.2/focus/michaellitzelman/michaellistzelman.htm)

This study has found that this may be true for peacekeeping operations, but not for the humanitarian deminingoperations, which consist of Special Operation Forces. Initially, U.S. Special Operation soldiers28 gained accessand experience, but this was generally during the period of building its demining infrastructure, while training theEthiopian soldiers how to train their own personnel. Since then, only a few liaison officers have gained that experience.Special Forces soldiers have continued to train in-country, but on other soldier tasks (i.e., infantry skills) as well. Ademining program could only consist of a few months' deployment for these elite personnel, who would train the hostnationals. (6) Generally increasing morale among U.S. troops while enabling them to engage in activities withmeasurable benefits that are greatly appreciated by the host population. Morale among U.S. troops has not beensurveyed.

C. Iraq is key to fight global terrorism defeat there is global defeatLosAngelesTimes 8-29-2006 (Bush Shields US, Cheney Says, p. Lexis, hl)

In his address, Cheney said that Iraq was a key part of the administration's anti-terrorism effort and that pulling outwould be a mistake. "A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation tofurther violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States," he said."We have only two options in Iraq -- victory or defeat."


15/79


D. Future terrorist attacks will cause extinctionYonahAlexander, Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8-28-2003 (Washington Times, p. Lexis)

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that theinternational community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terroristthreats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a

mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that onSeptember 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of thenation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts ofterrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomaticefforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as wellas scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons,including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism,the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and

psychological warfare.Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale ofviolence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization andbrutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g.biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regionaland global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices"strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminatedcompletely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must bejustified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me libertyand I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose ofterrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment ofsocieties. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa MartyrBrigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state.Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its statedobjective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terroristinfrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. Theargument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perceptioncontinues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terroristattacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be aneffective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of theIslamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsiblefor several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operationin Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus , it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a

cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite ofterror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival. "


16/79


Readiness low alt cause

Readiness is inevitably jacked alt causes plan cant hope to solve:

A) Iraq and the War on TerrorUSFedNews 9-13-2006 (United States Army Military Readiness, p. Lexis, hl)

As we have come to expect, the U.S. Army is imbued with a "whatever-it-takes" spirit of commitment and hardwork; it has been given a mission and it will complete that mission. Yet, it is becoming increasingly apparent thatthat level of commitment has not been met by the civilian officials charged with overseeing and assuring the well-being ofour military. The mere fact that roughly one-half of the entire U.S. Army is reported to be at the lowest level ofmilitary readiness speaks volumes in this regard. Perhaps most troubling to many of the Army's senior uniformedleaders is the lack of national attention to the Army's plight. To suggest that the Global War on Terror will last foryears, yet fail to even acknowledge - let alone take steps to address - the Army's readiness, equipment, andpersonnel shortfalls, is viewed as short-sighted at best. At worst, the future security and deterrent power of theUnited States is dangerously at risk.

B) Incompetence in the Pentagon, equipment shortages

USFedNews 9-13-2006 (United States Army Military Readiness, p. Lexis, hl)

The U.S. Army's preparedness for war has eroded to levels not witnessed by our country in decades. Asdeployments to Iraq and Afghanistan continue unabated, there is a very real prospect that Army readiness willcontinue to erode, undermining its ability to meet the theater commanders' needs and foreclosing any option for theU.S. to respond to conflicts elsewhere around the globe. The degradation of Army readiness is primarily a functionof unanticipated high troop deployment levels to Iraq, chronic equipment and personnel shortages, fundingconstraints, and Pentagon civilian mismanagement.

C) Drug and discipline problemsUSFedNews 9-13-2006 (United States Army Military Readiness, p. Lexis, hl)

* The lowest readiness levels for the vast majority of non-deployed active-duty combat units. The situation for

the Army Guard and Reserves is worse. * Thousands of key Army weapons platforms - such as tanks,Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles - sitting in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding. *Indications of growing drug and discipline problems among the newest Army recruits.

D) Lack of training time due to equipment failuresUSFedNews 9-13-2006 (United States Army Military Readiness, p. Lexis, hl)

* Many Army units here at home have been forced to spend much of their time and energy on managingequipment and personnel shortfalls, instead of training or spending time with their families. * Commanders atall levels reporting that Army families are becoming increasingly anxious, even angry, about current and futuredeployments.

E) Afghanistan is on the brink

US Fed News 5-4-2007 (Iraq, Afghan Wars Cause Concern in US Military About Readiness, p. Lexis, hl)

The United States has had troops in combat in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003. Aside from thethousands of dead and wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, there is growing concern that the strain onthe force could have implications for the future of U.S. military readiness. The top U.S. military officer, GeneralPeter Pace, says it is something he watches closely. "I think we must pay attention to that every single day,because it's not a precise point on a curve where we can say when you get to this point, something good or badis going to happen," he said.


17/79


Heg High Now

American hegemony remains unchallengedset backs are recoverable and resources prove thatthe US has the most hard powerTheEconomist, July 04, 2007, Demons Jangle Americans Nerves, but US is still No. 1 Superpower, THE SEATTLE

POST-INTELLIGENCER, lexis)

Yet America is being underestimated. Friends and enemies have mistaken the short-term failure of the Bushadministration for deeper weakness. Neither American hard nor soft power is fading. Rather, they are not being used aswell as they could be. The opportunity is greater than the threat. It is hard to deny that America looks weaker than it didin 2000. But is that really due to a tectonic shift or to the errors of a single administration? Dick Cheney and DonaldRumsfeld reversed the wise Rooseveltian doctrine, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." After Sept. 11, 2001, the White Housetalked up American power to an extraordinary degree. In that brief period of "shock and awe" when Americans were from Mars,their Venutian allies were lucky to get invited to the show (indeed, in Afghanistan some "old" Europeans were initially turnedaway). Meanwhile, Bush declared a "war on terror," rather than just on al-Qaida, broadening the front to unmanageabledimensions (and paving the way for Guantanamo). While the talk was loud, the stick was spindly. Defying his generals, Rumsfeldsent too few troops to Iraq to pacify the country. Disbanding the Iraqi army compounded the error. Regardless of whether Iraqwas ever winnable, it is hard to imagine any future American administrations making such schoolboy howlers when it comes toregime change.Yet in one way, Bush is unfairly maligned. Contrary to the Democratic version of history, America did not

enjoy untrammeled influence abroad before he arrived. The country that won the Cold War also endured several grievousreverses, notably Vietnam (where 58,000 Americans were killed - sixteen times the figure for Iraq). Iran has been defying

America since Jimmy Carter's presidency, and North Korea for a generation before that. As for soft power, France has beencomplaining about Coca-Cola and Hollywood for nearly a century. From this perspective of relative rather than absolutesupremacy, a superpower's strength lies as much in what it can prevent from happening as in what it can achieve. Eventoday, America's "negative power" is considerable. Very little of any note can happen without at least its acquiescence.Iran and North Korea can defy the Great Satan, but only America can offer the recognition the proliferating regimescrave. In all sorts of areas - be it the fight against global warming or the quest for an Arab-Israeli peace - America isquite simply indispensable. That is because America still has the most hard power. Its volunteer army is indeed stretched:It could not fight another small war of choice. But it can still muster 1.5 million people under arms and a defense budget almostas big as the whole of the rest of the world's. And it could call on so much more: In relation to the country's size, its defensebudget and Army are quite small by historical standards.

US hegemony is still high despite the Iraq war: lack of global rival, strong economy and populationgrowth, and scientific innovationsLeonHadar, Washington Correspondent, July 6, 2007, Iraq-scarred US may settle for Primus inter pares, The BusinessTimes Singapore, lexis)

'MIRROR, Mirror on the Wall; Who is the Biggest Superpower of all?' That is the question being asked by foreign policy punditsin Washington these days, as they ponder the impact of the military quagmire in the Middle East on America's preeminent globalposition. Indeed, policy wonks who have been searching for the Next Big Thing in the geo-strategic arena seemed to have foundit: Which power is rising and which one is falling? Is the world's Only Remaining Superpower losing its power as a result ofthe mess in Iraq? And if so, who will replace America as the leading hegemon? The Economist, the British magazine that hasalways been bullish on America - it considers the United States successor to the British Empire - puts it simply on a recentcover. 'Still No 1', it declares, next to a cartoon of Uncle Sam standing in the boxing arena and ready to punch again despite hisinjuries. It calls America a 'hobbled' hegemon, and concludes that while the problems in Iraq may have weakened the

US, it is still likely to remain the 'dominant superpower'. Much of the support for the Still-No1 thesis, which not surprisingly isalso very popular among members of the foreign policy establishment in Washington (after all, who really wants to be a memberof an elite in charge of a declining power?) is based on numbers: The US has the largest and most-advanced economy andthe largest of most-powerful military. Even those who cheer for China agree that China will not become the world'slargest economy before 2050 (and even that proposition is very 'iffy'). And no one expects any of America's potential globalrivals (the European Union; Russia; China; India) to outspend the US on defence and overtake it in the military sphereanytime soon. It just ain't gone to happen. Period. One can also make an argument that when it comes to the EuropeanUnion and Russia, America is a nation that continues to grow in population as a result of immigration and relatively highbirth-rates.And that notwithstanding the advances that the Chinese, Indians and the Europeans are making in science andtechnology, America's open and dynamic free-market economy as well as its impressive elite universities and researchinstitutions help the Americans to maintain their status as the world's centre of scientific and technological creativity.


18/79


AT: Envi ronment Adv

Status quo solves:

A) Mine Ban TreatyClaudio Torres-Nachon, Center for Environmental Law and Economic Inegration, 2000 (Environmental Aspects of theInternational Crisis, http://www.icbl.org/lm/2000/appendices/environment.html, hl)

Third, multilateral, environmental and humanitarian demining organizations should work together with countriesParty to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty towards the development and ultimate establishment of a MinimumEnvironmental Standard (MES) for the destruction of antipersonnel landmines. A first step should be the detailedsharing of specific environmental measuring and mitigation techniques used during destruction of stockpile and plantedlandmines between technologically advanced and developing or less developed countries.

B) Even in countries without Mine Ban, environmental initiatives spill overClaudio Torres-Nachon, Center for Environmental Law and Economic Inegration, 2000 (Environmental Aspects of theInternational Crisis, http://www.icbl.org/lm/2000/appendices/environment.html, hl)

Fourth, in countries where the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has not been signed or ratified, it may probe effective tofollow a strategy consisting on distributing this and other publications on environmental impacts of landminesto national environmental organizations in order to get them on board for advocacy goals for signature,ratification and/or effective implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. By doing so, environmental organizationsmay become part of national campaigns and use their influence to advance in the goal of universal ban of landmines.


19/79


AT: Death and dest ruct ion/landmines Adv

Landmine use is inevitable multiple countries

A) BurmaBurmanetNews 11-23-2005 (Landmine Use in Burma Increases, http://www.burmanet.org/news/2005/11/23/irrawaddy-landmine-use-in-burma-increases/ , hl)

Several armed ethnic opposition groups in Burma possess the capability of building a variety of mines,including blast, fragmentation, Claymore-style and anti-handling fuse devices.Landmine use is inevitable because of our small troop numbers and lack of weapons in comparison to thestrength of the SPDC, said Manh Sha, general secretary of the Karen National Union. He added that the KNU will stopusing landmines when Burmas military regime collapses.

B) United StatesMelvinGoodman, writer for Washington Monthly, December2000 (Shotgun Diplomacy, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi m1316/is_12_32/ai_68148602, hl)

But the cincs have made land mines a readiness issue and will not budge. Not even the inauguration of atentative peace between the two Koreas and the beginning of summit diplomacy between the United States andNorth Korea has led to new thinking at the Pentagon.

C) KoreaBBC 8-13-1997 (South Cites Norths War Threat in Opposing Ban on Mines, p. Lexis, hl)

In discussions between US Secretary of State Madeleine Albrightand her South Korean counterpart, Yu Chong-ha, concerning the deployment of anti-personnel landmines, they agreed that use of the landmines on theKorean Peninsula was inevitable given the special security situation on the peninsula.


20/79


AT: Malaria Adv

Alt causes:

A) RefugeesJoseMontalvo, Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2007 (Fighting Against Malaria: Prevent Wars WhileWaiting for the Miraculous Vaccine, p. Lexis, hl)

TheWorldHealth Organizationestimates that 300 million clinical cases of malaria occur annually and observed thatduring the 80s and part of the 90s its incidence increased. In this paper, we explore the influence of refugees fromcivil wars on the incidence of malaria in the refugee-receiving countries. Using civil wars as an instrumentalvariable, we show that for each 1,000 refugees there are between 2,000 and 2,700 cases of malaria in the refugee-receiving country. On average 13% of the cases of malaria reported by the WHO are caused by forced migrationas a consequence of civil wars.

B) ClimateJoseMontalvo, Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2007 (Fighting Against Malaria: Prevent Wars WhileWaiting for the Miraculous Vaccine, p. Lexis, hl)

There are two predominant views with respect to the incidence of malaria. The first one, represented by J. Sachs, andalso expressed in some reports from the WorldHealth Organization, is that malaria is basically determined by theecological conditions of the tropics.

C) Cut aid programsUSFedNews 10-12-2006 (Africa Warns the General Assembly It Will Stay Trapped in Life and Death Struggle if DonorsFail to Deliver on Promised Aid Pledges to Lift Lagging Development, p. Lexis, hl)

Also before the Assembly is a note of the Secretary-General transmitting the World Health Organization's (WHO) reporton the 2001-2010: Decade to Roll Back Malaria in Developing Countries, Particularly in Africa (document A/61/218and corr.1), which highlights the progress made in meeting the 2010 malaria goals since last year. Fundingshortages, lack of technical expertise, weak health systems and inadequate planning have slowed progress,

according to the report.

D) Civil conflictUSFedNews 10-12-2006 (Africa Warns the General Assembly It Will Stay Trapped in Life and Death Struggle if DonorsFail to Deliver on Promised Aid Pledges to Lift Lagging Development, p. Lexis, hl)

International bilateral and multilateral funding partners should not develop parallel policies that compete with technicalpolicies and strategies developed by the WHO, the report says. It also calls on international funding institutions toincrease research and development funds, stating that malaria's impact on the world's population in terms ofresources is roughly 10 times the current amount slated worldwide for malaria research and development.

Also before the Assembly is the progress report of the Secretary-General on implementation of the recommendationscontained in his report on the causes of conflict and promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa(document A/61/213), which draws attention to recent efforts towards conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping

and peacebuilding activities. The report also provides policy recommendations to support the transition from war topeace and conflict prevention. The reports says that, while prospects for peace in a number of African countrieshave improved during the year, root causes like extreme poverty, gross inequalities and weak State capacitycontinue to cause conflict. These root causes are exacerbated by other factors such as external support forrepressive regimes, exclusionary Government policies and small arms proliferation. Religion, ethnicity andeconomic conditions also mobilize people to engage in violent action while forsaking civil responsibility.


21/79


Status quo solves:

A) International partnershipsUSFedNews 10-12-2006 (Africa Warns the General Assembly It Will Stay Trapped in Life and Death Struggle if DonorsFail to Deliver on Promised Aid Pledges to Lift Lagging Development, p. Lexis, hl)

Launched in 1998 by the WHO, the Decade Partnership includes the World Bank, the United Nations Children'sFund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), malaria-endemic countries, and a host ofother private and public organizations. The Partnership seeks to reduce malaria mortality by 50 per cent by2010, and by 75 per cent by 2015.

B) VaccinesUSFedNews 12-6-2006 (African Health Officials Prepare for New Malaria Vaccine, p. Lexis, hl)

Officials are meeting in Ghana to discuss ways to get an early start on administering malaria vaccines in Africa.The vaccine is currently on trial in six African countries. Malaria is a major cause of death for children in sub-Sahara

Africa. Efam Dovi has more on the story for VOA, from the Ghanaian capital, Accra.

C) DDTTren andCoticelli, 2005. [ Richard, Director, Coticelli, Researcher, both of the health advocacy group Africa FightingMalaria, Nov 9 http://www.fightingmalaria.org/news.aspx?id=136]

One of the best ways of controlling malaria is to use the insecticide that most environmentalists love to hate -- DDT.If mosquitoes and parasites were not enough to contend with, the politics surrounding the use of DDT and vestedinterests that oppose it make it nearly impossible for countries to use DDT for malaria control in spite of its incrediblesuccess.DDT was first used during World War II to halt the spread of lice-borne typhus. Typhus epidemics raged in many war-tornareas. DDT powder was dusted over civilians, soldiers and concentration-camp survivors and put in their clothes andbedding, and before long the spread of the disease was halted.Malaria-control experts soon noted the success of DDT in typhus control and began to apply the insecticideagainst mosquitoes. When used in malaria control, DDT is sprayed in tiny quantities on the inside walls of houses. Thisapplication repels mosquitoes so that they don't enter houses to feed on humans, and kills them if they do

enter. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) with DDT eradicated malaria in the US and Europe and led to spectaculardeclines in the disease in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Wherever DDT was used in public health, death anddisease fell and the conditions for development and wealth creation improved.


22/79


Solvency Frontline

De-mining fails without safety reform laundry listRichardLAbbe, ArisMakris, and DerrickYoung, President, Vice President, and Business Development Officer of

Med-Eng Systems Inc. Summer1999 (Body Protection Systems for Use in Humanitarian De-mining, http://maic.jmu.edu/

journal/3.2/profiles/labbe/protection.htm, hl)

Several participants, including Dan Layton, executive director of the Marshall Legacy Institute in Virginia, argued that thelack of effective coordination of demining activities and failure by demining stakeholders to move more urgentlyto improve coordination and collaboration are two pressing issues which must be resolved in order to improvesafety standards and make international demining activities more efficient. The focus group participants alsoagreed that the following issues hamper efforts to improve personal protection for deminers:* Inadequate documentation available on the relative safety of various SOPs.* Little or no information is provided by industry or donors on the protective capability and limitations ofpersonal protective systems against the various threats or categories of mines (blast versus fragmentation). Thisleads to a lack of confidence in the field regarding the effectiveness of protection systems in general.* There are no standards to differentiate between good and poor products.* The equipment that has been historically available is not necessarily appropriate for the humanitariandemining function, nor has it been adequately tested against the various mine threats. The results of such tests have not

been properly documented.* Local authorities requesting the equipment are not fully informed about the appropriate equipment requiredand/or available to them.* Decision-makers in donor communities do not always have the technical information available to allow them

to make an optimal choice customized to the needs or threats of the given theaters.* Politics also cause problems when countries direct monies towards the donation of specific equipment that cannot besupported by the local infrastructure or equipment that is not compatible with the local needs and culture.

De-mining tech is faulty and wont work in African terrainJanePorter, President of the Porter Education Group, 2002 (Landmines: Eliminating the Threat, http://school.newsweek.com/pdf/Land_Mines_Study_Guide.pdf?PHPSESSID=62f7919cdeaf06304b1921c251d59c2a, hl)

Disadvantages: Mechanical technologies are expensive and difficult to maintain and transport. They can workonly in certain terrains and environments and can disturb and destroy areas where they are used. Humansand/or dogs must follow machinery to ensure that the area is mine-free.

Tech fails doesnt detect all minesJanePorter, President of the Porter Education Group, 2002 (Landmines: Eliminating the Threat, http://school.newsweek.com/pdf/Land_Mines_Study_Guide.pdf?PHPSESSID=62f7919cdeaf06304b1921c251d59c2a, hl)

Disadvantages: Manual demining is slow, hazardous and expensive. Metal detectors may not be able to detectnonmetallic or plastic-encased mines and cannot be used on steel bridges or near railroad tracks. Metaldetectors cannot distinguish between mines and other metallic objects. to agricultural land or urban areas. Theycan detect mines in nonmetallic or plastic casings as well as mines near metal bridges or railroad tracks, where metaldetectors are useless.


23/79


Turn: training locals is counter productiveColonel L. Dyck, Mine Tech Team Operations Advisor and Director, Summer1999 (Claim and Reality: Medically AssistedDemining, http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/3.2/focus/dyck_claim/dyck.htm, hl)

A great number of donor agencies have forgotten or wish to overlook the requirement of the Four Principles and insiston the employment of local, unskilled, deminers. These people, frankly, are counter-productive in any operation,

and if donor agencies just allowed NGOs and commercial mine clearing companies to employ their ownprofessional people, the tasks would be done twice as fast, with greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness, andwith minimum accidents. In most operations in the world, an analysis of the accidents would indicate that theywere brought about by unskilled deminers whom the contractor was forced to employ because of the wish ofthe donor. Although these people are trained, they lack the discipline and experience of the professionaldeminers and rapidly become a hindrance and slow down the operations. Donors should decide whether they wantto spend five years in a country employing the locals to clear mines, or one year in the country employing professionalsto clear the mines, and then spend the additional four years using the money saved to help develop the country.

Turn: technical methods fail but give a false sense of securityColonel L. Dyck, Mine Tech Team Operations Advisor and Director, Summer1999 (Claim and Reality: Medically AssistedDemining, http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/3.2/focus/dyck_claim/dyck.htm, hl)

In discussing the claims and reality of demining the main theme has been that ofthe mechanical aspect. This isbecause more inaccurate claims are made by mechanical operators, manufacturers, and sponsors/ donors, than in anyother form of mine clearing. This is possibly because the mechanical school all believes that they have discovereda silver bullet. This is not so, and the greatest danger to the industry is that this myth persists. Should anydonor organisation allow mechanical appliances to operate in isolation in a mine-clearing role, at this time theyare guilty of murdering the subsequent victims of the "cleared area." It should be clearly understood that until amachine has a record of no dangerous devices being left behind, the area prepared is still a minefield. Manual clearingand/or dogs must be used to verify that the area is safely cleared of all minefields. Notice that the term "dangerousdevices" is used. This is specifically directed at some operations where the mines left behind are no longer minesbecause an external fuse has been knocked off and the device is no longer a mine. It does however contain explosiveand a detonator and has been roughly handled by the machine. It could be much more dangerous than a mine.

No timeframe for solvency clearing all mines would take more than 1000 years

AfricaPolicyInformationCenter April 1997 (Landmines: Africas Stake, Global Initiatives, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/lmi01/, hl)

A decade earlier, in 1983, an internationally negotiated landmines treaty imposed restrictions on the legal use oflandmines in an effort to reduce harm to civilians. That convention has been totally ineffective. Since then, landmineshave become cheaper, harder to detect, easier to disseminate, and more effective in killing and maiming. Militaryplanners in late Cold War and post-Cold War conflicts have often explicitly targeted civilians and the civilian economy.They have found landmines to be effective weapons in damaging these targets. The result is not only increasedcivilian casualties, but also rapidly escalating costs for supplying humanitarian relief and reconstructing war-torn areas once peace is restored. According to some estimates, ridding the world of all existing mine fields wouldcost at least $33 billion and take more than 1,000 years.


24/79


China CP 1NC Shell

Observation One: Text

The Peoples Republic of China should substantially increase its landmine clearance, training, and

risk education efforts in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Well clarify.OR

The Peoples Republic of China should

Observation Two: Competition

The counterplan competes via net benefits solves the case and avoids our disads based on USaction

Observation Three: Solvency

1. China is the best de-miner versatile technology and extensive experienceStatementtotheConventionontheProhibitionofAPLs, 9-13-2000 (Chinas Experience in MineClearance, Geneva, http://www.china-un.ch/eng/cjjk/cjjblc/jhhwx/t85332.htm, hl)

The international community has now recognized that intensifying international mine clearance efforts isimperative to reduce and eliminate the threat of APLs to the safety of innocent civilians. We share the sameview on this point. The Chinese Delegation hereby would like to take this opportunity to exchange information andexperience with other delegations on mine clearance and China's participation in international demining cooperation.The Chinese Government attaches great importance to mine clearance. From early 1992 to August 1999, theChinese Government launched two large-scale demining operations on the Chinese territory along the Chinese-Vietnamese border, clearing an area of over 300 square kilometers, including clearing 1.88 million landminesand 320,000 explosives, and destroying over 700 tons of old ammunitions. As a result, over 290 border posts

and trade passes have been opened up, and more than 60,000 hectares of fields and forests have beenrecovered. Since the end of the mine sweeping operations, there has been no single accident of personnel oranimal causality caused by mines. As a result of the efforts made by the Chinese Government, the landmines on theChinese territory along the Chinese-Vietnamese border have in general been cleared.From the two demining operations in nearly 10 years, we have gained rich experience in mine clearance, developedtechnique-intensive demining equipment and established a contingent of demining experts who are good atscientific and efficient demining methods and rich in demining experience.Chinese demining experts and scientific institutions have jointly developed a series of demining equipment.They include: single-person demining protective equipment, which can protect deminers from the explosion ofalmost all types of APLs in the world; GBP 123 rocket blasting kit, which can be used in burning operations;GTL 115 mine detector, and demining flail, both of which are highly efficient demining equipment.Meanwhile, a series of demining methods, such as burning, blasting, mechanical operation, and manualdetection and clearance, have also been developed. They can be comprehensively used according to differentterrain and geographical conditions of minefields. All of the four methods mentioned above can be applied tominefields in inter-mountain basin, sandy soil and roads. In general, the application of new types of deminingequipment and scientific demining methods have greatly enhanced the efficiency of demining and increased the safety ofdeminers.


25/79


2. China has experience training locals in Eritrea and has been de-mining in Ethiopia for yearsBBC 12-21-2006 (China Trains 230 Foreign Mine Clearance Personnel Since 1999, p. Lexis, hl)

China also donated mine clearance equipment valued at several million US dollars to 11 foreign countries, sourcesadded. China has taken an active part in international de-mining assistance programmes in recent years. In 2005,10 de-mining specialists helped train Thai personnel. In 2002 and 2003, China sent two groups of de-mining experts

to Eritrea for on-site training and donated mine-clearance equipment.In 2001, China donated detection and clearance equipment worth 1.26m US dollars to countries such as Angola,Cambodia, Ethiopia and Mozambique.


26/79


AT: US cooperates internationally

China empirically cooperates with the international community on de-mining effortsStatementtotheConventionontheProhibitionofAPLs, 9-13-2000 (Chinas Experience in MineClearance, Geneva, http://www.china-un.ch/eng/cjjk/cjjblc/jhhwx/t85332.htm, hl)

Mine clearance in underdeveloped countries needs both the efforts of mine-affected countries themselves andthe generous assistance from the international community. China's demining technology and equipment are veryapplicable to developing countries. To eliminate the global threat of mines left over from conflicts to innocent civilians,the Chinese Government has actively participated in international demining cooperation and has consistentlyprovided assistance to some mine-affected countries within its capabilities, which has made due contributions tothe post-war rehabilitation efforts of those countries. In 1998, despite the severest flooding in a century in many areas ofChina, the Chinese Government donated 100,000 US dollars to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine ClearanceAssistance. In October 1999, in collaboration with the UN, China sponsored and hosted the first internationaldemining training course for people from countries seriously affected by mines, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina,Cambodia and Namibia. In May this year, China hosted, with the cooperation of UN, another internationaldemining training course for people from mine-affected counties like Ethiopia, Angola, Rwanda andMozambique. Before 2001, the Chinese Government will donate some mine detection and clearance equipment to theUN Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Clearance Assistance.


27/79


AT: US tech key

China has tech and experience in Africa to do effective de-mining operationsXinhuaNewsService 6-8-2007 (China Destroys Half a Million Landmines, p. Lexis, hl)

China has destroyed more than half a million old or obsolete landmines since it signed a UN de-mining protocolnine years ago, a military official said on Friday. China signed the Amended Protocol on Landmines in 1998. Since thenit has destroyed more than 500,000 old or obsolete landmines in the country's eight disposal stations, accordingto an official with the Headquarters of the General Staff of People's Liberation Army. China has also taken othermeasures -- such as clearing landmines within its border and offering de-mining assistance to other countries --to fulfill its duties under the protocol, the official said. Since 1998, China has taken part in de-mining operations inmore than 10 countries in Asia and Africa, providing them with various forms of assistance including financialsupport, de-mining equipment and technical training.


28/79


AT: US has moral obligation

China has a reciprocal moral obligation it is one of the largest exporters of landminesThalifDeen, UN Bureau Chief, 9-1-1993 (Disarmament: EC Wants UN to Restrict Use of Landmines, Interpress NewsService, p. Lexis, hl)

Titled, "Hidden Killers: The Global Problem with Uncleared Landmines," the report pointed out that mines have becomethe weapon of choice in many developing countries because they are inexpensive and easy to lay. "In a time ofhigh-tech, target-specific weaponry, landmines are perhaps the weapons most consistently dangerous to non-combatants," the report says. The large exporters of landmines include China, the former Soviet republics, Italy,Pakistan, Egypt and Singapore.


29/79


AT: Training locals key

China has de-mined and trained locals in Eritrea proven successXinhuaGeneralNews 12-9-2002 (Chinas Defense White Paper, p. Lexis, hl)

China continues to promote domestic and international mine clearance efforts. China is now basically safe fromlandmine hazards on its own territory. In 2001, China donated large quantities of demining equipment to Cambodia,Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Rwanda, Namibia and Angola. In 2002, it contributed more than 3 million US dollarsfor international mine clearance cooperation, mainly in aid to the demining operations in Eritrea and Lebanon.

Apart from providing the two countries with demining equipment,China has sent a group of mine clearance expertsto Eritrea to give on-the-spot guidance.


30/79


AT: US=most experienced

China has experience in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and other sub Saharan countriesWangLei, Chinese Delegate to the UN, 12-17-2002 (UN Resolutions Also Call for Special Assistance to States, CoherentResponses to Global

Documents

Landmines Neg - 5th Week