The stupid undergrounds
^by the man
About stupid political movements that are vacuous and terrible
***Notes
CP that explores some other heterotopia + ocean case turns
Pirate heterotopia fails/bad/impossible
Extra t – pirates not only in ocean
Pirates hired by Spanish govt etc
Generic stuff
Heg good
Neolib good
cap links
enemy friend distinction is good Schmitt
ask what they critique
link to hydro relationahilty
agency argument that says pirates have an influence on the world and are effective actors, not
just a force manipulated by the imperial realm
david Harvey critical geographer
Biopower Link
Biermann and Mansfield ’14 Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield Department of Geography, Ohio State
University, “Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics” published online 14 February 2014 Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 2014, volume 32, pages 257 – 273 doi:10.1068/d13047p
Conservation biology: the biopolitical science¶ The
emergence of conservation biology as a crisis-oriented
discipline in the late 20th century marks a significant shift in the American relationship with
‘nature’. Today’s conservationists by and large aim to foster and protect the diversity of nonhuman life, taking as their object not
individuals (eg, trees, charismatic animals, or geological formations) but populations, communities, and species. In colonial and early
America, by contrast, nature was commonly viewed as something to be seized, possessed, and exploited (Nash, 2001).
Landscapes of the New World were perceived as vast, dangerous, or, at best, useless, and
settlers moved to conquer, tame, and improve them by clearing forests, hunting predators to
near extinction, and forcing native people westward—all acts of seizure and sovereignty both over nonhuman
nature and over those humans understood to be outside of the American body politic. We see in the moment of westward
expansion the culmination of sovereign power in “the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it” (Foucault, 1990, page
136).¶ By the late 19th century, as
forests were cleared, prairies plowed, and Native American tribes
defeated (in short, as there was less wilderness left to conquer), a new biopolitical desire to make nature live
began to surface alongside sovereign control. In the emerging Romantic understanding, nature took on new
salience, as a small but significant minority of Americans began to view it as sublime, sacred, and an essential part of American
national identity (Nash, 2001; Runte, 1987). Acclaimed natural landscapes such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite Valley, and the
geyser basins of Yellowstone served as proof of American exceptionalism, and although their preservation paved the way for the
modern environmental movement, the early logic of this movement was one of “monumentalism, not environmentalism” (Runte,
1987, page 29). At the same time, conservationists such as Gifford Pinchot advocated a utilitarian and consumption-based approach
to managing and stewarding natural resources for national development (Knight and Bates, 1995). In these ways, the
initial
steps toward biopolitical environmentalism were not a departure from sovereign power but
rather an expansion of it, exemplifying Bruce Braun’s claim that “the government of ‘life’ has revealed itself to be
intimately related to the exercise and extension of sovereign power” (2007, page 8).¶ By the mid-20th century, the overt justification
for the protection of nature had shifted away from American exceptionalism and toward ecological health and integrity (eg, Leopold,
1949). Ecology as a science developed to focus on interactions between organisms and their environments; with concepts such as
ecosystems and the balance of nature, it became the central science associated with environmentalism (Worster, 1994).
Conservation biology grew out of this intertwining of ecology, as a science, and the American environmental movement. The
‘official’ formation of conservation biology as a discipline is cited as early evening on May 8, 1985, at the end of the Second
Conference on Conservation Biology in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An informal motion established the Society for Conservation Biology
along with a new academic journal Conservation Biology (Sarkar, 2009). Those instrumental in establishing the discipline sought to
separate themselves from scientists who perceived the environment as a set of natural resources to be protected for human
consumption (Sarkar, 2009; Soulé, 1985). Whereas
scientists in the natural resources and forestry worlds
generally sought to manage a small number of highly valuable species (such as high-yield timber¶
species and wild fisheries), conservation biologists aimed to protect all species based on two
somewhat conflicting ideas: the idea that nature has intrinsic value extending beyond its
utility to human society, and the idea that nature’s diversity might someday be valuable to
human society [eg, to adapt agricultural crops to climate change (Soulé, 1985) ], even if not yet. Thus, the organizing
principle is that it is not enough to know nature; one must also use that knowledge to
effectively manage and even foster the diversity of life. While scientific knowledge is always shaped by social
processes and dominant social metaphors (Law, 2004; Sismondo, 2010; Worster, 1994), conservation biology is distinct
from many other fields in that practitioners aim not merely to uncover facts but also to
develop recommendations and take action (Soulé, 1985).¶ The “right of the sword” over nature
has not been replaced per se but has been permeated by a new right to “make live and let
die”, manifest as the right and duty to catalog life at the level of the species, organism, and
genome, make nonhuman species live, and preserve certain visions of nature—all this while
allowing abnormal or “debilitated” genes, individuals, and populations to die off (Soulé, 1985, page
731). Biopower has not come to replace sovereign power, and the biological materiality of nature remains firmly tied to its political
and social dimensions (Braun, 2007). Indeed, intervention in biological processes has both complemented and complicated human—
and particularly capitalist—exploitation of nature. Ultimately, however, the random element of life can never be fully brought into
the realm of management, as the “complexities of matters [make] governance and rule frighteningly unpredictable” (Hinchliffe and
Bingham, 2008, page 1534). In other words, life—both human and nonhuman—constantly escapes control, and to promote and
protect life means to acknowledge the dynamism and inherent unpredictability of biological processes. Hinchliffe and Bingham
(2008) explain that the challenge of securing life is a “paradox, where the need for control is also the need for an absence of control”
(page 1547). This paradox lies at the root of conservation biology and associated fields.
Biermann and Mansfield ’14 Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield Department of Geography, Ohio State
University, “Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics” published online 14 February 2014 Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 2014, volume 32, pages 257 – 273 doi:10.1068/d13047p
The project of making life live is manifest far beyond the social world. It extends
into relations between humans and other species and the production of conservation
knowledge, practices, and policies. While the discourse of scientific progress insinuates that our knowledge of the
¶ Conclusions¶
biophysical world is objective, apolitical, and increasingly accurate over time, we have shown that conservation science is a form of
power that generates particular truth claims in the name of fostering life. We see the rise of biopower, and downplaying of
sovereign power, in American society’s relations with the natural landscape over the past century. Nature
is no longer
ruled by the sword, but by science; the wild natural landscape is no longer tamed but instead
protected, improved, and even produced. With concepts such as biodiversity, evolution, and
extinction at its core, modern conservation science aims to increase the integrity and
adaptability of nonhuman populations; it aims to enhance genetic diversity, ensure that birth
and death rates remain stable, and protect populations from dangerous environmental or
demographic stochasticity. This requires that “security mechanisms ... be installed around the random element inherent
in a population of living beings so as to optimize a state of life” (Foucault, 2003, page 246). The “security mechanisms”
we have described include statistical tools such as population viability analysis and material
practices of backcross breeding and deliberate introgression to improve a population’s chance
of survival. Crucially, these efforts to increase the integrity of nonhuman life are bound up
with notions of diversity-as-purity that share a genealogy with modern notions of race and
racism. In the logics of conservation and race, life produces biological diversity, conceived as variety of biological kinds; within
that diversity exist kinds that foster ongoing life, which therefore should be maximized, and kinds that are a threat, which are
conceived as abnormalities that should be let die. The mixing of kinds is at once an enhancement of diversity and a threat to its very
basis.¶ This racial logic points to a contradiction in contemporary conservation rhetoric. On the one hand,
conservationists,
including conservation biologists, explicitly value not only human life but all life; all life has
intrinsic value and must therefore be protected (Youatt, 2008). This is seen as a brake on exploitation and
transformation of nature. On the other hand, the racial logic of abnormality inherent in conservation
science requires judgment about what parts of nature to make live and what to let die in the
name of making live. Not all life has intrinsic value—only those parts of life that foster ongoing emergence of life. This
biopolitical logic is often used to justify the immediate exploitation of nature, people or both.
Indeed, the idea of an ongoing ecological crisis has been used to¶ “ legitimate yet further
technocratic interventions, to further extend the state and corporate management of
biological life, including the continuing reduction of humanity to bare life and nature to mere
resource, and to stifle ecological politics as such” (Smith, 2011, page xvi).¶ Intervention into ecosystems or
nonhuman populations in the name of ecological ‘health’ is now commonplace, as seen, for example, in the former US President
George W Bush’s Healthy Forests Initiative, which opened National Forest land to logging in the name of reducing the threat of highseverity wildfires. It is here, too, that we see the continued relevance of sovereign power in 21st-century nature–society relations.
Rather than being fully replaced, sovereign power is now permeated with the logic of biopower, and together they underwrite
exploitation of life in the name of fostering life today and for the future.¶ This is especially true as conservation intersects with the
new sciences of genomics and biotechnology. Scientists
are now producing new transgenic organisms,
sequencing genes, and identifying genetic markers for unique desirable and undesirable traits .
These sciences open up new ways of knowing organisms, criteria for ‘optimizing’ populations, and calculations of genetic diversity,
all of which can lead to new forms of biopower. Such interventions come to be viewed as ‘common sense’ through the circulation of
genetic discourses—for example, it is only common sense for a conservation organization that aims to restore a plant population to
calculate the genetic distance between individuals in the population, so as to generate enough genetic diversity for the population
to adapt to different environments without suffering inbreeding depression or genetic drift. Our intention is not to dismiss
conservation approaches such as this, but to show that
acts of truth-telling about nature become common
sense because they occur within, and are necessarily shaped by, the context of liberal
biopolitical rule. In other words, despite being considered politically neutral and scientifically objective, conservation science
is biopolitical: it is the science of both make live and let die.
State PIK
Encounter/explore link
Their goal to encounter the other and explore the unknown is rooted in the
same logic they critique
D’SOUZA
(DINESH D’SOUZA , a John M. Olin Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is author of The
End of Racism , published this fall by the Free Press.) 95 http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/11/002-
the-crimes-of-christopher-columbus-21
Let us examine the consistent portrait that emerges in multicultural literature about the
legacy of Columbus. The advocates of multiculturalism are unanimous that Columbus
did not discover America. As Francis Jennings writes in The Invasion of America ,
“The Europeans did not settle a virgin land. They invaded and displaced a native
population.” American Indian activist Mike Anderson says, “There was a culture here
and there were people and there were governments here prior to the arrival of
Columbus.” Kirkpatrick Sale contends, “We can say with assurance that no such event
as a ‘discovery’ took place.” Novelist Homer Aridjis contends that Europeans and
native Indians “mutually discovered each other.” Garry Wills, Gary Nash, Ronald
Takaki, and other scholars typically speak not of a “discovery” but of an “encounter.”
But all of this is wordplay. The real issue, as Leszek Kolakowski points out, is that
“the impulse to explore has never been evenly distributed among the world’s
civilizations.” It is no coincidence that it was Columbus who reached the Americas
and not American Indians who arrived on the shores of Europe. The term “encounter”
conceals this difference by implying civilizational contact on an equal plane between
the Europeans and the Indians. The multiculturalists are equally unanimous that
Columbus, as the prototypical Western white male, carried across the Atlantic racist
prejudices against the native peoples. Gary Nash charges that Columbus embodied a
peculiar “European quality of arrogance” rooted in irrational hostility to Indians. In a
similar vein, Kirkpatrick Sale in The Conquest of Paradise argues that Columbus
“presumed the inferiority of the natives,” thus embodying the basic ingredients of the
Western racist imagination that was bred to “fear what it did not comprehend, and hate
what it knew as fearful.” For Sale, Europeans are especially predisposed to violence,
while the native cultures live in a “prelapsarian Eden.” Sale concludes, “It is not
fanciful to see warring against species as Europe’s preoccupation as a culture.”
Link for Guam/ any reform
Herod
formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of Beirut
(1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
Two years ago, in 1999, throughout the 78 day bombing attack on Yugoslavia,
much of the outpouring of progressive commentary on the event (that which
didn't actually endorse the bombing that is) argued that "this is a mistake".[1]
My favorite quote from that episode, was from Robert Hayden, Director of the
Center for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pittsburgh,
being interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, April 19, 1999. He
said: "But we have the Clinton administration that developed a diplomacy that
seems to have been intended to have produced this war, and now the Clinton
administration's actions seem determined to produce a wider war." Amy
Goodman: "Why would the Clinton Administration want to produce a war?"
Hayden: "Boy, you know what? You've got me there. And as I say, you have to
go back to the simple principles of incompetence. Never assume competence
on the part of these guys." This was surely the bottom of the pit for the 'this is a
mistake' crowd. I could cite quotes like this by the dozen, but instead let me
turn to our current "war".
So what has been the response of the 'progressive community' to the
bombing of Afghanistan? As usual, they just don't get it. They just can't seem
to grasp the simple fact that the government does this stuff on purpose.
Endlessly, progressives talk as if the government is just making a mistake, does
not see the real consequences of its actions, or is acting irrationally, and they
hope to correct the government's course by pointing out the errors of its ways.
Progressives assume that their goals -- peace, justice, well-being -- are also the
government's goals. So when they look at what the government is doing, they
get alarmed and puzzled, because it is obvious that the government's actions are
not achieving these goals. So they cry out: "Hey, this policy doesn't lead to
peace!" or "Hey, this policy doesn't achieve justice (or democracy, or
development)!" By pointing this out, they hope to educate the government, to
help it to see its mistakes, to convince it that its policies are not having the
desired results.[2]
How can they not see that the US government acts deliberately, and that it
knows what it is doing? How can they not see that the government's goals are
not peace and justice, but empire and profit. It wants these wars, this
repression. These policies are not mistakes; they are not irrational; they are not
based on a failure of moral insight (since morality is not even a factor in their
considerations); they are not aberrations; they are not based on a failure to
analyze the situation correctly; they are not based on ignorance. This
repression, these bombings, wars, massacres, assassinations, and covert actions
are the coldly calculated, rational, consistent, intelligent, and informed actions
of a ruling class determined at all costs to keep its power and wealth and
preserve its way of life (capitalism). It has demonstrated great historical
presence, persistence, and continuity in pursuing this objective. This ruling
class knows that it is committing atrocities, knows that it is destroying
democracy, hope, welfare, peace, and justice, knows that it is murdering,
massacring, slaughtering, poisoning, torturing, lying, stealing, and it doesn't
care. Yet most progressives seem to believe that if only they point out often
enough and loud enough that the ruling class is murdering people, that it will
wake up, take notice, apologize, and stop doing it.
Extension on Link
Herod
formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of Beirut
(1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
Here is a typical expression of this naiveté (written by an author, Brian
Willson, who was in the process of introducing a list of US interventions
abroad!):
"Many of us are continually disturbed and grief stricken because it seems that
our U.S. government does not yet understand: (a) the historical social, cultural,
and economic issues that underlay most of the political and ecological
problems of the world; (b) the need to comply with, as legally agreed to, rather
than continually defy, international law and international institutions
established for addressing conflict; and (c) that military solutions, including
production, sale, and use of the latest in technological weapons, are simply illequipped and wrong-headed for solving fundamental social and economic
problems." [3]
He is wrong on all three counts. (a) The US government has an intimate,
detailed knowledge of the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of
every country it intervenes in. It is especially familiar with the ethnic,
linguistic, political, and religious divisions within the country. It is not
interested in how these issues "underlay most of the political and ecological
problems of the world", since it is not interested in those problems, certainly
not in solving them, since it is the main creator of those problems. Rather, it
uses its expert knowledge to manipulate events within the country in order to
advance its own goals, profit and empire. (b) The US government understands
perfectly that it expressly needs not to comply with international law in order to
maintain its ability to act unilaterally, unfettered by any constraints, to advance
its imperial aims. The claim that the US defies international law because of a
misunderstanding is absurd. (c) Who says that the US government is trying to
solve "fundamental social and economic problems"? These are not its aims at
all. The objectives that it does pursue, consciously and relentlessly, namely
profit and empire, are in fact the causes of these very "social and economic
problems". Furthermore, for its true aims, military solutions, far from being
"ill-equipped and wrong-headed", work exceptionally well. Military might
sustains the empire. Arming every little client regime of the international ruling
class with 'the latest in technological weapons" is necessary, and quite
effective, in maintaining the repressive apparatus needed to defend empire, in
addition to raking in lots of profit for the arms manufacturers. But evidently
Mr. Willson "does not yet understand" any of these things.
Let's take another example. Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman,
otherwise very sensible writers, complain that "bombing a desperately poor
country under the yoke of a repressive regime is a wrongheaded response [to
the "unspeakable acts of violence" committed on Sept. 11]. "The U.S. bombing
of Afghanistan should cease immediately," they say. They discuss three
reasons: "1. The policy of bombing increases the risk of further terrorism
against the United States. 2. The bombing is intensifying a humanitarian
nightmare in Afghanistan. 3. There are better ways to seek justice."
Policymaking bad
Herod
formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of Beirut
(1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
All three statements are true of course, but irrelevant, because seeking justice,
avoiding humanitarian nightmares, and reducing the risk of terrorism do not
enter into the calculations of US policy makers. Quite the contrary, US policy
makers create injustice, humanitarian nightmares, and terrorism, throughout the
world, in pursuit of the imperial objective of making profit, and this has been
thoroughly documented in thousands of scholarly studies. So for Mokhiber and
Weissman to talk in this way, and phrase the problem in this way, exposes their
failure to really comprehend the enemy we face, which in turn prevents them
from looking for effective strategies to defeat that enemy, like so many other
opponents of the "war". Hence all the moralizing, the bulk of which is
definitely directed at the rulers, not at the ruled. That is, it is not an attempt to
win over the ruled, but an attempt to win over the rulers. [4]
It's what I call the "we should" crowd -- all those people who hope to have a
voice in the formation of policy, people whose stances are basically that of
consultants to the ruling class. "We" should do this, "we" shouldn't do that, as if
they had anything at all to say about what our rulers do. This is the normal
stance among the bootlicking intelligentsia of course. But what is it doing
among progressives and radicals? Even if their stance is seen to be not exactly
that of consultants, but that of citizens making demands upon their government,
what makes them think that the government ever listens? I think this attitude -the "we should" attitude -- is rooted in part at least in the fact that most
progressives still believe in nations and governments. They believe that this is
"our" country, and that this is "our" government, or at least should be. So Kevin
Danaher says that "we should get control of the government." They identify
themselves as Americans, or Germans, or Mexicans, or Swedes. So they are
constantly advising and making demands that 'their' government should do this
and that. If they would reject nationalism altogether, and states and
governments, they could begin to see another way.
There discourse on USFG being good is what
grants them no solvency out of round
Herod
formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of Beirut
(1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
"The world must know what is happening in Afghanistan," said Mohammed
Sardar, 46, his voice ragged with anxiety and anger. "The terrorists and the
leaders are still free, but the people are dying and there is no one to listen to us.
I must get to President Bush and the others and tell them they are making a
terrible mistake." [6]
The widespread belief that the US government has good intentions, a belief
held onto tenaciously in spite of decades of overwhelming empirical evidence
refuting it, has got to be one of the greatest phenomena of mass delusion in
history. It would take a twenty-first century Freud to unravel this one. Here is a
government that has already bombed two other countries to smithereens just in
the past ten years, first Iraq and then Yugoslavia (not to mention endless
interventions abroad since its inception [7]). Now it is bombing Afghanistan to
smithereens -- hospitals, fuel supplies, food depots, electrical systems, water
systems, radio stations, telephone exchanges, remote villages, mosques, old
folks homes, UN offices, Red Cross warehouses, clinics, schools,
neighborhoods, roads, dams, airports -- and a victim of the assault escapes to
plead for help from the very people who are attacking him. To have created
such an illusion as this is surely one of the greatest feats of propaganda ever
seen.[8]
So although it is important to try to shatter this illusion, it is ultimately not
enough, and of very limited effectiveness, simply to list all the atrocities
committed by our rulers, carefully expose all their double standards, accuse
them of being the real terrorists, morally condemn what they are doing, or call
for peace. All these arguments are useful of course in the battle for the hearts
and minds of average people, if average people ever heard them, which they do
not, for the most part. And if they do hear them, it's like they (most of them) are
tuning in to madness, they're so brainwashed. It takes a lot more than mere
arguments to break through the mind set of a thoroughly indoctrinated people.
Of all the dozens of comments that I read on the government's response to
the attacks of September Eleven, precious few raised the key question: How do
we stop them (the government, from attacking Afghanistan)? For the most part,
progressive commentators don't even raise questions of strategy.[9] They are
too busy analyzing ruling class ideology, in order to highlight its hypocrisies.
Proving that the ruling class is hypocritical doesn't get us very far. It's useful of
course. Doing this work is an important task. Noam Chomsky, for example,
devotes himself almost exclusively to this task, and we should be thankful that
we have his research. He usually does mention also, somewhere in almost
every speech, article, or interview, that 'it doesn't have to be this way', that this
situation we are in is not inevitable, and that we can change it. But when asked
"How?", he replies, "Organize, agitate, educate." Well, sure. But the Christian
Coalition organizes, agitates, and educates. So did the Nazis and the Klu Klux
Klan. The Taliban organizes, agitates, and educates. So does the ruling class,
and it does so in a massive and highly successful way, which results in
overwhelming hegemony for its point of view.
In spite of more than three decades of blistering exposés of US foreign
policy, and in spite of the fact that he is an anarchist, and is thus supposedly
against all government, at least in the long run, Chomsky still regularly uses the
'universal we'. Much of the time Chomsky says "The US government does this,
or does that," but some of the time he says "We do this, or we do that," thus
including himself, and us, as agents in the formation and execution of US
foreign policy. This is an instance of what I call the 'universal we'. It presumes
a democracy that does not exist. The average American has no say whatsoever
in the formation and execution of US foreign policy. Nor do we even have any
influence in picking the people who are making it, since we have no say over
who gets to run for office or what they do after they are elected. So to say
something like "we shouldn't be bombing Afghanistan", as so many
progressives do, is highly misleading, and expresses a misperception and
misdiagnosis of the situation we are in.
Pleading doesn’t work, only a refusal to
cooperate can solve
Herod
formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of Beirut
(1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
The 'peace now' protesters strike a similar stance. Of course, it was heartening
to see an anti-war movement blossom almost immediately. But it was also
disheartening. It meant that radicals were letting the war-mongers set the
agenda. Instead of continuing the fight against neoliberalism and its
institutions, and against capitalism, oppositionists suddenly dropped all this to
launch an anti-war campaign. The candlelight vigils, especially, seemed to me a
pathetic response to a war-mongering, repressive government. This happens
again and again. The government launches a war of aggression, and the
peaceniks take to the streets, with their candles, crying "peace now" and "no
more war". Do they ever win? Have they ever stopped even one war? Do they
ever even think about how they could win? Doesn't the inefficacy of their
response prove that they are not really serious about peace? Do they ever think
about ways of actually stopping the murderers rather than just pleading with
them not to kill? They keep saying that peace cannot be achieved by going to
war. Who says the US government wants peace!? They quote A.J. Muste as
saying that war is not the way to peace; peace is the way. Is this relevant? Does
it make sense to quote such thoughts to a government that has always engaged,
from its inception two hundred years ago, in systematic mass murder?
Similarly with the bulk of the other progressive commentators. They are
just trying to change the government's policy, not stop them and deprive them
of power. Here is a typical sentence. Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen write:
"The next step is for us to build a movement that can change our government's
barbaric and self-destructive policy."[13] You see, from the government's point
of view, its policy is not barbaric or self-destructive. It is intelligent, selfserving, and self-preserving. Mahajan and Jensen actually pretty much admit
this in their piece, by reasoning that "This war is about the extension of U.S.
power. It has little to do with bringing the terrorists to justice, or with
vengeance." (Such a view is rather rare among progressives actually.) They
argue that there are three other motives for the war, from the government's
point of view: the desire to defend "imperial credibility", to control "oil and
natural gas of Central Asia," and "to push a right-wing domestic agenda."
Nevertheless, in spite of these insights, they still stop short of realizing that
they therefore have to fight, stop, and neutralize the government, rather than
just change its policy. Given who the government is, who it serves (capital, the
rich), and what its interests and priorities are, it can't change its policies into
those favored by progressives, not and survive as an imperial power that is.
Rather than treating pirates as a force of evil, the United Nations is encouraging
pirate prisoners to pursue the means to earn a living without being forced to
engage in piracy
Hatcher 2013 (Jessica, a freelance journalist currently based in Nairobi, “Somali pirates find life in Kenyan jail more
comfortable than on ocean waves,” 8/16/2013, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/somali-pirateskenya-jail-indian-ocean)
There are more than 100 convicted and suspected pirates incarcerated at the Shimo la Tewa maximum
security prison on the Kenyan coast. "They like it here," a warden says. The residential quarters of the prison's piracy
wing is behind a heavy metal door. The 111 convicted and suspected pirates do not call themselves pirates; they prefer "fishermen".
As many as 30 have never had their cases heard in court, according to prison staff. Some have been on remand since 2009. Asked
whether they felt abandoned or dissatisfied with the legal system, most said no. "It's fine here," says
one. The objective at Shimo la Tewa prison is that inmates leave with the means to earn a living and do not
fall back into piracy, the warden says. Inmates are taught to read and write, given free
healthcare and adequate food, and taught new skills. They are encouraged to retain links with
their families in Somalia through regular phone calls. When it comes to recreation, they play football and sing.
The prison feels more like a technical college. There are classrooms, a barber, a furniture workshop and a paralegal service run by
volunteers. The walls are painted in bright blocks of colour reminiscent of primary school. "Most [Somali inmates] were illiterate.
Some now have even taken exams," says the warden, who preferred not to be named. The UN office on drugs and crime has poured
funding into counter-piracy measures such as this one. "We
are extremely careful to ensure that our support also
benefits the rest of the prison population and the staff of prisons holding Somali pirates, to ensure that the Somalis are not
resented," says Shamus Mangan, a maritime crime expert. Mangan has assisted with the repatriation of a number of Somalis and
notes that the provision of education, food and healthcare is no substitute for freedom. "Each time I go to the prison in the
Seychelles, all the Somalis there ask me when they will be able to transfer to Somalia," he says. The UNODC says that, ultimately, the
problem needs to be remedied on Somali soil, addressing the root causes and not the symptoms. Somalia expert Mary Harper
warned recently that the pirates are "sleeping", but have not gone away. Speaking at a maritime security event, she said: "Somalia is
becoming more politically fragmented with many different groups seeking to gain dominance, which potentially creates a favourable
environment for piracy." Risk factors such as high youth unemployment and a lack of alternative livelihoods prevail. The UN's
development programme runs rehabilitation programmes in Somalia. One
former piracy suspect who spent three years in
Ahmed Jama, took classes in business and social skills. "I believe now I have a chance for
a brighter future," he says. The former pirates are in sharp contrast to other inmates at the prison. "The other
inmates escape," says Samuel Tonui, acting head of the Shimo la Tewa prison. A handful of Kenyan inmates have given prison
jail, Mohamed
guards the slip this year. Last month, two inmates escaped, using a homemade ladder, the second prison break in four weeks at the
facility. There is an escapee wall of shame where the faces of a dozen men are displayed. None
are Somali pirates.
You don’t change squo
Herod formal college education -- at Graceland College (1953-55), University of Kansas (1955-56), American University of
Beirut (1956-57), and Columbia University (1961-1968) n May-June 2002, I compiled a book-length bibliography called A Partially
Annotated Bibliography in English for the Libertarian Left and Progressive Populists in the United States, although it is not quite
finished and may remain so. In May 2007, I finally got a printed edition of my book on anarchist revolutionary strategy called Getting
Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods.
http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper&id=9
01
A friendly, tolerant, enlightened, pseudo-democratic capitalism is no longer
historically feasible (not that it was ever really much of any of these things).
We are living in the age of Zero Tolerance Capitalism, with its Global War
Machine, its Mammoth Intelligence Agencies, its Secret Police, its Echelons
and Carnivores, its Covert Operations, its humungous Police Departments, its
ubiquitous Security Guards, its Death Squads, its National Security States, its
Swat Teams and Special Forces, its State Terrorism and Torture, its High-Tech
Surveillance, its Non-Lethal Weapons, its Low-Intensity Warfare, its ParaMilitaries, its Mercenaries, its Smart Bombs, its Prison-Industrial Complex, its
Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons, and its World Bank and World
Trade Organization. Now, with the US Congress's aptly-named USA Patriot
Act of 2001, it has finally managed to shred the Bill of Rights. The US ruling
class never wanted the Bill of Rights to begin with; it was forced on them.
So the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world have won after all (almost). All
the while we were thinking that we had rid the world of fascism in the Second
World War, fascism was sneaking in the back door, and turning America into a
World Fascist Empire. Zero Tolerance fascist-like regimes, supported and often
installed by the United States, have long existed throughout most of the world - Mobuto in Zaire, Pinochet in Chile, Somoza in Nicaragua, Armas in
Guatemala, Franco in Spain, Papadopoulos in Greece, Pahlavi in Iran, Marcos
in the Philippines, Sharon in Israel. Now the repressive, Zero Tolerance,
National Security State, has come home to America. They will probably start
torturing and killing in Europe and America the way they have been doing
everywhere else. (They are already torturing and killing, but they have
managed so far to keep it under wraps). Will they get away with it?
How many centuries of mass murder does it take to prove that ruling
classes dependent on and devoted to a system based on profit are impervious to
moral appeal, and are beyond redemption, certainly as long as they have any
power left to continue killing? Moral appeals are useless against such people.
Were moral appeals enough to defeat the Nazis, and German and Italian
Fascism? Didn't we have to fight them? Similarly with our current warmongers and empire builders, with American Fascism, if you will. They must
be faced with real opposition, although not necessarily military opposition,
which actually is not even an option for us, given that it is so impossible for
poor people to acquire the weapons. It is thus ineffective to even think about
fighting a war in traditional terms, as this is not a possible, nor a winning,
strategy. All the same, the rulers' power to exploit, oppress, murder, and wage
war must be destroyed. We need to come up with a strategy for doing this. It
certainly cannot be done merely by taking to the streets, holding candlelight
vigils, or exposing their hypocrisy. The war must be fought, to be sure, but
fought in new ways, ways that are within our means and that can lead to
victory.
Pirates not bad
Pirate Research
Not all pirates are perceived as evil—while we do identify some pirates as
thieves, we remember other moral ones.
Axe 09 — David Axe, American Military correspondent and publisher of seven books.
Published in many, many magazines and newspapers, and has reported from more than eleven
countries, many of them in East Africa (“10 Things You Didn’t Know About Somali Pirates,” Wall
Street Journal, August 27, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124060718735454125,
accessed on August 2, 2014)
Many Somali pirates see themselves as good guys. And at one point, they were. After the
government in Mogadishu collapsed in 1991, neighboring countries began illegally fishing in
Somali waters. The first pirates were simply angry fishermen who boarded these foreign
vessels and demanded a "fee." But as the illegal fishing persisted, some early pirates banded
together and called themselves "coast guards." They claimed to be looking after Somalia's
territorial integrity until the government could pull itself back together.
These weren't the only vigilantes on the scene, however. Other pirates made their debut
robbing U.N. ships that were carrying food to refugee camps in Somalia. These bandits argued
that if they hadn't taken the food, warlords would have seized it on land. And they had a good
point. Warlords gobbled down at lot of Somalia's relief food during the 1990s.
But from these perhaps defensible beginnings, piracy spread farther from Somalia's shores
and evolved into a multimillion-dollar enterprise. Today, pirates are blunt about their motives.
In late 2008, after a band of pirates seized a Ukrainian freighter full of weapons and demanded
$25 million for its release, Sugule Ali, a member of the pirate crew, told a reporter, "We only
want the money."
We don’t generalize representations of pirates—while we do arrest pirates for
theft, we also respect them for their humane treatment of others.
Axe 09 — David Axe, American Military correspondent and publisher of seven books.
Published in many, many magazines and newspapers, and has reported from more than eleven
countries, many of them in East Africa (“10 Things You Didn’t Know About Somali Pirates,” Wall
Street Journal, August 27, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124060718735454125,
accessed on August 2, 2014)
It's difficult to tell pirates from fishermen, until they climb aboard another ship and pull out their
AK-47s. So, there's not much the U.S. Navy and other military forces can do as a deterrent
except sail around and look menacing. After pirates have seized a ship, navies rarely attempt to
retake it, because hostages could be hurt in the process. In the absence of an effective defense,
there were more than 100 documented pirate attacks in 2008 that resulted in more than 40
ships being hijacked. But for all their aggression, the body count is low. One ship's captain died
of natural causes while being held hostage, and a few militia men have died in shoot-outs as
they tried to rescue prisoners, but in general, little blood has been spilled.
Pirates also prefer to keep their prisoners in good health. Not only are civilians worth hundreds
of thousands of dollars apiece in ransom, but the pirates' reputation for not harming their
hostages has made governments reluctant to strike back on behalf of shipping companies.
While the pirates' hands remain mostly blood-free, the navies patrolling East African waters
have taken lives. The Indian navy, for example, destroyed one pirate boat only to discover
that the pirates had Thai hostages on board. At least a dozen innocent victims died.
Pirates don’t want to tell their stories—they make it hard to track themselves
indirectly, and direct approaches lead to violent response.
Bahadur 11 — Jay Bahadur, author of “Deadly Waters,” a book about Somalia’s Pirates, tries
to track down a pirate for an interview to get his side of the story (“Somali Pirate: ‘We’re not
murderers… we just attack ships,’” The Guardian, May 24, 2011,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/a-pioneer-of-somali-piracy, accessed August
2, 2014)
It had taken five days to arrange this meeting. Somali pirates are hard to track down,
constantly moving around and changing phone numbers. Days earlier, frustrated and eager to
begin interviewing, I had naively suggested approaching some suspected pirates on the streets
of Garowe, a rapidly expanding city at the heart of the pirates' tribal homeland. Habitually
munching on narcotic leaves of khat, they are easy enough to spot, their gleaming Toyota fourwheel-drives slicing paths around beaten-up wheelbarrows and pushcarts. My Somali hosts
laughed, explaining that to do so would invite kidnapping, robbery, or, at the very least,
unwanted surveillance. In Somalia, everything is done through connections – clan, family or
friend – and these networks are expansive and interminable. Warsame, my guide and
interpreter, had been on and off the phone for the better part of a week, attempting to coax
his personal network into producing Abdullahi "Boyah" Abshir. Eventually it responded, and
Boyah presented himself.
Pirates admit what they do at sea is wrong, but still have moral values on land
that the media recognizes and respects. Prefer this card—it’s from The
Guardian, a mainstream American news source, that directly interviews the
Pirate Abudallahi “Boyah” Abshir for his side of the story.
Bahadur 11 — Jay Bahadur, author of “Deadly Waters,” a book about Somalia’s Pirates, tries
to track down a pirate for an interview to get his side of the story (“Somali Pirate: ‘We’re not
murderers… we just attack ships,’” The Guardian, May 24, 2011,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/a-pioneer-of-somali-piracy, accessed August
2, 2014)
Boyah’s moral compass seemed to be divided between sea and shore; he warned me, halfjokingly, not to run into him in a boat, but, despite my earlier misgivings, assured me that he
was quite harmless on land. "We're not murderers," he said. "We've never killed anyone, we
just attack ships." He insisted that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and, as evidence of
his sincerity, relayed how he had just appeared on the local news radio station, Radio Garowe,
to call a temporary ceasefire on all pirate activity. Though I was skeptical that he wielded the
authority necessary to enforce his decree over a coastline stretching almost 1,600km, Boyah
stressed that the decision had been made by the central committee – and woe to those who
defied its orders. "We will deal with them," Boyah promised. "We will work with the
government forces to capture them and bring them to jail." Subsequent events quickly proved
that Boyah's radio statement was just so much background noise. Just days after his announced
ceasefire, a pirate gang in the Gulf of Aden committed the first commercial hijacking of 2009,
capturing a German liquid petroleum tanker along with her 13 crew members. The Central
Committee has wreaked no vengeance on those responsible. Boyah himself had not gone on a
mission for over two months, for which he had a two-pronged explanation: "I got sick, and
became rich." His fortune made, Boyah's call to end hijackings came from a position of luxury
that most others did not enjoy. I questioned Boyah on whether his ceasefire had been at least
partially motivated by the Nato task force recently deployed to deal with him and his
colleagues. "No," he said, "it has nothing to do with that. It's a moral issue. We started to
realise that we were doing the wrong thing, and that we didn't have public support."
Pirates Case Neg
The USFG doesn’t torture pirates but rather humanely – takes out their pirates
archetype leads to torture contention
Hilley No Date – Petty Officer 1 Class, wrote the article for the Official U.S. Navy Web site, and it is the official web site of the Military
st
Sealift Command [Monique K., “USNS Lewis and Clark provides afloat staging base for counterpiracy task force”,
http://www.msc.navy.mil/civmar/newsletter/news.asp?show=1236373468&edition=032009/, accessed 8/2/14] JW
In addition to providing a staging platform for the aircraft and related personnel assigned to CTF-151, the cargo and ammunition
resupply ship also provides the task force a temporary holding facility for suspected pirates. Currently there are 16 suspected pirates
on board the Military Sealift Command asset. Embarked U.S. Marines ensure suspected
pirates receive safe and
humane care.¶ "Suspected pirates receive three meals each day, clean clothes, the opportunity to
shower and receive medical treatment if necessary," explained McCarthy. "In addition, suspected pirates'
religious rights will be respected. They will have the opportunity to observe their faith-based
practices."
(This card is about the CTF-151, which was established in 2009, relatively recent)
US negotiates with terrorists – that means we don’t see them as less than
humans, but rather adversaries, and the purpose is mutual peace
Engler 14
– writer for Foreign Policy, a renowned international news source [Simon, “The U.S. Does Negotiate With Terrorists”
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/03/the_us_does_negotiate_with_terrorists, 6/3/14 accessed 8/2/14] JW
But negotiations aren't always about individual prisoner exchanges; they can
be integral components of
broader peace processes. The list of case studies from U.S. allies is long. Israel's 2011 exchange of 1,027 Palestinians
for Gilad Shalit opened the door to later peace talks. In July 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
greenlighted prisoner exchanges seen as a prerequisite for the most recent -- and rapidly collapsing -- round of peace talks.
Spain's willingness to negotiate with the Basque separatist group ETA in 1989 set the
precedent for final peace talks in 2011. Perhaps most famously, the British government sat down with the Irish
Republican Army to negotiate an end to "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland.¶ Such negotiations can be painful. Netanyahu described
the release of 104 Palestinian prisoners prior to the 2013 peace talks as "incomparably difficult." And they don't always work. The
Galit exchange and the 1989 talks between ETA and Madrid were both followed by renewed violence.¶ Saturday's
prisoner
exchange with the Taliban was not meant simply to bring Bergdahl home. The swap was initially
developed in 2011 as a confidence-building measure aimed at encouraging broader talks with the Taliban.
Since Bergdahl's release, administration officials and the Taliban have poured cold water on the notion that the swap could signal an
opening toward more substantive peace talks between the two.¶ But Bergdahl's
release at least demonstrates that
small-scale negotiations are feasible -- and that the Taliban's representatives in Qatar are legitimately connected to its
forces in Afghanistan.
Pirates are viewed as normal criminals who have committed more serious
crimes (don’t know if it’s good)
Stadnik 09
– seasoned international and comparative lawyer with experience working for global law firms abroad, trained in the US and Europe, he is admitted to the bar in both Louisiana and
New York. Mr. Stadnik has practiced in all fields of international law [Thomas J.R., “Pirates - The Common Enemies of All, the Enemies of the Human Race, the Law of War and The Rule of Law”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/international-law/b/international-law-blog/archive/2009/05/05/pirates-_2d00_-the-common-enemies-of-all_2c00_-the-enemies-of-the-human-race_2c00_-the-law-ofwar-and-the-rule-of-law.aspx, 5/5/09 accessed 8/2/14] JW
denunciation of pirates is fueled not simply by the list of heinous acts committed by pirates. These are
equally committed, mutatis mutandis, by brigands, thieves, and criminals on land . What especially
appears to incite Cicero’s wrath, that of his contemporaries, and most sane and moral folks throughout the ages, is the fact that these acts
are committed at sea – on an element of nature that is not the natural locus for human beings. In Cicero’s day as today, sea-faring is often treacherous in
and of itself. Human beings at sea owed and owe to this day a moral duty to assist each other when
The vehemence that is evident in Cicero’s
in distress at sea (e.g., the International Maritime Organization conventions: SOLAS 1974, augmented by SAR 1979 and even by SUR 1988), the customary law
rules and the modern statutory rule being the same: save life above all and first, then property . Certainly and logically, the idea of helping
and saving lives at sea is especially diametrically opposed to harming others and taking their
lives at sea, because, at sea, not being in or on our natural element – terra firma- we are more exposed to the powerful and lifethreatening elements of nature against which we need – and it has long been thought entitled- to rely on fellow human beings for aid and succour.¶
¶ The idea of harming or killing someone at sea thus took on a more vile aspect. It’s bad
enough one at sea is at risk of perishing from natural forces, but for another human being to act
towards one in any way other than to aid and succour and preserve life was and is considered
the height of violation of morals and law . The odds of survival on a sea voyage were bad
enough without someone behaving in a criminal manner at sea. It is little wonder that the
customary international law penalty for pirates captured during an attack was summary
execution. Their assailing behavior was considered so heinous as to render them unworthy of
custody and feeding (ship’s stores being precious commodity) and the risk of their attempting to
escape, or actually escaping custody and attacking again, to be too great a risk to justify
preserving them. Both customary as well as now statutory international law has condemned
piracy for millennia (and privateering – that quasi-political carve out in time of war - for well
over a century).
The dislike of these criminals are based on morals
Stadnik 09
– seasoned international and comparative lawyer with experience working for global law firms abroad, trained in the US and Europe, he is admitted to the bar in both Louisiana and
New York. Mr. Stadnik has practiced in all fields of international law [Thomas J.R., “Pirates - The Common Enemies of All, the Enemies of the Human Race, the Law of War and The Rule of Law”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/international-law/b/international-law-blog/archive/2009/05/05/pirates-_2d00_-the-common-enemies-of-all_2c00_-the-enemies-of-the-human-race_2c00_-the-law-ofwar-and-the-rule-of-law.aspx, 5/5/09 accessed 8/2/14] JW
Why such enmity? At
sea or in the air, people are not on or in their natural element – terra firma. You can’t run really
away from a ship (or an airplane, for that matter). Survival by jumping overboard was not likely on the high seas (or from an
airplane in flight). One does not have even a sporting chance and hence to attack at sea (or in the
air) shows a heinous and criminal disregard for basic human safety (including one’s own) that rendered
the pirate beyond any protection of the law. They may as well have been non-human aliens trying to conquer the earth and destroy
humankind. Clearly by their actions they hold themselves out as not recognizing even the fundamentals of the rule of law, and
having put themselves outside its rule, invited its swift and sudden wrath.
Pirates Threat
Threat of pirate attacks becoming greater and greater
Repinski (Gordon Repinski, Capital Correspondent with the German national newspaper taz) ’13
[“Increasing Attacks: Piracy Shifts Coasts in Africa” SpiegelOnline International,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/threat-of-pirates-grows-off-west-coast-of-africa-a912089.html ]
A second hostage-taking took place on a German ship in the wake of the Hansa Marburg attack.
In April, the City of Xiamen, a vessel belonging to the Emden-based shipping company
Lauterjung, was attacked off the coast of Nigeria. The pirates only released its crew after five
days.¶ Big Losses for Germany¶ Germany has now moved to the top of a grim list: It has suffered
more attacks on its freight ships than any other country except for Singapore, or nine worldwide
in just the first quarter of 2013.¶ The economic damage is enormous. At the height of the attacks
off the Somalian coast in 2011, the German Shipowners' Association (VDR) estimated the total
annual cost of ransom money, protective equipment, insurance and detours at around €5.3
billion ($7 billion).¶ While the already beleaguered industry fears that another catastrophe
awaits in the Gulf of Guinea, the German government is alarmed. "We are closely observing
developments in the Gulf of Guinea," says German Development Minister Dirk Niebel.
"Organized criminality always represents an obstacle to development and legitimate business."¶
In its report for the first quarter of 2013, the Bundespolizei, Germany's federal police force,
reached similarly clear conclusions about the new crisis region. Nigeria ranks well ahead of other
African countries, with 11 ships from various nations having been attacked off its coast. When
the new quarterly report is released next week, it is very unlikely that the situation will have
improved. The recent attacks on the Hansa Marburg and the City of Xiamen won't be reflected
until those new statistics are released.¶ One reason for the emerging problem is the economic
upswing of formerly poverty-stricken states like Togo, Ghana and Nigeria. The more goods arrive
in the port of Lagos, a city of several million inhabitants, the more pirates are seen in
speedboats off the coast.¶ A New Boom in Oil Piracy¶ And things are likely to get worse. Whereas
13 percent of European oil imports already come from the region, the volume of gas imports
from it to the European Union is set to triple by 2025. The Gulf of Guinea has become the transit
region for an entire continent's trade in raw materials.¶ The growing importance of oil has led to
a remarkable specialization among the pirates. As the Bundespolizei has discovered, some gangs
now focus exclusively on hijacking tankers. "Over the course of a hijacking that lasts several
days, all or part of the oil is pumped into other vessels," says the latest Bundespolizei report on
piracy. The attacks share a "great propensity toward violence on the part of the aggressors."¶
The attacks also often follow a similar pattern. As in the case of the Hansa Marburg, the pirates
approach in speedboats. The captured ship is then taken to a prearranged meeting point where
the fuel is unloaded. Then things move to land, and a booming trade in freshly stolen goods
begins. Government sources say that this is how the United States alone lost one-fifth of its oil
imported from Nigeria. With every shipment, the German economy also risks losses.¶ Is
Intervention Necessary?¶ Nevertheless, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government seems
unmotivated to intervene in an international crisis that could potentially involve the country's
military. The Chancellery claims that the situations in West and East Africa cannot be compared
because West Africa still has reasonably intact states capable of addressing the problem
themselves.¶ This has prompted Merkel to oppose German engagement off the coast of Nigeria:
"At the moment, I don't see any plans for a mission," she announced last Thursday in a press
appearance at the Chancellery with Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the South African politician who
chairs the African Union Commission.¶ Dlamini-Zuma, on the other hand, was defiant. She
stressed that piracy was an international problem even if it was happening off of the African
coast, and that the situation off the western coast was different from the one off the eastern
coast.¶ Meanwhile, departments within Germany's foreign, defense and development ministries
have been less interested in holding back. Experts there have been working for months to
develop concepts for addressing the problem.¶ Running Out of Time¶ The Bundeswehr University
Munich, which has ties to the German military, has also turned its attention to the new trouble
spot. In a recent study, scholars reached a clear conclusion that continued inaction could result
in an increase in criminality, terrorism and ethnic conflicts. "West Africa stands at a tipping
point," says Professor Carlo Masala, the author of the study. "If the German government is
interested in preventing anarchy from breaking out in an entire region, it must aid the affected
states." Masala recommends development aid for coast guards and the creation of a maritime
"task force," including overseas units from the United States and the European Union.¶ Although
experts have welcomed the proposals, the political administrations in relevant ministries are still
stalling for time. But a decison might not be forthcoming before December, when the European
Council will address its Common Security and Defense Policy.¶ Germany may then bring itself to
offer support -- at least in cooperation with other nations. "The example of the Horn of Africa
showed that the international community can act successfully against piracy with an integrated
political approach," says a Foreign Ministry spokesman. Even Chancellor Merkel might consider
sending advisers to aid in European efforts.¶ In the meantime, shipping companies cannot wait
much longer for governments to take action. Every day, ships continue to enter unsafe ports,
and their crews can often only hope everything will be OK.
^Try to cut the card shorter maybe. Look at original article. Also underline.
Piracy poses threat – esp. off coast of Somalia
US Dpt. Of State ‘09*
[“Threats from Piracy off Coast of Somalia”, 9/3/2009*,
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/piracy/c32661.htm ]
*created on, has been edited since
Ninety per cent of the world’s commerce travels by sea, as does more than half of the world’s
petroleum. Many of the ships carrying goods and oil travel through the Gulf of Aden, off the
coast of Somalia. By 2009, it threatened the free flow of international commerce and energy
supplies, which threatened the world economy. This was in addition to the threat posed to
World Food Program shipping which was delivering vital food aid to the vulnerable Somali
population. While pirates off the coast of Somalia have been largely unsuccessful since mid2012, they have already done great damage, and still hold hostage approximately 50 innocent
seafarers. While they no longer have any seaworthy ships in captivity, several of the ships they
had hijacked have since sunk or run aground, posing an environmental hazard, contaminating
the seas, reefs, and coastal areas with dangerous pollutants.
Pirates are a growing threat – esp. to tourists and cooperate travelers
Ng (Christina Ng, Anchor sidekick for ABC News) ‘11
[“Pirates a Growing Threat to Tourists, Corporate Travelers” ABC News International, 9/14/11,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/pirates-growing-problem-travelers-internationalwaters/story?id=14511619 ]
High seas pirates, which have preyed on tankers and cargo ships, are expanding and becoming
an increasing menace to tourists and corporate travelers.¶ The most jarring example of growing
boldness of modern day pirates is a tactic that is a throwback to the days of sea raiders. Last
weekend, wealthy British publisher David Tebbutt and his wife Judith were vacationing at a
coastal Kenyan resort when they were attacked from the sea.¶ Tebbutt was shot dead and his
wife was taken away by boat and is still missing. While the attackers have not been caught,
some fear a Somali pirate gang could be responsible.¶ "Piracy is something that people should
be worried about, especially if they are going for tourism," said Michelle Bernier-Toth, the
managing director for overseas citizens service at the U.S. Department of State.¶ "It does happen
and it is not something that people should take lightly. Incidents have been increasingly violent,
very brutal and people are literally taking their lives in their hands when they set off on what
could be a very unfortunate adventure," Bernier-Toth said.¶ Bernier-Toth also said that the
geographic area covered by pirates is constantly growing. Private vessels, like yachts, often face
greater risks than merchant marine vessels because they do not have the same security
measures.¶ "It's a huge issue right now in leisure travel as well as corporate travel because you
are seeing crime increase globally," said travel expert Randy Spivey, founder and CEO of the
Center for Personal Protection and Safety. "As the economy becomes more of a challenge,
travel security becomes more of an issue."¶ Business has been good for pirates, especially in the
area of hostage and ransom operations. An average pirate ransom in 2008 was $1 million. In
2011, the average ransom is between $4 million and $5 million, according to the Londonbased International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Center.¶ Due to this financial success,
pirate attacks and kidnappings have been on the rise since 2008 and the numbers are
staggering.¶ In the first eight-and-a-half months of 2011 alone, there have been 330 reported
worldwide incidents of piracy. that's up from 293 attacks in all of 2008. More than 50 percent
of these have been Somali-related and occurred along the coast of the Horn of Africa in the
Indian Ocean.¶ In addition to the growing number, the pirates have become bolder are more
violent than before -- they've expanded their geographical target areas, tactics, and use of
automatic weapons, and their hostage periods are longer, according to IMB Manager Cyrus
Mody.¶ Right now, there are 16 vessels and 301 hostages being held by Somali pirates. While the
majority of these are commercial vessels, since 2008, tourists from the United States, Germany,
England and France have all been victims of pirate attacks.¶ Four Americans on a yacht were
killed by Somali pirates in February 2011, marking the first time U.S. citizens have been
victims.¶ "Private individuals on yachts are at a much higher risk if they go into these waters
unaware of what the threats are," said Mody. "They may not have the means to negotiate their
release and may rely on other organizations or governments, [which] makes it a lot more
difficult for them to get released."¶ Most experts advise travelers to stay out of known danger
zones.¶ "The whole concept of yachting anywhere in the vicinity of Somalia is nonsensical. You'd
have to have your head examined," said David Shinn, the former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia
and Burkina Faso. "There's no protection against [pirates]. You can't outrun them and if they
find you, you're just a goner."¶ While Somalia itself is not a popular tourist destination, it is
near countries that are. Bordering Kenya, for example, is popular for safari-seeking tourists and
has a number of well-known luxury resorts.¶ While the area surrounding Somalia is the
undisputed zone of greatest danger, other areas of the world are of concern as well.
Even if piracy threat decreasing now, WILL continue and eventually attack
Rayman (Noah Rayman, reporter at Time.com) ’14
[“Did 2013 Mark the End of Somali Piracy?” TIME World, 1/6/14,
http://world.time.com/2014/01/06/did-2013-mark-the-end-of-somali-piracy/]
Long-term security in the seas may paradoxically have to play out on shore. Somalia is seeing
the first semblance of stability — the influence of its perennially weak central government now
extends beyond the capital Mogadishu — in more than two decades, and international
observers say those who once took to piracy may be dropping the increasingly risky trade for
legitimate business. But the trend is easily reversible . Somalia ranked the most corrupt
country in the world in the 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index, and the Somali-based Islamist
terrorist group al-Shabab’s recent deadly attacks in the capital city Mogadishu and on
Nairobi’s Westgate Mall in September bode ill for stability, even if al-Shabab itself does not
engage in piracy.¶ And the pirates haven’t disappeared. They are still involved in
commandeering smaller international fishing boats — often then used as “motherships” to
target larger tankers and container ships — which means the pirates are both active and
potentially stocking up for future attacks. They are also still holding more than 70 sailors
hostage, mostly from Southeast Asia, according to Andrew Mwangura, a piracy monitor based in
Kenya who is wary that the lull in hijackings will last. “The pirates will continue in Somalia,”
said Mwangura. “They’re waiting for us to sleep, and then they’ll attack.”
Pirates bad.
Pirates known to brutally kill anyone who comes on their territory,
advocating for them just advocates for the murder of innocent people.
Nagourney and Gettlemen 11 (Adam, Jeffrey, Reporters for New York Times, “Pirates Brutally
End Yachting Dream ”, 2/22/11,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23pirates.html?_r=0 )
LOS ANGELES — Jean and Scott Adam shared a dream through 15 years of marriage: to retire,
build a boat and sail the world. And that is precisely what they did, heading out in 2004 from Marina Del Rey, Calif., on a
custom-built 58-foot yacht for a permanent vacation that brought them to exotic islands and remote coastlines: Fiji, Micronesia, China,
Phuket. Enlarge This Image Joe Grande Phyllis Macay and Robert A. Riggle, above, were killed along with Jean and Scott Adam, the
owners of the yacht Quest. Related Seizing of Pirate Commanders Is Questioned (February 24, 2011) Week in Review: Suddenly, a
Rise in Piracy’s Price (February 27, 2011) Enlarge This Image Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The 58-foot Quest had
departed from a convoy of yachts that was assembled to ward off attacks by pirates. Readers’ Comments Readers shared their
thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (464) » “And now: Angkor Wat! And Burma!” Mrs. Adam wrote just before Christmas,
her blog post bustling with characteristic excitement. The
dream came to a brutal end on Tuesday when the
Adams and their crew — Phyllis Macay and Robert A. Riggle of Seattle — were killed by pirates off the
coast of Somalia in one of the most violent episodes since the modern-day piracy epidemic began several years ago, American
officials said. It is not clear why the pirates killed their hostages, either accidentally during a
firefight or possibly out of revenge for the Somali pirates killed by American sharpshooters
in a hostage-taking in 2009. United States naval forces had been shadowing the hijacked yacht,
called the Quest, and as soon as they saw a burst of gunfire on board, American Special Operations forces
rushed to the yacht in assault craft, shot one of the pirates and knifed another. But all four hostages were
already dead or fatally wounded. Few people who travel the high seas these days are unaware of the dangers from
pirates, though it seemed a risk the Adams were willing to take in the spirit of adventure and excitement. “She said to us, ‘If anything
happens to us on these travels, just know that we died living our dream,’ ” said Richard Savage, Mrs. Adam’s brother-in-law from her
first marriage. “They were aware that this kind of thing has risks. But they were living their dream.” Still, in a decision that troubled
friends and family members, the Quest had departed from a convoy of yachts that was assembled to ward off attacks by pirates in
those waters — such maritime convoys are known as rallies — to go off on their own into some of the most dangerous waters in the
world. Mr. Adam took a security course last year from Blue Water Rallies, the organizer of the rally he had been on, and friends said
he often turned off his G.P.S. instrument because pirates had learned to use them as homing devices. “They were not risk-seekers,”
said Vivian Callahan, who had sailed with the Adams as a crew member over the years. “They were very well aware of the dangers
and I can’t imagine them straying from the rally unless conditions were very serious." The Adams had been married about 15 years.
They had both been married once before. He had a daughter, she had two sons. Before their retirement, Mrs. Adam was a dentist in
Marina Del Rey, a graduate of dental school at the University of California, Los Angeles. He worked as a film production manager, on
such films as “The Goonies” and “Deliverance,” before leaving the business to attend divinity school; he received a master’s of
divinity in 2000 and a master’s of theology in 2010. Indeed, for the Adams, this was as much a voyage of faith as it was one of
adventure. They would load the Quest up with tons of Bibles and distribute them as they traveled the world. “They would stop in these
small islands and connect with the church there, which were in isolated places and really welcomed them,” said Richard Peace, a
professor of ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary. “Scott would preach at times for them and being a doctoral student, he would
teach in Bible colleges. This was really a major part of their travels.” Still, friends said that the Adams were not on a mission of
proselytization. “They
were very much in love and shared both a love of the sea and a love of
God’s word,” Samantha Carlson, a fellow sailor, said in an e-mail to friends. She added: “They were NOT proselytizing or
converting anyone.” Ms. Macay and Mr. Riggle signed on to the Quest as crew members late last year, providing needed assistance
and companionship on these voyages, which are often rigorous and lonely. Both Mr. Adam, 70, and Mrs. Adam, 66, were in relatively
good shape, though Mrs. Adam battled with intense bouts of seasickness. “She certainly didn’t let that stop her,” Mr. Savage said,
adding with a laugh, “It’s kind of bizarre.” Ms. Macay, 59, was a freelance interior designer and Mr. Riggle, 67, a retired veterinarian.
They had been a couple in the past but were simply crewmates at the time of their deaths, friends said. They had met at the Seattle
Singles Yacht Club and had been at sea together for most of the past three and a half years. Enlarge This Image Agence France-Presse
— Getty Images Jean and Scott Adam. Mr. Adam took a security course last year from Blue Water Rallies, the organizer of the rally
he had been on. Related Seizing of Pirate Commanders Is Questioned (February 24, 2011) Week in Review: Suddenly, a Rise in
Piracy’s Price (February 27, 2011) Enlarge This Image Readers’ Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All
Comments (464) » “Originally, it was supposed to be a year-and-a-half long, but she kept extending it,” said Joe Macay, her brother.
“She wasn’t a thrill-seeker trying to live on the edge. She was just a person who loved sailing and was trying to live the life she
loved.” Don Jordan, the director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, said Mr. Riggle had served as a contract veterinarian there for the past
15 to 20 years. “He was a natural fit for a vet, kind and compassionate,” Mr. Jordan said. The American Navy has pleaded with
shipowners to stick to designated shipping lanes when passing through the Arabian Sea, where pirates continue to strike with
impunity, despite the presence of dozens of warships. Yachters who knew the Adams said they had been, given these times, inclined
to ship their boats overland to avoid dangerous waters or travel in rallies. “I really have no idea why they would leave the rally when
they specifically joined the rally to be in a safer environment,” said Jeff Allen, a close friend. “ I
hope this sends a message
that you really shouldn’t be trying to go through that area.” Friends of Ms. Macay and Mr. Riggle said that
they were only serving as crew members. Cindy Kirkham, a friend of Ms. Macay and her family, said, “The family is very upset that
people are suggesting that they made the decision.” But Mr. Macay said that it was not uncommon for boats to leave rallies and return.
He said his sister had “expressed concern about pirates — anybody sailing in that Blue Water Rally knows that a portion of risk goes
along with it.” He added, “She knew the risk involved, and accepted it.” The
killings underscore how lawless the
seas have become in that part of the world. Just about every week another ship gets hijacked.
More than 50 vessels, from fishing trawlers and traditional wooden dhows to giant freighters and oil tankers, are currently being held
captive, with
more than 800 hostages, according to Ecoterra International, a nonprofit maritime group that monitors
getting out of control,” said Capt. Pottengal Mukundan, director of the
International Maritime Bureau, which has tracked piracy at sea since 1991. The Somali seas are now known as the most
perilous in the world, crawling with young gunmen in lightweight skiffs cruising around with
machine guns, looking for quarry. The Adams had been sailing the world on the Quest, a Davidson 58 Pilot House Sloop, that
pirate attacks. “At the moment, it looks like it’s
they had custom built for $1.5 million in New Zealand in 2001, using money they earned from selling their homes. “When designing
the yacht, we had to make sure that the yacht trimmed well when hundreds of Bibles were stored at the beginning of each adventure: It
amounted to tons of weight,” said Kevin Dibley, the owner of Dibley Marine Ltd., who was brought on to assist the project. On
Friday, the Quest sent out an S O S, 275 miles from the coast of Oman, in the open seas between Mumbai and Djibouti. A mother ship
had been observed near the yacht when it was hijacked by pirates in a smaller craft, maritime officials said, but it disappeared once
warships drew close, or was captured. Either way, the pirates were blocked from escaping and that may be one reason tensions rose on
board, said Andrew Mwangura, the maritime editor of Somalia Report, a Web site that monitors piracy attacks. “There were a big
number of gunmen on a small yacht,” Mr. Mwangura said. “They could have been fighting over food, water, space. And with military
choppers overhead, people get jumpy.” According to Vice Adm. Mark Fox, the commander of United States Naval Forces Central
Command, shortly after the Quest was hijacked, the Navy began talking to the pirates’ financier as well as elders from the pirates’
village. Many pirate crews are paid by wealthy Somali businessmen who later get a cut of the ransom. On Monday, two of the pirates
boarded a naval destroyer that had pulled within 600 yards of the Quest to negotiate further. But the talks seemed to unravel on
Tuesday morning, when a pirate aboard the Quest fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the destroyer. Almost immediately gunfire
erupted from inside the yacht’s cabin, Admiral Fox said, and several pirates then stepped up to the bow with their hands up. Fifteen
Special Operations officers in two high-speed assault craft rushed in. When they boarded the Quest, they shot and killed one pirate and
stabbed another. Once aboard, the American forces found two pirates already dead, apparently killed by their comrades. The pirates
were in disarray, the American military said, and a fight had broken out among them. The deaths of the Adams was particularly
striking to many of their friends, considering the kind of mission they were on. “The irony of all this is that Scott and Jean, like so
many of us out here cruising the world, are out here to meet the people, learn about their culture and help those we meet in whatever
way we can,” said Mr. Allen.
Pirates lifestyle was unethical
Zacks No Date (Richard Zacks is a graduate of University of Michigan and Columbia Journalism
School; he's the author of "History Laid Bare" and "An Underground Education", and has written
articles for the Atlantic, Time, Village Voice, and many other publications, “THE PIRATE LIFE”,
http://www.echonyc.com/~rzacks/kidd/piratelife.htm)
Pirates were mostly young, foul-mouthed men on stolen ships on a constant search for liquor,
money and women. More often than not, they terrified under-manned merchant ships into
surrender without having to fight. Since few of them ever returned home with their stolen loot,
pirates knew they were choosing a lifestyle--"A merry life and a short one," boasted
Bartholomew Roberts--rather than a shot at accumulating a nest egg. Few pirates were
married, and some crews even forbade married men.
"Their lives were a continual alternation between idleness and extreme toil, riotous debauchery
and great privation, prolonged monotony and days of great excitement and adventure," wrote
John Biddulph in "Pirates of Malabar". "At one moment, they were revelling in unlimited rum,
and gambling for handfuls of gold and diamonds; at another half starving for food and reduced
to a pint of water a day under a tropical sun." Drunk, cursing, hungry, horny. And violent.
Pirates--these cursing young men in their crazy clothes, brandishing swords and pistols,
expected immediate surrender and were deeply offended by being forced to fight. When
pirates prevailed, they tortured their victims to reveal where any scrap of treasure might be
concealed. (Some merchants swallowed jewels--pirates off the China Sea forced captives to take
purgatives.) A simple hoisting and drubbing was most common but some pirate captains
delighted in offbeat torture. "Sweating", to take one example, neatly combined sadism and
amusement. The fiddler struck up a tune and the pirates poked the victim with forks and
daggers to keep him dancing and dancing until he confessed or collapsed. And pirates often
raped the female prisoners. The Admiralty clerks who took depositions from rogues under arrest
wrote phrases such as the women were "barbarously used" or "outraged", but the simple fact
was "rape". A member of Bartholomew Roberts crew was being led to the gallows in Cape Coast
Castle off West Africa. David "Lord" Symson recognized a woman's face in the crowd, one
Elizabeth Trengrove, a passenger on a ship they had captured. "I have lain with that bitch three
times," bragged the unrepentent pirate, "and now she has come to see me hanged."
Pirates lived parasitic lives – only harmed society
Leeson (Peter T. Leeson, Professor of Economics and BB&T Professor for the Study of
Capitalism at George Mason University & Ph.D. in economics at George Mason University)
‘09
[“ The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates”, 2/24/2009,
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s8850.html]
Second, unlike traditional economic actors guided by the invisible hand, pirates weren’t
primarily in the business of selling anything. They therefore didn’t have customers they needed
to satisfy. Further, piratical self-interest seeking didn’t benefit wider society, as traditional
economic actors’ self-interest seeking does. In their pursuit of profits, businessmen, for
example, improve our standards of living-they make products that make our lives better.
Pirates, in contrast, thrived parasitically off others’ production. Thus pirates didn’t benefit
society by creating wealth; they harmed society by siphoning existing wealth off for
themselves.
Stupid Undergrounds
REJECT Intelligence; Intelligence can longer be trusted – based off the foundation of stupidity
Mann ’95 (Paul Mann, Department of English Pomona College)
[“Stupid Undergrounds”, May 1995, http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.595/mann.595]
Intelligence is no longer enough. We have witnessed so¶ many spectacles of critical
intelligence's dumb complicity¶ in everything it claims to oppose that we no longer have¶ the
slightest confidence in it. One knows with the utmost¶ certainty that the most intense criticism
goes hand in hand¶ with the most venal careerism, that institutional critiques¶ bolster the
institution by the mere fact of taking part in¶ their discourse, that every position is ignorant of
its¶ deepest stakes. Each school of critical thought sustains¶ itself by its stupidity, often
expressed in the most¶ scurrilous asides, about its competitors, and a sort of¶ willed blindness
about its own investments, hypocrisies,¶ illusory truths. And one can count on each critical¶
generation exposing the founding truths of its predecessors¶ as so much smoke and lies.
Thought, reading, analysis,¶ theory, criticism has transported us to so many Laputas¶ that we
should hardly be surprised to encounter a¶ general--or perhaps not general enough--mistrust
of¶ intelligence as such. What is most "subversive" now is¶ neither critical intelligence nor
romantic madness (the¶ commonplace is that they are two sides of the same¶ Enlightenment
coin) but the dull weight of stupidity,¶ spectacularly elaborated, and subversive only by means
of¶ evacuating the significance of everything it¶ touches--including the romance of subversion
itself. To¶ abandon intelligence because it has been duplicitous or¶ built such grandly inane
intellectual systems might seem to¶ be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but if¶
rejecting intelligence is rejecting too much, never¶ underestimate the stupid exhilaration of
*too much*; and¶ flying babies are a nicely stupid image, quite suitable for¶ a record cover. Let
us insist that we are not arguing for¶ poetic madness breaking out of the prison of reason, nor¶
for the philosophical acephalism of Bataille and his¶ university epigones, still helplessly playing
out the¶ dialectic of the enlightenment. The rationalization of¶ unreason is not much of a
remedy; that is why we took the¶ trouble to diagnose the recuperation and critical¶ evacuation of
Bataille. What confronts us in the stupid¶ underground is also the rationalization of unreason,
but it¶ is accompanied by a much more naked idiocy, sheer stupidity¶ posing as value, as the
last truth of culture, value¶ without value, and an irresistible lure for suicidal¶ reason. That is,
for us, the value--precisely¶ worthless--of the expansive, aggressively sophomoric¶ network of
the Church of the SubGenius, of these¶ exaggerated revolutionary claims for a few noisy CDs
and¶ nipple piercings, or of the posturing of the so-called¶ Hakim Bey: "I am all too well aware of
the 'intelligence'¶ which prevents action. Every once in a while however I¶ have managed to
behave as if I were stupid enough to try to¶ change my own life. Sometimes I've used dangerous¶
stupifiants like religion, marijuana, chaos, the love of¶ boys. On a few occasions I have attained
some degree of¶ success."^6^ The only undergrounds that surface any more¶ are moronic: crosseyed obfuscators, cranks, latahs,^7^¶ deadly-serious self-parodists, adolescent fraternities of¶
deep thinkers riding the coattails of castoff suits.
¶
Art and culture distorted - official intelligence lost in stupid underground
Mann ’95 (Paul Mann, Department of English Pomona College)
[“Stupid Undergrounds”, May 1995, http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.595/mann.595]
What animates the stupid underground is not merely heroic¶ madness or libidinal ideology or a
drooping IQ *against*¶ reason, although we still have to listen to all of that¶ repeated, precisely,
past the point of endurance; it is¶ something like stupid intelligence, the manic codification¶
of the inane, the willingness to pursue, absolutely at the¶ risk of abject humiliation,
absolutely at the risk of¶ making oneself a perfect fool, lines of inquiry that¶ official
intelligence would rather have shut down. The¶ dismissal of some dubious scientific fact or
method by¶ official intelligence is taken as a clear sign that the¶ powers that be are hiding
something important, and that by¶ this very means assumes the status of truth. Enormous¶
labors will be devoted to unlocking its secrets and¶ locating it in a worldview that is as logical as
it is¶ laughable, and that sustains the force of truth in large¶ part by giving the lie to official truth.
Reactive¶ research, parody of science. Or of the mission of art and¶ cultural commentary. Once
it was crucial to separate high¶ and low, art and kitsch, for the very good of the human¶ spirit;
then one tried to "transgress" these distinctions,¶ without quite managing to get rid of them.
But to copy¶ comic books on vast canvases or laminate a few thriftshop¶ tchotchkis and
exhibit them in a major museum is not what¶ used to be called a critical gesture, no matter
what the¶ catalogues say. It is not a critical reflection on the¶ commodification of art, but a
means of rendering the very¶ distance required for such reflection null and void; not a¶
"deconstruction" (sic) of the institution of art but the¶ evacuation of criticism itself. In this zone,
criticism is¶ stupid, hence only stupidity can be critical. The illogic¶ of this proposition cannot
entirely eliminate its force.¶ We are caught up in culture's inability to purge itself of¶ the
inanity utterly native to it. The patent stupidity of¶ certain postmodern works of art, and of
the commentary that¶ tags along behind them, is a symptom of a virulent truth¶ that infects
everything and everyone, the holy blood of Van¶ Gogh, Cezanne at his sublime labors, the
Sistine Chapel¶ englobing a void, empty frame after empty frame, vast¶ libraries of special
pleading, the whole dumb hollow of¶ culture.
The aff is a pointless cultural criticism – they only affect the people in this room
– pref neg to prevent debate from becoming an underground irrelevancy
Mann ’95 (Paul Mann, Department of English Pomona College)
[“Stupid Undergrounds”, May 1995, http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.595/mann.595]
Apocalyptic cults and youth gangs, garage bands and wolfpacks, *colleges* and phalansteries, espionage network trading
in vaporous facts and networks of home shoppers for illicit goods; monastic, penological, mutant-biomorphic, and anarchoterrorist cells; renegade churches, dwarf communities, no-risk survivalist enclaves, unfunded quasi-scientific research
units, paranoid think tanks, unregistered political parties, sub-employed workers councils, endo-exile colonies,
glossolaliac fanclubs, acned anorexic primal hordes; zombie revenants, neo-fakirs, defrocked priests and detoxing prophets,
psychedelic snake-oil shills, masseurs of undiagnosed symptoms, bitter excommunicants, faceless narcissists, ideological
drag queens, mystical technophiles, sub-entrepreneurial dealers, derivative *derivistes*, tireless archivists of phantom
conspiracies, alien abductees, dupe attendants, tardy primitives, vermin of abandoned factories, hermits, cranks, opportunists,
users, connections, outriders, outpatients, wannabes, hackers, thieves, squatters, parasites, saboteurs; wings, wards, warehouses,
arcades, hells, hives, dens, burrows, lofts, flocks, swarms, viruses, tribes, movements, groupuscules, cenacles, isms, and
the endlessly multiplied hybridization of variant combinations of all these, and more... Why this stupid fascination
with stupid undergrounds? What is it about these throwaway fanzines and unreadable rants, these neo-tattoos and recycled
apocalypses, this mountainous accumulation of declassified factoids, these bloody smears, this incredible noise? Why wade through
these piles of nano-shit? Why submit oneself to these hysterical purveyors, these hypertheories and walls of sound? Why insist on
picking this particular species of nit? Why abject criticism, whose putative task was once to preserve the best
that has been known and thought, by guilty association with so fatuous, banal, idiotic, untenable a class of cultural objects?
Why not decline, not so politely, to participate in the tiny spectacle of aging intellectuals dressing in
black to prowl festering galleries and clubs where, sometime before dawn, they will encounter the contemptuous gaze of their
own children, and almost manage to elide that event when they finally produce their bilious reports, their chunks of cultural
criticism? No excuse, no justification: all one can put forward is an unendurable habit of attention, a meager
fascination, no more or less commanding than that hypnosis one enters in the face of television; a rut that has always led
downward and in the end always found itself stuck on the surface; a kind of drivenness, if not a drive; a *critique*, if you
can forgive such a word, that has never located any cultural object whose poverty failed to reflect its
own; a rage to find some point at which criticism would come to an end, and that only intensified as that end-point receded
and shrunk to the size of an ideal. [2] Then if one must persist in investigating these epi-epiphenomena, perhaps compelled
by some critical fashion (no doubt already out of vogue), perhaps merely out of an interminable immaturity, why not
refer the stupid underground back to all the old undergrounds, back to the most familiar histories? Why not
cast it as nothing more than another and another and another stillborn incarnation of an avant-garde that wallows in but
doesn't quite believe its own obituaries, and that one has already wasted years considering? Why not just settle for mapping it
according to the old topography of center and margin, or some other arthritic dichotomy that, for all their alleged postness,
the discourses we are about to breach always manage to drag along behind them? Why not simply accede to the
mock-heroic rhetoric of cultural opposition (subversion, resistance, etc.) that, after a generation of
deconstructions, we still don't have the strength to shake; or to the nouveau rhetoric of multiplicity
(plurality, diversity, etc.), as if all one needed was to add a few more disparate topic headings to break the hold of a One
that, in truth, one still manages to project in the very act of superceding it? Nothing will prevent us—indeed, nothing can save
us--from ransoming ourselves again and again to the exhausted mastery of these arrangements; nothing will keep us from
orienting ourselves toward every difference by means of the most tattered maps. But at the same time we must
entertain--doubtless the right word--the sheer possibility that what we encounter here is not just one more
margin or one more avant-garde, however impossible it will be to avoid all the orders and terms attendant upon those
venerable and ruined cultural edifices. We must remain open to the possibility that this stupid underground poses all the old
questions but a few more as well, that it might suggest another set of cultural arrangements, other topographies and other
mappings, however unlikely that might be. In any case, whatever vicarious attractions the stupid underground
offers the bored intellectual groping for a way to heat up his rhetoric, if not his thought, whatever else we
might encounter here, it is important to insist that you will not find these maps laid out for your
inspection, as if on an intellectual sale table, and rated for accuracy and charm. No claim is being staked here; no
one is being championed, no one offered up on the critical auction block as the other of the month.
There is nothing here to choose; all the choices have already been made. One can only hope, in what will surely prove
an idle gesture, to complicate cultural space for a moment or two,
Treating the nomad as a complete outsider is vain and impossible.
Mann ’95 (Paul Mann, Department of English Pomona College)
[“Stupid Undergrounds”, May 1995, http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.595/mann.595]
Intellectual economics guarantees that even the most powerful and challenging work cannot
protect itself from the order of fashion. Becoming-fashion, becoming-commodity, becomingruin. Such instant, indeed retroactive ruins, are the virtual landscape of the stupid underground.
The exits and lines of flight pursued by Deleuze and Guattari are being shut down and rerouted
by the very people who would take them most seriously. By now, any given work from the
stupid underground's critical apparatus is liable to be tricked out with smooth spaces, warmachines, n - 1s, planes of consistency, plateaus and deterritorializations, strewn about like
tattoos on the stupid body without organs. The nomad is already succumbing to the
rousseauism and orientalism that were always invested in his figure; whatever Deleuze and
Guattari intended for him, he is reduced to being a romantic outlaw, to a position opposite the
State, in the sort of dialectical operation Deleuze most despised. And the rhizome is becoming
just another stupid subterranean figure. It is perhaps true that Deleuze and Guattari did not
adequately protect their thought from this dialectical reconfiguration (one is reminded of
Breton's indictment against Rimbaud for not having prevented, in advance, Claudel's
recuperation of him as a proper Catholic), but no vigilance would have sufficed in any case. The
work of Deleuze and Guattari is evidence that, in real time, virtual models and maps close off
the very exits they indicate. The problem is in part that rhizomes, lines of flight, smooth spaces,
BwOs, etc., are at one and the same time theoretical-political devices of the highest critical
order and merely fantasmatic, delirious, narcissistic models for writing, and thus perhaps an
instance of the all-too-proper blurring of the distinction between criticism and fantasy. In
Deleuze-speak, the stupid underground would be mapped not as a margin surrounding a fixed
point, not as a fixed site determined strictly by its relation or opposition to some more or less
hegemonic formation, but as an intensive, n-dimensional intersection of rhizomatic plateaus.
Nomadology and rhizomatics conceive such a "space" (if one only had the proverbial nickel for
every time that word is used as a critical metaphor, without the slightest reflection on what
might be involved in rendering the conceptual in spatial terms) as a liquid, colloidal suspension,
often retrievable by one or another techno-metaphorical zoning (e.g., "cyberspace"). What is at
stake, however, is not only the topological verisimilitude of the model but the fantastic
possibility of nonlinear passage, of multiple simultaneous accesses and exits, of infinite fractal
lines occupying finite social space. In the strictest sense, stupid philosophy. Nomad thought is
prosthetic, the experience of virtual exhilaration in modalities already mapped and dominated
by nomad, rhizomatic capital (the political philosophy of the stupid underground: capital is more
radical than any of its critiques, but one can always pretend otherwise). It is this very fantasy,
this very narcissistic wish to see oneself projected past the frontier into new spaces, that
abandons one to this economy, that seals these spaces within an order of critical fantasy that
has long since been overdeveloped, entirely reterritorialized in advance. To pursue nomadology
or rhizomatics as such is already to have lost the game. Nothing is more crucial to philosophy
than escaping the dialectic and no project is more hopeless; the stupid-critical underground is
the curved space in which this opposition turns back on itself.
____________ can never solve – the debate community will always reentrench itself
Mann ’95 (Paul Mann, Department of English Pomona College)
[“Stupid Undergrounds”, May 1995, http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.595/mann.595]
We cannot leave this icon without noting another of its elements: the serial character
of the stupid guru, the rock star, the "role model": never an absolute master, because
he can be exchanged at any moment for another figure, another other; he is a place holder for a
rapidly shifting field of empty, ephemeral, and tenuous attachments. No viable cult will ever grow around him,
only an ever-shattering hall of mirrors, a high-velocity phase-space of weak and yet
perpetual narcissistic identifications. One surfs through stupid gurus, as one surfs
through cable channels or the channels in the video-porno booth, in a process that is the very model
of the entropy of such attachments, always in search for the next one, the true and proper identification, which never arrives, which the process
itself realizes as unrealizable, until desire is distributed and dissipated across the entire field. I have on my desk a volume entitled Threat By
Example, a series of brief interviews with "inspiring" figures from the "punk underground."21 The
format of the book-pictures and interviews lasting no more than a page or two, followed immediately by
another, and another, and another--formalizes the linear movement of this
narcissistic guru-surfing: continuous deferral to the promise of a greater imminent satisfaction that never occurs, until the
velocity of selection itself becomes the empty signifier of the Other. The accelerated substitution of figures of
power, authority, and identification reveals, by a kind of cinematic effect, the hollow
at their center, but without thereby releasing us from their hold. The fabled abyss is flattened out,
but it is no less fantastic or fatal.
Neolib Good
Neoliberalism is key to growth and poverty reduction.
Gresser ‘7
Edward Gresser, Director of the Project on Trade and Global Markets @ Progressive Policy
Institute. "Is 'Free Trade' Working?". Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee,
Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism. April 18, 2007.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=254256
Since then the world has opened. Policy is part of it: twelve major multilateral agreements and
more recent bilateral agreements and preferences. So are powerful structural changes outside
policy: geopolitical change returned Germany and Japan, then our old Cold War adversaries to
the global economy; container shipping and air cargo cut the costs of goods trade; fiber-optics,
satellite beams and the Internet are doing the same in services. Trade has accordingly grown
five-fold relative to the US and world economies since the end of the war. Is it working? Taking
Roosevelt's hopes as a guide, on the whole the answer is 'yes.' Open markets abroad let us sell
$1.4 trillion in airplanes, wine, high-value commercial services and more to the world last
year. Our openness to imports, often cause for anxiety and stress, also raises living standards
through wider choice and better prices; and by keeping inflation low, gives us lower
unemployment with higher growth. For example, since the trade agreements and the WorldWide Web launch in the early 1990s, unemployment has fallen from an average of 7.1 percent
to an average of 5.2 percent. Abroad, an opening world economy helps foster development
and reduce poverty. Two recent cases: the African Growth and Opportunity Act has helped
create nearly 200,000 jobs in low-income African states; trade normalization with Cambodia in
1996 has helped a war-torn, almost destitute country create an urban manufacturing industry,
ease the threat of rural hunger, and find jobs for 300,000 young women.
Neolib is key to solve environmental crisis – international coop and economic
develop is critical.
Chen ‘00
[Jim Chen, Professor of Law and Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, 2000-2001, University of
Minnesota Law School.
“PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME"”.
November/December 2000]
The true nature of the environmental crisis. The most serious environmental problems involve
"the depletion and destruction of the global commons." n188 Climate change, ozone
depletion, [*247] and the loss of species, habitats, and biodiversity are today's top
environmental priorities. n189 None can be solved without substantial economic
development and intense international cooperation. The systematic degradation of the
biosphere respects no political boundaries. Worse, it is exacerbated by poverty. Of the myriad
environmental problems in this mutually dependent world, "persistent poverty may turn out
to be the most aggravating and destructive." n190 We must remember "above all else" that
"human degradation and deprivation ... constitute the greatest threat not only to national,
regional, and world security, but to essential life-supporting ecological systems." n191
Neolib creates conditions that allows for environmental sustainability.
Griswold ‘1
(Daniel. Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Masters in economics from London
School of Economics. 8/2/1. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-015b.pdf)
Expanding trade is not merely compatible with high standards of environmental quality but can
lead directly to their improvement. As a country sees its standard of living rise through
economic liberalization and trade expansion, its industry can more readily afford to control
emissions. Its citizens have more to spend, above what they need for subsistence, on the
“luxury good” of improved environmental quality. And as economic growth creates an
expanding, better- educated middle class, the political demand rises for pollution abatement.
That explains why the most stringent environmental laws in the world today are found in
developed countries that are relatively open to trade. Development by itself can have a mixed
impact on the environment. All else being equal, an economy that produces more of exactly the
same goods and services in exactly the same way will produce more pollution. But development
changes not only the size of an economy but also its composition and its level of technology.
More sophisticated technology can mean cleaner production processes and more affordable
and effective pollution abatement. And as nations progress to higher stages of development,
they tend to move away from more resource-intensive activities such as mining, agriculture,
and heavy industry and into light manufacturing, information technology, and services. A
study by the OECD on globalization and the environment found: “There is some evidence that,
once a country begins to industrialize, trade liberalization helps to make the structure of its
economy less pollution-intensive than in those countries whose economies remain relatively
closed. In particular, freer trade seems to promote the transition from heavy resourceprocessing sectors to light manufacturing ones (at least at middle income levels).”
Heg Good
On balance, hegemony key to stable global order
Brooks, Dartmouth government professor, et al., 13
[Brooks, Stephen G., Ikenberry, G. John, Wohlforth, William C., STEPHEN G. BROOKS is Associate
Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G. Milbank
Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence
Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH is Daniel Webster Professor
of Government at Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, “Lean Forward”, Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 92,
Issue 1, Academic Search Complete]
In Defense of American Engagement¶ Since the end of World War II, the United States has
pursued a single grand strategy: deep engagement. In an effort to protect its security and
prosperity, the country has promoted a liberal economic order and established close defense
ties with partners in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. Its military bases cover the map, its
ships patrol transit routes across the globe, and tens of thousands of its troops stand guard in
allied countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea.¶ The details of U.S. foreign policy
have differed from administration to administration, including the emphasis placed on
democracy promotion and humanitarian goals, but for over 60 years, every president has
agreed on the fundamental decision to remain deeply engaged in the world, even as the
rationale for that strategy has shifted. During the Cold War, the United States' security
commitments to Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East served primarily to prevent Soviet
encroachment into the world's wealthiest and most resource-rich regions. Since the fall of the
Soviet Union, the aim has become to make these same regions more secure , and thus less
threatening to the United States, and to use these security partnerships to foster the
cooperation necessary for a stable and open international order.¶ Now, more than ever,
Washington might be tempted to abandon this grand strategy and pull back from the world.
The rise of China is chipping away at the United States' preponderance of power, a budget
crisis has put defense spending on the chopping block, and two long wars have left the U.S.
military and public exhausted. Indeed, even as most politicians continue to assert their
commitment to global leadership, a very different view has taken hold among scholars of
international relations over the past decade: that the United States should minimize its
overseas military presence, shed its security ties, and give up its efforts to lead the liberal
international order.¶ Proponents of retrenchment argue that a globally engaged grand strategy
wastes money by subsidizing the defense of well-off allies and generates resentment among
foreign populations and governments. A more modest posture, they contend, would put an
end to allies' free-riding and defuse anti-American sentiment. Even if allies did not take over
every mission the United States now performs, most of these roles have nothing to do with U.S.
security and only risk entrapping the United States in unnecessary wars. In short, those in this
camp maintain that pulling back would not only save blood and treasure but also make the
United States more secure.¶ They are wrong. In making their case, advocates of retrenchment
overstate the costs of the current grand strategy and understate its benefits. In fact, the
budgetary savings of lowering the United States' international profile are debatable, and
there is little evidence to suggest that an internationally engaged America provokes other
countries to balance against it, becomes overextended, or gets dragged into unnecessary
wars.¶ The benefits of deep engagement, on the other hand, are legion. U.S. security
commitments reduce competition in key regions and act as a check against potential rivals.
They help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in economic
negotiations. And they make it easier for the United States to secure cooperation for
combating a wide range of global threats. Were the United States to cede its global leadership
role, it would forgo these proven upsides while exposing itself to the unprecedented
downsides of a world in which the country was less secure, prosperous, and influential.
Hegemony solves all the impacts – Economy, Free Trade, Great Power, Nuclear,
Regional and Smaller Wars. Collapse triggers those impacts
Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate, 11
(Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior
Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, 7-17-07, “End of Dreams, Return of History,”
Hoover Institution, No. 144, August/September, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/article/6136)
Others have. For decades “realist” analysts have called for a strategy of “offshore balancing.”
Instead of the United States providing security in East Asia and the Persian Gulf, it would
withdraw its forces from Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East and let the nations in those
regions balance one another. If the balance broke down and war erupted, the United States
would then intervene militarily until balance was restored. In the Middle East and Persian Gulf,
for instance, Christopher Layne has long proposed “passing the mantle of regional stabilizer”
to a consortium of “Russia, China, Iran, and India.” In East Asia offshore balancing would mean
letting China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others manage their own problems, without
U.S. involvement—again, until the balance broke down and war erupted, at which point the
United States would provide assistance to restore the balance and then, if necessary, intervene
with its own forces to restore peace and stability.¶ Before examining whether this would be a
wise strategy, it is important to understand that this really is the only genuine alternative to the
one the United States has pursued for the past 65 years. To their credit, Layne and others who
support the concept of offshore balancing have eschewed halfway measures and airy
assurances that we can do more with less, which are likely recipes for disaster. They recognize
that either the United States is actively involved in providing security and stability in regions
beyond the Western Hemisphere, which means maintaining a robust presence in those regions,
or it is not. Layne and others are frank in calling for an end to the global security strategy
developed in the aftermath of World War II, perpetuated through the Cold War, and continued
by four successive post-Cold War administrations.¶ At the same time, it is not surprising that
none of those administrations embraced offshore balancing as a strategy. The idea of relying on
Russia, China, and Iran to jointly “stabilize” the Middle East and Persian Gulf will not strike
many as an attractive proposition. Nor is U.S. withdrawal from East Asia and the Pacific likely
to have a stabilizing effect on that region. The prospects of a war on the Korean Peninsula
would increase. Japan and other nations in the region would face the choice of succumbing to
Chinese hegemony or taking unilateral steps for self-defense, which in Japan’s case would
mean the rapid creation of a formidable nuclear arsenal.¶ Layne and other offshore balancing
enthusiasts, like John Mearsheimer, point to two notable occasions when the United States
allegedly practiced this strategy. One was the Iran-Iraq war, where the United States supported
Iraq for years against Iran in the hope that the two would balance and weaken each other. The
other was American policy in the 1920s and 1930s, when the United States allowed the great
European powers to balance one another, occasionally providing economic aid, or military aid,
as in the Lend-Lease program of assistance to Great Britain once war broke out. Whether this
was really American strategy in that era is open for debate—most would argue the United
States in this era was trying to stay out of war not as part of a considered strategic judgment but
as an end in itself. Even if the United States had been pursuing offshore balancing in the first
decades of the 20th century, however, would we really call that strategy a success? The United
States wound up intervening with millions of troops, first in Europe, and then in Asia and Europe
simultaneously, in the two most dreadful wars in human history.¶ It was with the memory of
those two wars in mind, and in the belief that American strategy in those interwar years had
been mistaken, that American statesmen during and after World War II determined on the
new global strategy that the United States has pursued ever since. Under Franklin Roosevelt,
and then under the leadership of Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, American leaders
determined that the safest course was to build “situations of strength” (Acheson’s phrase) in
strategic locations around the world, to build a “preponderance of power,” and to create an
international system with American power at its center. They left substantial numbers of
troops in East Asia and in Europe and built a globe-girdling system of naval and air bases to
enable the rapid projection of force to strategically important parts of the world. They did not
do this on a lark or out of a yearning for global dominion. They simply rejected the offshore
balancing strategy, and they did so because they believed it had led to great, destructive wars in
the past and would likely do so again. They believed their new global strategy was more likely
to deter major war and therefore be less destructive and less expensive in the long run.
Subsequent administrations, from both parties and with often differing perspectives on the
proper course in many areas of foreign policy, have all agreed on this core strategic approach.¶
From the beginning this strategy was assailed as too ambitious and too expensive. At the dawn
of the Cold War, Walter Lippmann railed against Truman’s containment strategy as suffering
from an unsustainable gap between ends and means that would bankrupt the United States and
exhaust its power. Decades later, in the waning years of the Cold War, Paul Kennedy warned of
“imperial overstretch,” arguing that American decline was inevitable “if the trends in national
indebtedness, low productivity increases, [etc.]” were allowed to continue at the same time as
“massive American commitments of men, money and materials are made in different parts of
the globe.” Today, we are once again being told that this global strategy needs to give way to
a more restrained and modest approach, even though the indebtedness crisis that we face in
coming years is not caused by the present, largely successful global strategy.¶ Of course it is
precisely the success of that strategy that is taken for granted. The enormous benefits that this
strategy has provided, including the financial benefits, somehow never appear on the ledger.
They should. We might begin by asking about the global security order that the United States
has sustained since Word War II—the prevention of major war, the support of an open trading
system, and promotion of the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How
much is that order worth? What would be the cost of its collapse or transformation into
another type of order?¶ Whatever the nature of the current economic difficulties, the past six
decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity than any time in human history.
Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward nations have become
economic dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups and downs throughout
this period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this international order. One price of
this success has been maintaining a sufficient military capacity to provide the essential security
underpinnings of this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th
century, the United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the second half, this
global American strategy helped produce a peaceful end to the great-power struggle of the
Cold War and then 20 more years of great-power peace. Looked at coldly, simply in terms of
dollars and cents, the benefits of that strategy far outweigh the costs.¶ The danger, as always, is
that we don’t even realize the benefits our strategic choices have provided. Many assume that
the world has simply become more peaceful, that great-power conflict has become
impossible, that nations have learned that military force has little utility, that economic power
is what counts. This belief in progress and the perfectibility of humankind and the institutions of
international order is always alluring to Americans and Europeans and other children of the
Enlightenment. It was the prevalent belief in the decade before World War I, in the first years
after World War II, and in those heady days after the Cold War when people spoke of the “end
of history.” It is always tempting to believe that the international order the United States built
and sustained with its power can exist in the absence of that power, or at least with much less
of it. This is the hidden assumption of those who call for a change in American strategy: that
the United States can stop playing its role and yet all the benefits that came from that role will
keep pouring in. This is a great if recurring illusion, the idea that you can pull a leg out from
under a table and the table will not fall over.¶
Friend Enemy Distinction bad
Even if the friend-enemy distinction is good, using it exclusively causes conflict
Thorup 6 (Mikkel Thorup, Ph.D. dissertation @ the Institute of Philosophy and the History of Ideas, January, 2006, “In Defence
of Enmity – Critiques of Liberal Globalism,” p. 39-40)
This text is mainly about the potential dangers of the liberal approach to politics. But this is not turning it into an
unqualified defence or advocacy of the conflict perspective. As an illustration of the dangers of what we can call ‘manichean
decisionism’, I’ll briefly mention an article on Schmitt’s concept of the political by Bernard Willms (1991), in which he
classifies two traditions of political thinking: political realism and political fictionalism (try to guess his position!). Political
fictionalism “subordinates politics to ‘higher’ principles or ‘truths’”, whereas political realism is
“the permanently repeated attempt to conceive of politics as what in fact it is ” (1991: 371). It is a
(unintended) caricature on the self-professed realist’s sense of superiority because of their courage and ability to confront
the really real reality: Political fictionalisms help to satisfy man’s need for consolation, edification,
hope and sense, tending to veil real conditions of government. The political realist seeks to identify
necessities – irrespective of their severity and without consideration for any need for deceit under the existing
government. (1991: 371-2) This is the kind of reductionism of the political that I want to avoid. Working with
Schmitt’s categories and critiques entails a danger of falling in the (very self-comforting) trap of
proclaiming only one true and ‘hard’ version of the political and of dismissing all others as fictions and
wishful thinking. Primacy of the political becomes primacy of foreign policy , organized violence etc. The
political is effectively reduced to a few areas – which is just what liberalism is criticized for doing. The friend/enemy
distinction or conflictuality may often be a dominant feature of the political, but that is not to say
that it is then the political. As Ankersmit (1996: 127) says, that would be the same as making the unavoidability of
marital disagreements into the very foundation of marriage as such. I want instead to argue that the political contains
a number of styles, sides, variants (or whatever one want to call it) that can very loosely and ideal-typically be
grouped in two main forms: Politics as conflict and politics as technique, where neither of them can claim exclusivity. So, I
want to avoid a sterile discussion of what the political really is. My interest is far more the various styles of the political that
are operative in political debate. Schmitt and many other conflict theoreticians do not see the other
face of the political as anything other than a ‘secondary’, ‘dependent’, ‘corrupted’ expression of
politics. Liberals tend to exclude politics as conflict, confining it to other spaces in time or geography, as
aberration or relapse. What the two concepts each do is to highlight a certain aspect of the political,
and my claim is that they are elements of a unity. There’s a certain pendulum process at work and I’ll
give that a number of expressions, which basically states the not very controversial thought that the political world is
located between the extremes of repetition and break, stability and change, regime and revolution, or, as I prefer to call
them, technique and conflict. Depoliticization, then, is a way to describe the attempts to or methods of
making repetition, stability and regime universal and eternal – to place areas, practices and actors beyond change
and critique – whereas repoliticization describes the opposite movement – disruption, change, recreation of the entire
social space.
Friend/enemy distinction causes more genocide & violence – empirics prove
Boersma ‘5 [Jess Boersma teaches courses in Peninsular literatures, critical thought, and Spanish
language at U of NC, “What About Schmitt? Translating Carl: Schmitt’s Theory of Sovereignty as
Literary Concept”, published in Discourse, 27.2&3, Spring & Fall 2005, pp. 215-227 (Article),
accessed 7/16/13, projectMUSE]
It would be too hasty to conclude that Schmitt’s current critical¶ standing indicates any kind of resolution of the polemics between¶
left and right regarding the legacy of his legal thought and¶ his political association with the Nazi party. It almost goes without¶
saying that the
extreme right has taken pains to revive the friendenemy¶ distinction, developed in
Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political¶ and, in many cases, has reduced it further to a friendfoe distinction¶ in order to justify strategies of total war and cultural, religious,¶ and ethnic
cleansing.3¶ On the other side of the spectrum, Giorgio Agamben, in his¶ Homo Sacer series argues that the
possibly tyrannical consequences¶ of Schmitt’s thinking on the friend-enemy distinction and¶
the sovereign decision are not isolated to the followers of the¶ ‘‘Crown Jurist of the Third Reich,’’ but
rather are only too alive and well within the practices of present day liberal democratic ¶ states.4
Let me give one quick example of Agamben’s line of¶ thought in the form of biopolitics and the sovereign decision. In¶ Homo
Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life Agamben argues that the¶ state of exception is fast
becoming the rule, with the consequence¶ that the state of nature and the state of law are
nearly indistinguishable¶ (38). Rather than a pure Hobbesian state of nature of all¶ against all, the sovereign state
maintains the monopoly over violence¶ and yet the demand for obedience is no longer contingent¶ upon the guarantee of
protection. In
Remnants of Auschwitz, the¶ Nazi concentration camp is shown to be the end result
of a legal¶ process which produces a separation between the living being (zoe)¶ and the
speaking being (bios) with the aim ‘‘no longer to make¶ die or to make live, but to survive’’
(155). Agamben then seeks to¶ illustrate how states of exception have played out in American history¶ by following the sovereign
decisions of presidents Abraham¶ Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W.¶ Bush. In the last case, he states
that as a result of September 11¶ ‘‘Bush is attempting to produce a situation in which the emergency¶ becomes the rule, and the
very distinction between peace and war¶ (and between foreign and civil war) becomes impossible’’ (State of¶ Exception 22).
Evidence for Agamben’s claims would appear to be¶ provided externally by the suspended legal status of the Guanta´-¶ namo
prisoners; and internally by the recent ethical and legal battles¶ over the coma case of Terri Schiavo (whose last name happens¶ to
mean slave in Italian), along with the present debates between¶ the legislative and the executive branches in which Attorney
General¶ Alberto Gonzales has defended the constitutional legality of¶ President Bush’s decision to not fully disclose matters
regarding¶ domestic spying.5
Free and liberal trade is a good thing – laundry list of reasons
Tupy ‘6 [Marian L. Tupy is assistant director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty
specializing in the study of Europe and sub-Saharan Africa at the Cato Institute, “Free Trade
Benefits All”, published 1/3/6, accessed 7/23/13, <
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-trade-benefits-all>]
Trade liberalization talks in Hong Kong ended with a deal to further liberalize access for poor
countries’ exports to rich countries’ markets. Urged on by the misguided nongovernmental organizations, poor
countries wasted an excellent opportunity to enhance their own prosperity by opening their markets to foreign competition,
however.¶ Therefore, benefits of trade liberalization for many poor countries, especially those in Africa, are likely to be severely
limited. So it is worthwhile to again restate the case for free trade and to back it with evidence countries open to trade tend to be
more prosperous than protectionist countries.¶ There
is ample evidence people have been trading with one
another since earliest times. As economists James Gwartney of Florida State University and Richard Stroup
of Montana State University put it in their book “What Everyone Should Know about Economics and
Prosperity,” the motivation for trade can be summed up in the phrase, “If you do something
good for me, I will do something good for you.Ӧ There are three important reasons voluntary
exchange is good not only for the contracting parties but the world as a whole:¶ (1) Trade
improves global efficiency in resource allocation. A glass of water may be of little value to someone living near
the river but is priceless to a person crossing the Sahara. Trade delivers goods and services to those who value
them most.¶ (2) Trade allows partners to gain from specializing in the producing those goods
and services they do best. Economists call that the law of comparative advantage. When producers create goods they are
comparatively skilled at, such as Germans producing beer and the French producing wine, those goods increase in abundance and
quality.¶ (3) Trade allows consumers to benefit from more efficient production methods. For
example, without large markets for goods and services, large production runs would not be economical. Large production runs, in
turn, are instrumental to reducing product costs. Lower production costs lead to cheaper goods and services, which raises real living
standards.¶ Evidence
supports the idea nations more open to trade tend to be richer than those
that are less open. Columbia University economist Arvind Panagariya wrote in a paper “Miracles and
Debacles: Do Free-Trade Skeptics Have a Case?”: “On the poverty front, there is overwhelming evidence that
trade openness is a more trustworthy friend of the poor than protectionism. Few countries
have grown rapidly without a simultaneous rapid expansion of trade. In turn, rapid growth
has almost always led to reduction in poverty.”
Peace and harmony, not enmity, are the natural state of the human condition
Witzsche ‘3 [Rolf Witzsche – science researcher and writer, “War is not inevitable Peace is”,
published 2/2/3, accessed 7/22/13, http://nuclear.rolf-witzsche.com/nuclear_peace.html]
It has been our experience as humanity throughout our long history that peace is inevitable.
Nothing has ever been gained by war for which war would be an essential element of
civilization. In all cases, war has brought on the destruction of the society that wages war.¶ The
Roman Empire is a classical example. Its existence was built on war to subdue and loot the surrounding nations. But it
collapsed. It lasted for half a millennium in which civilization was nearly destroyed, but it collapsed. Contrary to popular
notions, Rome was not defeated. It died in a whimper brought on by the pain of the imperial
disease. When the barbarians invaded the trash that was left of it, the invading ruler couldn't even be bothered to declare
himself Caesar - Caesar of what?¶ The next big war was the Venice instigated war, a string of wars launched in the 16th Century to
destroy the Renaissance, that ended with the infamous Thirty Years War. This colossal warfare ended a century and a half later, after
half of the population of Europe was killed in an orgy of destruction unequalled in history until the 20th Century. Nothing was gained
by this war. It ended out of necessity, in a great peace, the Peace of Westphalia. Peace was inevitable.¶ All
of these great
historic tragedies could have been avoided. They were unleashed by fools, and a foolish
society failed to stop them before they unfolded.¶ World War I was likewise not inevitable as
the American economist Lyndon LaRouche pointed out in his 2003 State of the Union address. He pointed out that
World War I occurred, because fools allowed it to happen. ¶ Only the peace that followed was
inevitable. Once the feuding nations had destroyed their civilization to the point that they
could only whimper, peace was once again resumed. No victors emerged from this war. The
destruction of Europe was the only legacy that came out of this war, which was so immense
that the effects of it in terms of cultural destruction are still felt to the present day.¶ World
War II was not inevitable either. It too, occurred, because fools allowed it to happen. Only the
peace that followed was inevitable. ¶ Fortunately for humanity, the 1932 elected U.S. President, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, was able to revive the productive capacity of the USA at this time. This grand revival enabled a coalition of nations to be
formed, and enabled it to intervene and stop that war before the total destruction of civilization had occurred. Because of this
intervention, the destruction of Europe and the world became not as severe as it would have been, as indeed, that of World War I
had been.¶ None of the wars of the 20th Century had been inevitable, which had, because of needless folly,
become the worst century of war in human history, while nothing was accomplished except the destruction of human culture and
civilization. Nor will anything be accomplished by the great war that is presently planned, the war against Iraq, that is set up to be
more destructive than all the wars in history combined. It is a war designed to become a war of civilizations, more than a war of
nations, in which nuclear weapons will play a role as we have been virtually assured by the American administration.¶ By its design,
this war is set up to be an imperial war that plays a role in a much larger game than most people are will to acknowledge, in which
the United States of America itself, is the real target. Most likely, the designed outcome cannot be avoided. This once great nation,
that had long been revered in the world as a beacon of hope, has been set up to destroy itself by its foolishness as it submits itself to
the presently staged imperial game into which it is being dragged by the stooges that have been recruited for this purpose. Indeed,
the destruction of this nation has been the imperial goal ever since it declared its independence from the imperial world in 1776. It
had been forced to defend itself time and time again against the onslaught of imperial wars; first on the battle field, then on the
economic front, then against internal subversion, and finally against a complete political takeover. ¶ "Let us be blunt," warns the
Lyndon LaRouche organization in this regard, "This war has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, or Iraq, or weapons of
mass destruction. This is the Clash of Civilizations conflict, promoted by British Arab Bureau old spook Bernard Lewis and his
American dwarf, Samuel Huntington--to breakup any possibility of Eurasian integration and development. Only a sucker believes
that this war drive has anything to do with Iraq. So President Bush has to stop being a sucker--before he finds his Presidency ruined.
This is Bush's {real crisis}, brought on by the toleration for a Sharonist war party inside the Administration." (issued Jan. 30, 2003)¶
When the dust settles over the world, after the presently planned war has played itself out,
there will be peace once again. This peace is inevitable. The destruction of humanity and civilization that is
planned to occur before this peace unfolds again, will necessarily be in proportion to the dynamics of the new war, designed to be a
war of civilizations, a religious war, an ideological war, and a nuclear war. Even without this war, already today, by its economic and
strategic policies, the USA finds itself to have become the most hated nation on the planet. That illustrates the trend. How many
people will remain alive to eventually see the peace that inevitably follows after a war runs its course, cannot be determined.¶
World War II was not easily stopped. It would not have been stopped as quickly as it was stopped, without Franklin D. Roosevelt's
humanist revival which created the physical resources to force an end to this war. The United States had been gripped in the jaws of
a deep depression at this time, which too, could have been avoided, but wasn't. But when Roosevelt came to power with the
promise to end the depression, the USA was still a relatively moral and economically strong nation that could be developed, and was
developed into becoming a bulwark against this war. Nothing similar exists in today's world. The world economy is bankrupt. The
dollar is disintegrating. South America, Africa, and other nations are subjected to genocide by policy.¶ A war of the kind that is
presently contemplated cannot likely be stopped in mid stream once it unfolds, as World War II was stopped. The moral and
economic strength does not exist anywhere in the world that would be required to marshal the resources to stop such a war in its
course. Nor is this war designed to be won. No exit strategy exists; no victory strategy; nor do the economic resources exist in the
current age of the worst financial and economic disintegration in history, to support the new world war in a conventional way, that
is, without nuclear weapons. (see economic reality) In this sense, Saddam's warning is valid when he pointed out that the invading
forces won't likely return home alive. In a theatre into which nuclear weapons are planned to be used, the chance for human
survival drops to very low levels. But none that has to happen. War is not inevitable. It has never been inevitable that humanity
allows itself to be dragged into the worst nightmare in its history, by a bunch of fools, and by its own foolishness.¶ War
can be
avoided. War is not inevitable. Peace alone is inevitable. And, as has always been the case
throughout history, this peace can be won before the pains of war destroy the fabric of
human society. By winning the peace for once, before the war unfolds, humanity would be
winning the war. This is the only way in which a war can be won. No other option exists. It is
one's hope therefore, that the urgency of the hour will inspire humanity to muster the
courage to win this war in this manner, and to score for itself a victory that leaves the field
wide open for a bright and prosperous future.
Schmitt’s theory based off false situation
From http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v012/12.1.engels.html
Although Schmitt's dialectical theory of friends and enemies might be attractive because of its
parsimony, it is premised on a false dilemma. Schmitt argues that social stability presupposes
absolute homogeneity and stark boundaries between "us" and "them." For him, faith in
pluralism is a stupid illusion crafted by liberal democrats unable to reckon with the brutality of
social life. One of Schmitt's most insightful readers, Chantal Mouffe, explains that in Schmitt's
work "either there is unity of the people, and this requires expelling every division and
antagonism outside the demos … or some forms of division inside the demos are considered
legitimate, and this will lead inexorably to the kind of pluralism which negates political unity and
the very existence of the people."12 Here Schmitt was wrong. Pluralistic democratic societies
can be stable. Even if the political is a precondition for the social, then, there is still some
negotiation involved in how it will be articulated by political actors. Mouffe corrects Schmitt's
thought by distinguishing between the political, which refers "to the [End Page 39] dimension of
antagonism that is inherent in human relations," and "that can take many forms and emerge in
different types of social relation," and politics, which "indicates the ensemble of practices,
discourses and institutions which seek to establish a certain order and organize human
coexistence in conditions that are always potentially conflictual because they are affected by the
dimension of 'the political.'" The political is the precondition for politics, whereas politics is the
realm of managing the political "in domesticating hostility and in trying to defuse the potential
antagonism that exists in human relations."13
AT: Schmitt
Default to a liberal perspective, even Schmitt concedes movement has priority
over substance
Botwinick 5 - (Aryeh, received his Ph.D. from the Inter-Disciplinary Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton
University in 1973, teaches graduate courses in political theory, “Same/Other versus Friend/Enemy: Levinas contra
Schmitt,” Telos Press, pg 60)
In what from a liberal perspective must appear as the very perversity and wrong-headedness of
his stance, Schmitt unwittingly confirms liberalism: that movement (what is enshrined in the notion of
procedure) has priority over substance. As I suggested earlier, one way of making sense of Schmitt's
understanding of the political as a decisionistic leap pursuant to the collective delineation of and
psychological mobilization for doing combat with an enemy is by following the skeptical
nominalistic and conventionalistic premises that he shares with liberalism. If the relationship
between words and things (theory and fact) is as underdetermined as nominalism and
conventionalism stipulate, then the triumph of skepticism gets figured as an irrational leap (a
baptism through fire, or at least the readiness to enter the fire) which becomes the hallmark of the political. I
have argued how the most coherent reconstruction of liberal thought high- lights how at this
point it makes a detour. In order to remain consistent, skepticism must be reformulated as a generalized
agnosticism which dis- enchants the inverted certainty attendant to full-fledged skepticism and
legitimates deferral and “procedure” (the endless deferral encoded in the priority assigned to “procedure”) as the
constitutive categories in the formation and maintenance of the state. The way that Schmitt
inadvertently attests to the validity of liberal understandings is that in his rejection of a
generalized agnosticism, he becomes a gnostic. “He affirms the political [in his sense] because he
realizes that when the political is threatened, the seriousness of life is threatened.”1° There is no
middle ground for Schmitt. When he rejects a generalized agnosticism, he does not move to
some middle ground between not knowing with certainty (but still claim- ing to know) and
passionately knowing. His very arguments that establish his jettisoning of a generalized
agnosticism are the ones that communicate to us his intoxication with the certainty born of
passionate commitment. Schmitt thereby unconsciously dramatizes for us a teaching that is
central to the priority that liberalism assigns to procedure: that the movement is all - whether
for good or for evil.
Schmitt’s ideology is not ideal in the policymaking world
Thorup 6 - (Mikkel Thorup, Ph.D. dissertation @ the Institute of Philosophy and the History of Ideas, January,
2006, “In Defence of Enmity – Critiques of Liberal Globalism,” p. 39-40, TH) NAR
This text is mainly about the potential dangers of the liberal approach to politics. But this is not
turning it into an unqualified defence or advocacy of the conflict perspective. As an illustration of
the dangers of what we can call ‘manichean decisionism’, I’ll briefly mention an article on Schmitt’s
concept of the political by Bernard Willms (1991), in which he classifies two traditions of political
thinking: political realism and political fictionalism (try to guess his position!). Political
fictionalism “subordinates politics to ‘higher’ principles or ‘truths’”, whereas
political realism is “the permanently repeated attempt to conceive of politics as what
in fact it is” (1991: 371). It is a (unintended) caricature on the self-professed realist’s sense of
superiority because of their courage and ability to confront the really real reality: Political
fictionalisms help to satisfy man’s need for consolation, edification, hope and sense,
tending to veil real conditions of government. The political realist seeks to identify
necessities – irrespective of their severity and without consideration for any need for deceit under
the existing government. (1991: 371-2) This is the kind of reductionism of the political that I want
to avoid. Working with Schmitt’s categories and critiques entails a danger of falling in
the (very self-comforting) trap of proclaiming only one true and ‘hard’ version of the
political and of dismissing all others as fictions and wishful thinking. Primacy of the political
becomes primacy of foreign policy, organized violence etc. The political is effectively reduced
to a few areas – which is just what liberalism is criticized for doing. The friend/enemy
distinction or conflictuality may often be a dominant feature of the political, but that is
not to say that it is then the political. As Ankersmit (1996: 127) says, that would be the same
as making the unavoidability of marital disagreements into the very foundation of marriage as such.
I want instead to argue that the political contains a number of styles, sides, variants (or
whatever one want to call it) that can very loosely and ideal-typically be grouped in two main forms:
Politics as conflict and politics as technique, where neither of them can claim exclusivity. So, I want
to avoid a sterile discussion of what the political really is. My interest is far more the various styles
of the political that are operative in political debate. Schmitt and many other conflict
theoreticians do not see the other face of the political as anything other than a
‘secondary’, ‘dependent’, ‘corrupted’ expression of politics. Liberals tend to exclude
politics as conflict, confining it to other spaces in time or geography, as aberration or relapse.
What the two concepts each do is to highlight a certain aspect of the political, and my
claim is that they are elements of a unity. There’s a certain pendulum process at work
and I’ll give that a number of expressions, which basically states the not very controversial thought
that the political world is located between the extremes of repetition and break, stability and change,
regime and revolution, or, as I prefer to call them, technique and conflict. Depoliticization, then,
is a way to describe the attempts to or methods of making repetition, stability and regime
universal and eternal – to place areas, practices and actors beyond change and critique – whereas
repoliticization describes the opposite movement – disruption, change, recreation of the entire social
space.
Schmitt’s ideals purport authoritarianism and violence – the aff is a DA
Farr 9 – (Evan, With Friends Like These...Carl Schmitt, Political Ontology, and National Socialism, PhD Student in
Political Science, University of Virginia Graduate Student Conference,
http://www.virginia.edu/politics/grad_program/print/Farr_gradconference09.pdf)
Schmitt’s actionism is most clearly seen in the previous sub-section: because all constitutional and legal prescriptions are at some
The “domestic theory of
pluralism” is derided as contrary to “the political itself”; while the pluralistic give-and-take of
liberal democracy yields mere “liberal individualism,” the decisionist model alone brings order
to the domestic polity.40 This action-centrism is straightforward authoritarianism: because open
liberalism is fractious, slow, and indecisive, a unified, fast, and decisive state saves the day.
Although Schmitt professed a preference for democracy, his limitation to the participants and
explicit rejection of the pluralized state suggests a more “totalitarian” model.
level dead letter, the total state requires the sovereign ability to “decide on the exception.”
Schmitt’s ideas of national identity cause radical nationalism and ethnic
truculence making war inevitable
Scheuerman 4 - (William, professor of political science at Indiana University at Bloomington, “International Law
as a Historical Myth,” Constellations, 11 (4), pg 546-547)
Second, Schmitt’s odd
periodization obscures the fundamental changes to traditional European
interstate relations generated by the emergence of the modern nation-state. As Bobbitt has succinctly
observed, the appearance of the nation-state was accompanied by the strategic style of total war. If the nation governed
the state, and the nation’s welfare provided the state’s reason for being, then the enemy’s
nation must be destroyed – indeed, that was the way to destroy the state....[F]or the nationstate it was necessary to annihilate the vast resources of men and material that a nation could
throw into the field....36 It was the idea of a “nation in arms” that not only posed a direct threat
to earlier absolutist images of “king’s wars,” but also opened the door to many pathologies of
modern warfare: the full-scale mobilization of the “nation” and subsequent militarization of
society, and killing of “enemy” civilians. The European nation-state and total war may represent two sides of the
same coin.37 Of course, for Schmitt’s purposes it is useful that the idea of the “nation in arms” first takes the historical stage in the
context of the French Revolution and its commitment to universalistic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.38 Nation-statebased democracy is indeed a normatively ambivalent creature, resting on an uneasy synthesis of universalistic liberal democratic
ideals with historically contingent notions of shared cultural identity, language, history, and ethnos.39 Although
Schmitt and
his followers predictably try to link the horrors of modern warfare to the growing significance of
universalistic liberal-democratic ideals, a more persuasive empirical case can be made that
those horrors can be traced to highly particularistic and exclusionary ideas of national identity,
according to which the “other” – in this case, outsiders to the “national community” – came to
be perceived as representing life-and-death foes in the context of crisis-ridden industrial
capitalism and the increasingly unstable interstate system of the nineteenth century. Such ideas
of national identity ultimately took the disastrous form of the “inflamed nationalism and ethnic
truculence” that dominated European politics by the late nineteenth century and ultimately
culminated in World War I.40 Nationalism and ethnic truculence played a key role in the
destruction of the traditional European balance of power system since they required a
fundamental reshuffling of state borders in accordance with “national identity”; of course, this
question had been of marginal significance in the absolutist interstate system. In this context as
well, one of Schmitt’s heroes, Bismarck, in reality played a role very different from that described by Schmitt in
Nomos der Erde: “the last statesman” of the jus publicum europaeum not only helped forge a unified German nation-state, but in
order to do relied on total warfare while undermining the traditional European sys- tem of states, in part because it rested on state
forms (e.g., the diverse, polyglot Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires) fundamentally distinct from the modern nation-state.41
On this matter as well, Schmitt’s analysis is either openly misleading or revealingly silent.
Perhaps his own unabashed enthusiasm for rabid ethno- nationalism in the context of National
Socialism helps explain this silence.42