Latin America Topic Analysis
Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson, Whitman College
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic
engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela.
This essay will discuss the wording of the 2013-2014 Latin America debate topic. This year you
can look forward to debates about the US trade embargo on Cuba, different aspects of immigration
reform, US assistance to Latin American countries, and engagement with a post-Chavez Venezuela. The
vast range of proposals for expanding US engagement with Latin America ensures a dynamic, interesting
topic with many affirmative solvency mechanisms and negative responses. Consider, for example,
affirmative cases which implement an agricultural guest worker program with Mexico, that do joint oil
development with Cuba, or that provide aid to Venezuela. Are you ready for these affirmatives? Use
this analysis as an introduction to the topic and to guide your research. Identify areas of the topic you
are already strong on, and those that require more research and study. This topic analysis can both help
you select the affirmative case you will advocate, as well as prepare negative responses to the variety of
affirmative cases that will be run this year.
Words in the Resolution
The United States federal government
The agent in this year’s resolution is the United States federal government. The federal government is
chosen as the actor for policy debate topics because it is the policymaking body with jurisdiction over
the entire United States. Limiting the debate to the actions of one central governmental body allows a
limited range of possible affirmative plans and allows negative teams to predict and craft the best
responses. Because the actions of the government are so highly scrutinized, major pieces of legislation,
judicial review and executive action are widely discussed in topic literature. On the Latin America topic
in particular, the federal government is the most logical agent of choice because it is the governmental
body which is in charge of coordinating foreign policy. The most accepted definition of the United
States federal government is: “the Government which, from its capital in the District of Columbia,
directly legislates, administers, and exercises jurisdiction." Under this interpretation, the federal
government is made up of its legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This means that, as is the case
for most affirmative plans, Congress passes a law, the President enforces it, and the Supreme Court
would uphold it as Constitutional were it to be challenged.
Black’s Law Dictionary provides a broader definition of the federal government: “The system of
government administered in a nation formed by the union or confederation of several independent
states.” This definition allows affirmatives to specify a single agent within the United States federal
government. For example, an affirmative plan might have the President issue an executive order limiting
the application of the Cuban embargo, or the Congress might pass a piece of legislation implementing a
guest worker program. Because affirmative solvency evidence often advocates action by a particular
branch of government, affirmatives may find it necessary to defend this particular interpretation of
what the federal government should mean.
Should
The most common definition of the word “should” is that it is “used to express obligation or
duty: You should send her a note.” Thus, “should” is used to express the idea that someone or some
thing ought to take a particular course of action. Here, it is important to note that the action in question
will not necessarily happen. It merely ought to take place; this is no guarantee that it actually will. The
affirmative’s power of “fiat” is derived from this word in the resolution. “Fiat” is the Latin expression for
“let it be done.” This has an important implication for policy debate: affirmative cases need not prove
that the plan would happen, merely that it should. In other words, the affirmative need not prove that
the federal government would choose to endorse their plan today, but rather only must prove that if the
federal government were to adopt the affirmative plan, the results would be favorable. This allows
affirmatives to sidestep most (but not all) questions of the plan’s passage and implementation (while
affirmatives need not prove that the government would endorse their plan, they still must prove that it
would be effective and functional if it were endorsed). Thus, the point of an affirmative case is to prove
that the federal government should endorse their plan, i.e., that the affirmative plan is the best possible
course of action.
Substantially
The word “substantially” is notoriously difficult to define with precision, yet it is still very
important in the construction of a debate topic. “Substantially” is intended to provide a check on the
scope and magnitude of affirmative plans, preventing affirmatives from merely changing minute aspects
of the status quo that negatives cannot be predict or prepare arguments against. If affirmatives could
change any aspect of economic engagement, regardless of scope, then a topical affirmative case could
send one dollar to Mexico and claim an advantage relative to the status quo. Since the effect of one
dollar would be infinitesimally small (yet still an improvement over the status quo), the negative in this
debate would have little ground.
Many teams attempt to define “substantially” numerically. For example, a “substantial” amount
might be taken to be anywhere from 10% to 90%. These definitions, however, merely beg the question,
“10% of what?” Should affirmatives have to increase the amount of money spent on economic
engagement by 10%? Should the plan affect 10% of current engagement? These are the problems that
plague numerical definitions of the word “substantial.” Moreover, most numerical definitions are taken
from particular Supreme Court cases that have little relevance to foreign policy. Thus, numerical
definitions are often of little help in shaping a debate topic.
Fortunately, many of these pitfalls can be overcome by offering a qualitative definition of
“substantially.” Black’s Law Dictionary, for example, defines substantial as “without material
qualification.” Under this definition, affirmative plans would have to defend a blanket increase in
economic engagement. For example, the affirmative might increase funding for all engagement that
exists now. These policies do not “materially qualify” their increase in engagement, which means they
do not restrict themselves to only a certain, small sub-section of engagement policy. If your affirmative
uses a material qualification, you might respond to this argument by pointing out the benefits for
affirmative ground and fair debate of allowing affirmatives to materially qualify.
Increase
Increase is fairly straightforward. A common definition might be “make greater” and just serves
to set the direction of the topic as increasing engagement as opposed to decreasing it. Crafty negatives,
however, will likely interpret the word increase to mean more than this. For example, can the
affirmative topically have the US government give money to non-governmental organizations involved in
exchanges with the target country, or does the government need to be involved? Does increasing
engagement require the affirmative to add on to existing programs, or does it allow them to create a
completely new program? Does an “increase” need to be immediate, or could the affirmative plan be
accomplished through phased engagement? These questions will all be up for debate.
Its
Its is a possessive which connects with “The United States federal government.” It serves to
limit the topic to a discussion of US engagement policy, as opposed to international or private efforts.
For example, Europe engages all the countries in the topic. The affirmative can only topically increase
economic engagement done by the US government, not other actors. This also opens up possible
counterplan ground for some affirmatives on the topic, to increase engagement using another agent.
Economic Engagement
This phrase is the crux of the whole topic. It provides the primary limiting phrase that defines
the parameters of the resolution. In brief, this phrase directs the affirmative to have the federal
government increase its linkages with one of the topic countries in the economic sphere. It is helpful to
consider these two words both as a phrase, and then taken together separately. Most useful for debate
purposes will likely be defining it as a phrase. Since engagement with Latin America has been discussed
frequently over the last few months, as part of the beginning of Obama’s second term, there will be lots
of contextual definitions which speak to what kinds of programs should be topical. While these
definitions may not be exhaustive, they should help give a picture of what types of plans would fit under
the resolution.
To be more specific about what this phrase entails, it helps to examine each individual word as
well. Economic is used as an adjective in this phrase to specify the type of engagement the affirmative
should do. In this context, economic means “related to the economy” or the collection of money, goods,
and services in the country. This includes things like sending aid to the country, boosting trade or
foreign direct investment, or engaging in joint ventures on things like oil development. It may also
include other types of programs which relate to the economy, such as immigration reform, negotiating
investment treaties, or working in multilateral economic organizations. Primarily, the word economic
serves to limit out affirmatives which do other types of non-economic engagement, such as political
engagement – things like sending diplomats, making statements of support in the UN, etc.
“Engagement” is generally taken to describe two agents interacting with one another. In the
context of foreign policy, that usually means policies and programs which serve to increase the flow of
people, money, or service, or the coordination of policies between the two countries. The exact
parameters of that are still up for debate – should engagement include domestic policies with an
economic effect on the target country, such as immigration reform? How about changing tax policy to
make foreign investment easier?
Engagement is also a difficult term to define precisely. In the broadest sense, Engagement
means something like “working with” the target country. Exactly what form this engagement can take is
an open question – while directly sending money to the target country is the most obvious way, there
will be debate over whether the USFG can give money to third parties, such as private industry which
engages with the country. Does economic engagement require placing a condition on the target
country, or a quid pro quo negotiation? Does it require a material transfer of resources? Definitions will
differ on what precisely this means.
Toward
Toward serves to connect the basic idea of “economic engagement” with each of the topic
countries. It serves to limit out purely “effectually” topical cases which do something that might affect
the country in question. It forces the affirmative to do something “in the direction of” the country. There
will be debate, however, on whether “toward” requires the affirmative to directly interact with the
target country in a negotiation, or whether a domestic policy could be topical as long as it dealt with the
country.
Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela
This phrase forces the affirmative to choose one of three countries. Since the country names are
relatively unambiguous, this will likely not be a major source of topicality arguments, unless a team
attempts to do something like engage with a totally different country. It is worth noting, however, that
the topic only utilizes the word “or” rather than “and/or.” This means that the affirmative is topically
limited to engaging only one of the countries, not more than one at a time. It also means that there is
some ground opened up for the negative to read counterplans which engage with one of the other topic
countries that the affirmative didn’t pick. While these counterplans would be unlikely to solve countryspecific advantages, they might be able to remedy advantages related to US-Latin America relations or
the symbol of US economic engagement with other countries.
Conclusion
This analysis of the 2013-2014 Latin America topic has aimed to help you prepare for a wide
range of debates. This topic provides a wide degree of affirmative flexibility in choosing how and where
to increase economic engagement, which will allow the affirmative to be creative both in their plan
mechanism and in their advantages in order to keep negative teams guessing. At the same time, this will
allow negative teams to craft solid, in-depth responses to most typical “genres” of affirmative plans, and
allow them to write generic arguments which apply to any type of aff. Finally, you should use this
resolution analysis to begin thinking about which cases are and are not topical. Focus on the key terms
in the resolution that allow for the most debate. What is the distinction between a policy that only
increases engagement, and one that takes other actions (such as negotiating a quid pro quo)? Should
affirmatives be forced to increase engagement in general, or can affirmatives pick and choose which
type of engagement to focus on? These are some of the key questions that will come up in topicality
debates throughout the 2013-2014 season.
Potential Affirmative Cases
Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson, Whitman College
Below is a short list and description for potential cases on this year’s topic. Included in the discussion of
these affirmative cases is a short explanation of the current problems and issues and potential plan
mechanisms that could be utilized to solve these problems.
Common Advantage Areas
Keep in mind that many affirmatives on this topic will be able to access the same basic
advantage ground. The fundamental area of debate on this topic is whether the US should increase
economic engagement with Latin America. All the various types of harms which arise due to current US
foreign policy are potential affirmative advantages. While each affirmative will have a different plan
mechanism or unique reason for their particular type of engagement, most affirmatives have at least the
potential to claim one of a few set of “core” advantages.
Foremost is the generic Relations advantage. This advantage says that the United States is not
sufficiently engaging with Latin America as a region, failing to build relations with countries in our own
back yard. The affirmative will say that with Obama’s second term starting and political changes through
the region such as the death of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the loosening of
economic policy in Cuba that the United States has an important window of opportunity to build
stronger relationships. This advantage claims that other countries, such as China and Russia, are building
engagement with the region, and a failure to keep pace will undermine our economy and US global
leadership. This will undercut US hegemony, and cause the breakdown of global order. Any affirmative
which does engagement can likely claim this as an advantage and say the country they engage is a key
signal.
Another generic advantage is the Economy. The US economy remains on relatively weak footing,
and there are many economists who think that increasing trade and other economic links with countries
in Latin America could provide an important boost to recovery. This is proffered as the main focus of
Obama’s latest agenda with the region. The affirmative will say that Latin America (or their specific
country) is an important and growing developing economy, and that engagement with them would offer
substantial gains. Any affirmative which does a substantial amount of engagement would be able to
claim this as an advantage.
A last advantage held in common by many affirmatives is Latin American economies. This is the
inverse of the prior example. All three topic countries have developing economies, and could benefit
substantially from increased trade and economic links with the United States. This might be important
to bring people out of poverty, aid in the creation of more sustainable democracies, and prevent
political instability. Any affirmative which implemented a form of economic engagement with the
country that boosted their economy could claim this as an advantage.
Cuba
The United States has maintained an embargo on Cuba since the early 1960’s, when it was
implemented in response to the socialist administration of Fidel Castro nationalizing the Cuban assets of
US companies. The United States has further strengthened its restrictions over the years, so that it now
maintains an almost complete embargo on trade or travel to Cuba. Despite this, the US does allow a
limited amount of trade, mostly for food and medical supplies. The embargo gained in political
importance during the Cold War, when it was perceived as an important tool for opposing the spread of
Soviet communist ideology. Its stated purpose is to cut off the economic lifeline of the communist
Cuban regime, in order to encourage their transition to a democratic government which respects human
rights.
The vast majority of observers of US policy think that the embargo on Cuba has been a failure.
The Castro family has thumbed its nose at the embargo and remained in power for over 50 years, and
despite limited moves towards economic reforms, retains much of its socialist character. And while Cuba
has become somewhat less aggressively anti-American, it still remains fairly inimical to US interests in
the region, striking alliances with other socialist regimes such as Venezuela. In 2011, Fidel’s brother Raul
took over as President of Cuba, and is widely viewed as more moderate – leading many commentators
in the United States to call for a re-opening of ties with Cuba, or even an outright end to the embargo.
Cuba will likely be the most popular area of the topic for affirmative cases. The literature base is
definitely biased towards the affirmative, especially in recent years, and there are a wide variety of
proposals for reform of our relationship toward Cuba. The first and most obvious affirmative in this area
will be to remove the embargo on Cuba entirely. The affirmative will argue that it is an outdated relic of
the Cold War, and that it should be eliminated. Another genre of affirmative will be to create
exemptions to the embargo for a particular industry or product, such as agricultural trade or oil drilling.
Given its geographic proximity to the United States, Cuba represents a large potential market for
a variety of United States exports. And the Cuban economy remains underdeveloped after decades of
anti-market economic policies, meaning there is wide potential for US economic engagement to alter
Cuba’s economy. All of these affirmatives will also be able to claim advantages from the symbolic
importance of changing the US approach to Cuba – the US is essentially alone in the entire world in their
ongoing opposition to Cuba, and is frequently condemned in both the region and the UN for continuing
its policy of isolation.
Mexico
Mexico is likely to be the second most popular area for affirmative cases. Mexico is much more
populous and has a much larger economy than the other two countries in the resolution, creating more
opportunities for different forms of economic engagement. On the other hand, the United States has a
fairly robust and long standing economic relationship with Mexico – they are our second largest trading
partner, after Canada. Because the United States has a fairly high degree of economic engagement with
Mexico now, the affirmative will have a more difficult time differentiating the affirmative from the
status quo.
There is also a new wave of literature emerging about the potential for US engagement with
Mexico. They have just elected a new president, Peña Nieto, and Obama has recently gone on a trip of
several Latin American countries, including Mexico, the focus of which was on expanding economic
engagement. Since 9-11, the US-Mexico relationship has frequently focused on border security and
fighting terrorism and drug trafficking. Now, there are calls for the relationship to become more
economically focused, with greater attention paid to increasing trade and other economic linkages.
Affirmatives will likely draw on these arguments for a variety of ways to expand economic engagement.
One of the largest issues between the US and Mexico is immigration. Millions of Mexicans
immigrate to the United States, both legally and illegally, and this is frequently a source of tension on
both sides of the border. The affirmative could easily characterize a variety of proposals for modernizing
the US immigration system toward Mexico as economic engagement. For example, there are calls for
the creation of a “guest worker” program to allow Mexican laborers in the agricultural industry to work
temporarily in the United States. This could be important to remedy impending labor shortages and
maintain the competitiveness of the US agricultural sector. There are also calls for more broad-ranging
forms of immigration reform, including the creation of a pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants.
One thing to keep in mind is that the US congress is actively debating comprehensive immigration
reform as of this writing – you will need to keep abreast of ongoing political changes and how they
affect the topic.
The Affirmative may also do other forms of engagement with Mexico, such as providing foreign
aid or engaging in joint ventures for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The affirmative will also be able to
claim that their form of economic engagement is key to improve US-Mexico relations, which could be
important to solve a variety of foreign policy issues.
Venezuela
The United States has a complicated relationship with Venezuela. On the one hand, the two
countries are frequently at odds with one another on issues of foreign policy, with Venezuela widely
seen as playing the “spoiler” role in the region for US interests. On the other hand, unlike Cuba, with
whom the US has a near total embargo, the US maintains a fairly strong economic relationship with
Venezuela – they have been in the top five countries from which the United States imports oil in recent
years. This is despite the Venezuelan regime’s socialist government and outspoken opposition to US
policy.
With the recent death of long time president/dictator Hugo Chavez, there are a number of calls
for the United States to strengthen engagement with Venezuela and open a new chapter in USVenezeulan relations. Despite this, Venezuela is likely to be the least popular country for affirmative’s to
draw from. This is because there is a smaller number of concrete proposals for what the United States
should do to economically engage them, as opposed to political or diplomatic engagement.
One potential area would be for the United States to provide aid to Venezuela. This could take
the form of development assistance, since Venezuela remains a relatively poor country, or democracy
assistance to help with the post-Chavez transition (though this may be more questionably topical under
some interpretations of economic engagement). The United States also maintains a few sanctions on
Venezuela, especially on their oil sector for trading with Iran. One affirmative proposal would be to
remove these sanctions.
The Affirmative could also advocate an expansion of US-Venezuela engagement in the oil sector.
While Venezuela is already a major oil supplier to the US, the level of imports has fallen in recent years,
and the Venezuelan oil industry is in need of additional financing for expansion and infrastructure
improvement. There may also be proposals for additional joint ventures in the are of exploration and
drilling. These affirmatives could claim advantages from reducing US dependence on oil imported from
other areas, such as the Middle East, as well as advantages related to the economy and the perception
of engagement with Venezuela.
This list is certainly not exhaustive – there will be many takes on how to increase engagement with Latin
America. More importantly, there are many different policy suggestions from both sides of the political
spectrum for what US foreign policy to the region should be – and all of these will be accessed at some
point by affirmative teams. Make sure to do your own research to explore likely directions the
affirmative might take.
Arguing Negative On The Latin America Topic
Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson, Whitman College
Below you will find a general overview of the negative side of the 2013-2014 Latin America
topic, as well as specific descriptions of responses to affirmative cases, disadvantages, counterplans, and
critiques. You can argue that current plans to engage Latin America are sufficient and should not be
expanded. You can argue that increases in engagement are actively harmful and would actually make
problems worse. You can argue that the disadvantages of increasing engagement, such as the cost or
the political backlash would outweigh the benefits of the affirmative plan. You can argue that different
agents could better implement plans. Use this topic overview as a starting point for your research into
the negative side of the Latin America topic.
Case Responses
Be prepared to defend the present approach of US Latin America policy. Research evidence and
arguments that refute the harms that affirmatives are likely to present. Use the affirmative topic
analysis included in this handbook to prepare for likely affirmative cases and research attacks against
their solvency. Here are some of the many possible negative responses you can make to affirmative
cases:
•
Current plans for US engagement are adequate – the Obama administration is refocusing efforts
on boosting ties with the region, and many members of Congress are calling for steps to engage the
countries in the region or fix problems with US immigration policy. The negative could also argue that
private industry will ensure solving the affirmative harms in the future, for example by going through
third countries to engage the topic countries.
•
Focusing on Latin America is the wrong focus – there are many problems with US foreign policy
and relations with other countries, and time and resources devoted to Latin America may take decades
to see effects. Those resources may be better spent on engaging other countries or taking steps to
improve US relations with other areas.
•
Be prepared to really go after the solvency of affirmative plans. Remember, the topic only allows
affirmatives to increase economic engagement – not guarantee that the results of that engagement will
be productive. The affirmative must defend that their plan will actually work or succeed at reducing the
harms. To win that they solve many of the largest impacts, this will require the affirmative to win that
the target country agrees to the affirmative plan, that the economics will work out in favor of their plan,
and that it is even possible to improve the situation in the topic countries. If any of these programs were
simple or guaranteed, we likely would have done them by now. This also means that many of the
problems with current Latin America policy are also potential solvency attacks against affirmative plans.
Failed past policies and things which politicians have failed to support as too “pie-in-the-sky” are just
two examples of the types of evidence you can use to support your solvency arguments. Remember, you
should both show why the affirmative proposal won’t work and why it will make things worse. This will
make your solvency arguments as strong as possible.
As the year progresses, new affirmatives will emerge and you will need to research and strategize to
defeat them. Use the arguments presented here to jumpstart your research. Against any new
affirmative, be sure to defend the status quo, attack the significance of the affirmative’s harms, and
attack the affirmative’s solvency. This strategy is sure to put you in a good position to win a debate over
the affirmative’s case.
Disadvantages
Here are disadvantages you and others might prepare against increasing economic engagement:
•
Appeasement disadvantage: Since at least two of the countries in the topic (Cuba and
Venezuela) have recently been adversarial in their relations with the United States, rewarding their
behavior with economic engagement may send the wrong signal to the rest of the world about the
United States’ willingness to appease “rogue” actors. This could undermine the US negotiating stance in
other areas, for example with Iran or North Korea. Weakening US credibility could make those conflicts
more intractable, and spur war or nuclear proliferation.
•
Politics disadvantage: The plan could be argued to either help or hurt Obama’s political agenda.
Economic engagement policies are frequently unpopular because they are perceived as too expensive,
or because they spread the cost to many while only benefiting a few. On the other hand, engagement
programs can be very popular when they benefit specific constituencies, or when they are perceived as
very necessary. Passing popular or unpopular programs could give President Obama increased or
decreased ability to pursue other, potentially harmful policies.
•
Midterm Elections disadvantage: The 2014 midterm elections are shaping up to be extremely
important politically, as they could impact whether Obama can pursue his agenda with a sympathetic
Congress or whether he will be considered a “lame duck” for the remainder of his presidency. For many
of the same reasons mentioned above, the plan could have important political effects in how the
electorate views Obama and the Democrats more broadly.
•
Spending disadvantage: Some forms of economic engagement, such as foreign aid, could be
extremely costly. The scale of spending necessary to fix some problems in Latin America, such as
poverty, could cost billions of dollars. The US is already running huge fiscal deficits – and spending a
great deal of money which the US doesn’t currently have could have negative effects on the US
economy.
•
Sphere of Influence disadvantage: Some people argue that a lack of US engagement in Latin
America is allowing other countries, such as China or Russia, to increase their investments and ties to
Latin America. The affirmative could reverse this perception, encroaching onto those countries “sphere
of influence” in the hemisphere. That could in turn undermine the political or economic goals of China
or Russia, causing economic collapse or competitive wars over resources and investment.
Counterplans
Here are counterplans on the Latin America topic:
•
Political Engagement counterplan: instead of doing economic engagement, this counterplan
mandates doing other forms of political engagement instead. This could take the form of diplomacy,
negotiations, or non-economic incentives to the topic country. This counterplan has the benefit of
avoiding certain politics and economic arguments, and might argue that political engagement is a
necessary prerequisite to the effectiveness of economic engagement with Latin America.
•
International counterplan: Many affirmatives will lack a good reason why only the United States
can enact the plan. This counterplan argues instead that another country should implement the plan,
such as Canada or the European Union. This has the advantage of avoiding downsides to US action, such
as the politics disadvantage or reasons why US engagement would be harmful. This is likely to be one of
the most popular counterplans on the topic, due to its general applicability.
•
Advantage counterplans: since so many affirmatives on the topic share the same goals –
improving US relations with the region or boosting the economy, for example, there will be many
affirmative ideas which could be re-used as counterplans when debating a different case. For example,
against a case which engaged Cuba, the negative might read a counterplan to engage Venezuela instead,
and argue that engaging Cuba would be detrimental.
•
Plan-inclusive counterplans: this is an entire category of counterplans, rather than one specific
plan. These counterplans advocate part of the affirmative plan, while excluding the rest and claiming the
benefit of excluding the parts of the plan that link to disadvantages. For example, a plan-inclusive
counterplan against an affirmative which lifted the embargo on Cuba could advocate only lifting
restrictions on agricultural trade, and claim that lifting the embargo in other areas would only
strengthen the Cuban regime.
Kritiks
What kinds of kritiks may be run on this year’s topic? Here goes:
•
Security kritik: this kritik argues that affirmative plans which attempt to avoid “security” impacts
such as wars by improving the US position of leadership in the world lead to a cycle of insecurity through
threat construction. This might extend to criticizing representations of conflicts or security concerns.
The kritik rejects this way of describing the world and says we should instead use more positive
representations or discourse.
•
Development kritik: this kritik argues that US economic engagement policy is built around the
idea of “improving” countries that are “less developed,” which creates a hierarchy in which the US is
cast as superior to other countries. This, in turn, justifies racism or even military intervention to “fix”
those countries or make them into our image. The kritik would reject this way of thinking and avoid
using development discourse or thinking.
•
Capitalism kritik: this kritik argues that the root cause of problems on Earth is the existence of
capitalism. It argues that policy proposals which attempt to economically engage other countries take
place within an exploitative capitalist system and only reproduce the problems. It will argue that the
only way to truly solve is to reject the whole capitalist system.
•
Race kritik: this kritik will argue that the impacts of economic engagement are not experienced
equitably by people of different races. For example, economic engagement with Mexico only benefits
people of a certain ethnic background – while ignoring the impact of failed US policies in other parts of
Latin America, such as Haiti. This kritik will argue that these racist assumptions should be rejected.
•
Coercion kritik: this kritik will argue that the only legitimate function of government is to provide
for the common defense and protect private property – and that things like US economic engagement
should be done entirely by private enterprise. The kritik will argue that it is immoral for the government
to tax people in order to fund the plan, and that this form of government coercion should be resisted at
all costs.