Monday, December 18, 2006

Very delinquint and over-due post

I do promise another post is coming. I haven't decided a topic yet, so if there's something you want to hear about, a specific case or theory or anything, I'd welcome the suggestions. You can email me directly at pemberleysmistress@gmail.com, or definitive.debate@gmail.com.

In the interum, I want to make two offers.

One, I will do case critiques for anyone who wants it, which can include suggestions on better evidence, re-wording transitions, correcting tags, cross examiniation questions I would ask, arguments I would make as the negative, etc. I won't share any information about your case outside of the editors here and my partner.

Two, I'm posting this list of resources I found in searching for my negative brief this past weekend. It is a great resource, and I hope you'll share it with your club members and debate friends. There are 121 resources listed on a variety of generic and specific cases under NATO. I haven't tried all the links, and I only found one or two dead ones in looking at most of them.

Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year (although I should be posting before then)!

God's Blessings,

Sarah Anderson





Politics & Societies in Post-Revolutionary East Central Europe
BIBLIOGAPHY
NATO ENLARGEMENT
February 11, 2002
Carey McCarthy and Allyson Stroschein
http://sipa.columbia.edu/REGIONAL/ECE/Bibliography,%20Nato%20Enlargement.pdf

Links…

1. Atlantic Council of the United States, NATO Enlargement the Article 5 Angle: http://www.acus.org/publications/bulletins/internationalsecurity/art5.pdf
2. Brookings Institute Policy Briefs, NATO Enlargement Moving Forward: http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb90.pdf
3. CATO, The Folly of NATO Enlargement: http://www.cato.org/dailys/2-03-97.html
4. Center for Strategic and International Studies, EU and NATO Enlargement for 2004: http://www.csis.org/europe/eurofocus/v7n4.htm
5. EUSEC, European Security Forum: http://www.eusec.org/20010709.htm
6. Heritage Foundation, Answering Senate Questions About NATO Enlargement: http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1154es.html
7. NATO, Official site: www.nato.int
8. NATO On-line Library, Study on NATO Enlargement: www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/enl-9501.htm
9. NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Declaration on NATO Enlargement: http://www.nato-pa.int/plenary/01vilnius/au-146-en.html
10. Radio Free Europe, Expanding NATO: http://www.rferl.org/nca/special/madrid-nato/
11. RAND Corporation, NATO Enlargement: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1243/
12. SearchMil.com, an internet search engine which is limited to only U.S. government
military web sites: www.SearchMil.com
13. State Department, NATO Enlargement research: www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/natoindex.html

Books…
14. Aggestam, Lisbeth and Hyde-Price, Adrian. Security And Identity In Europe: Exploring The New Agenda (New York : St. Martin's Press London : Macmillan, 2000).
15. Babkina, A.M. NATO's Role, Missions And Future (Commack, N.Y. : Nova Science Publishers, 1999).
16. Bebler, Aton. The Challenge Of NATO Enlargement (Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 1999).
17. Carlisle Barracks. NATO After Enlargement : New Challenges, New Missions, New Forces. (Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1998).
18. David, Charles Philippe. The Future Of NATO : Enlargement, Russia, And European Security. (Montreal : Published for the Centre for Security and Foreign Policy Studies and The Teleglobe Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies by McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999).
19. Duignan, Peter. NATO: Its Past, Present, And Future (Stanford, Calif. : Hoover Institution Press, 2000).
20. Duke, Simon. The elusive quest for European security : from EDC to CFSP (New York : St. Martin's Press in association with St. Antony's College, Oxford, 2000)
21. Haley, Edward. United States Relations With Europe (Claremont, Calif.: Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies, 1999).
22. Henderson, Karen. Back To Europe : Central And Eastern Europe And The European Union (London ; Philadelphia : UCL Press, 1999).
23. Koutrakou, Vassiliki N. and Emerson, Lucie A. The European Union And Britain
24. Debating The Challenges Ahead (New York : St. Martin's Press in association with Centre for Research in European Studies, University of East Anglia ; London: Macmillan, 2000).
25. Lewis, David. What Security For Which Europe? : Case Studies From The Baltic To The Black Sea (New York : Peter Lang Publishing, 1999).
26. MacLean, George. Between Actor And Presence : The European Union And The Future For The Transatlantic Relationship (Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press, 2001).
27. Mattox, Gale A. and Rachwald, Arthur R. Enlarging NATO : The National Debates (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001).
28. Michta, Andrew. America's New Allies : Poland, Hungary, And The Czech Republic In NATO (Seattle : University of Washington Press, 1999).
29. Shiraev, Eric. Anti-Americanism in Russia: From Stalin to Putin (New York: Palgrave, 2000).
30. Smith, Mark. NATO Enlargement During The Cold War : Strategy And System In The Western Alliance (New York : Palgrave, 2000).
31. Smith, Martin A. Building A Bigger Europe : EU And NATO Enlargement In Comparative Perspective (Aldershot : Ashgate, 2000).
32. Smolansky, Bettie and Smolansky, Oles. The Lost Equilibrium: International Relations In The Post-Soviet Era (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 2001).
33. Spering, James. Two Tiers Or Two Speeds? : The European Security Order And The Enlargement Of The European Union And NATO (Manchester, UK ; New York: Manchester University Press ; New York : Distributed exclusively in the USA by St. Martin's Press, 1999).
34. Yaroslav, Billinsky. Endgame In NATO's Enlargement : The Baltic States And Ukraine (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999).

Newspaper Articles…
35. Dempsey, Judy. "Nato In Plan To Admit Five States As Members." Financial Times (London), (January 28, 2002), Pg. 6.
36. Financial Times (London). "Nato Plans For Five New Members." (January 28, 2002), Pg. 1.
37. Financial Times (London). "Reforming NATO." (February 8, 2002), Pg. 18.
38. Rumer, Eugene and Simon, Jeffrey. "NATO; Russia Should Have A Seat At The Table." The LA Times, (December 23, 2001), Home Edition, Page 2.
39. Japaridze, Misha. "New NATO Alliance Fitting For 21st Century." Toranto Star, (December 11, 2001), Ontario Edition, OPINION, Pg. 33.
40. Verbin, Anatoly. "Bulgaria Tries To Improve Image For NATO, EU." The Houston Chronicle (January 20, 2002), Two Star Edition, A, Pg. 25

Magazines/Journals:
41. Baker, James A. III. "Russia in NATO?" Washington Quarterly, (2002 Winter), Vol. 25, No. 1; Pg. 95.
42. Bering, Helle. "The New, Bigger NATO: Fears v. Facts." The Policy Review, (April, 2001 / May, 2001, Pg. 3.
43. Coleman, Fred. "The Kaliningrad scenario: expanding NATO to the Baltics." World Policy Journal, 14, (Fall, 1997) p. 71-5.
44. Economist, The. "Knocking At The Clubhouse Door - The Baltic States, Riga, Tallinn And Vilnius." (September 1, 2001), U.S. Edition, SPECIAL REPORT (1).
45. Economist, The. "Can Russia handle a changed world? - Handling a changed world." (September 1, 2001), U.S. Edition, LEADER.
46. Guardian, The. "Shifting Alliances: Even NATO May Become Obsolete One Day."(February 28, 2001), Leading article.
47. Kurth, James. "The Next NATO: Building an American Commonwealth of Nations." National Review, Fall 2001.
48. Kuzio, Taras, "Baltics, Ukraine and the path to NATO," Jane's Intelligence Review, (Jul 1997), 9:7:300-303.
49. Morrocco, John D. "Allies' Capability Gap Finds No Easy Solution." Aviation Week and Space Technology, (June 18, 2001), Vol. 154, No. 25; Pg. 137.
50. Wallace, William. "Europe, the Necessary Partner." Foreign Affairs Magazine, (May, 2001 / June, 2001), ESSAYS, Pg. 16.

Other Links…
51. Requirements of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/03/F.RU.990312150759.html
52. Munich, 5 February 2001 Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nadezhda Mihaylova has appealed to NATO to admit new members from southeast Europe and the Baltics to complete the democratization of Europe: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/02/05022001114711.asp
53. NATO membership requirements 3/11/99: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/news/1999/990311-nato2.htm
54. Membership action plan for NATO, explains the criteria: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/99042460.htm
58. June 15, 2001 US 107th Congress George Bush - To endorse the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, and for other purposes: http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/hr3167-107-ih.htm
59. LITHUANIA’S NATIONAL NATO INTEGRATION PROGRAMME: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/national/000501-nnip.htm
60. Congressional Research Services –2001: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/index.html
61. European Security: The Debate in NATO and the European Union April 25, 2000: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crseu.htm
62. NATO Expansion: Cost Issues- July 1997: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-688f.htm
63. NATO enlargement toward a separate eruo-atlantic command: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/ceern/hallga2.htm
64. Partnership with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/bt-pfp.htm

65. Text of a resolution by the Ukrainian Supreme Council on Ukrainian-NATO Relations adopted on 23 April 1999 in Kiev: http://www.fas.org/news/ukraine/fbis-sov-1999-0505.htm
66. Partnership for Peace: Framework Document – Jan 1994: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/c940110b.htm
67. Congressional language on partnership for peace: http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/107-hr3167-rs.htm
68. Estonians ever achieve their long-cherished goal of membership in the U.S.-led alliance, the dividing line between NATO: http://www.balticsww.com/news/features/ontheline.htm
69. Expanding NATO: RFE/RL's Continuing Coverage
70. expandNATO.org, sponsored by the American Latvian Association and World Federation of Free Latvians, with NATO Enlargement Daily Brief (NEDB)

71. CATO Handbook for Congress: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-43.html
73. NATO Enlargement: Moving Forward Policy Brief #90—November 2001: http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb90.htm
74. First Anniversary of the U.S.-Baltic Charter of Partnership: http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/1999/ps990114.html

NATO and the Baltic States…
76. Lithuania's parliament voted by a comfortable margin on July 3 to approve leftist leader Algirdas Brazauskas as the nation's new prime minister: http://www.balticsww.com/wkcrier/0409_0709_01.htm
77. NATO allies had inquired about a joint Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian military unit going to the central Asian nation and that Baltic defense ministries were now discussing the proposal: http://www.balticsww.com/wkcrier/daily_news_continued.htm
78. September 1999 - NATO'S OPEN DOOR POLICY - EXPECTATIONS AND PROSPECTS – Lithuania: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/national/990917slo.htm
79. Baltic officials said on January 18 that they were optimistic about their prospects of winning NATO membership sooner rather than later—saying they expect to be ready to join the U.S.-led alliance by as early as 2002: http://www.balticsww.com/wkcrier/1129_0124_00.htm
80. The Baltic states have always been willing to join NATO. But officials say a new pan-Baltic radar station proves they’re now ready and able: http://www.balticsww.com/alliance.htm
82. NATO and the Baltic Sea Region - Toward Regional Security Governance file: http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/hyde.pdf.
83. NATO: Ukraine, Baltic States Take Positions On Enlargement: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1996/09/F.RU.960913142020.html
85. NATO: the Baltic dimension: The Baltic Times, 30 August 2001: http://www.vm.ee/eng/pressreleases/speeches/2001/30.08.2001-Tiido.htm ; http://expandnato.org/nedb.html

86. The Baltic Quest for Security: Euro-Atlantic Integration by Ariel Cohen, (The Heritage Foundation, Heritage Lecture No. 641), 28 July 1999.
87. NATO Expansion and the Baltic States by Daniel Austin, (Conflict Studies Research Centre, Royal Military Academy), Sandhurst 1999.
88. Fact Sheet Lithuania and NATO, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, April 2001.
89. Statement by Mr. Antanas Valionis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, June 15 2001
90. Estonia's Security and Defence Policy – New Steps towards NATO Membership, Speech by the President of the Republic of Estonia at the Royal United Services Institute, London, 10 March, 2000.
91. Vilnius Statement, Conference on "NATO's Role in the Changing Security Environment in Europe", Vilnius, 18-19 May 2000.
92. Final report, International Defence Advisory Board to the Baltic States (IDAB), 10 February 1999.
93. NATO information, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania Lithuania's National NATO Integration Programme
94. Latvia's Security Policy: integration into NATO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Latvia
95. Latvia's Annual National Program 2001
96. Estonia and NATO, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
97. Estonian Integration to NATO: Membership Action Plan and Annual National Programme Estonian National Programme, 2001
98. Baltic Ministers, Cohen Discuss Engaging Russia, NATO Membership http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06122000_20006122.html

Analyses…
100. NATO enlargement 2000-2015: determinants and implications for defense planning and shaping by Thomas S. Szayna, Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 2001.
101. Die Fortsetzung der NATO-Erweiterung: Kriterien und Optionen by Karl-Heinz Kamp, Sankt Augustin, June 2001.
102. NATO Enlargement: The Article 5 Angle by Lawrence S. Kaplan, Atlantic Council of the United States Bulletin, Vol. 12 No. 2, February 2001.
103. NATO Enlargement After the First Round, The International Spectator, April-June 1999.
104. NATO after enlargement: Is the Alliance better off? By Sebestyén L. v. Gorka, NATO Review, Autumn 1999

Membership Action Plan…
105. Membership Action Plan approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council.
106. NATO's Membership Action Plan, NATO Factsheet, April 2000.
107. NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP) and Prospects for the Next Round of Enlargement by Jeffrey Simon, (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, East European Studies Programme, Occasional Paper No. 58), Washington, DC 2000.

108. The Membership Action Plan: Keeping NATO's door open by Ambassador Klaus-Peter Klaiber, NATO Review, Summer 1999.

Positions in NATO…
109. President Bush's Remarks at Warsaw University, 15 June 2001
110. Why Europe Still Matters and Why NATO Should Enlarge Again, address by Senator Richard G. Lugar, CSIS Washington Roundtable on Capitol Hill, 13 June 2001.
111. Ambassador Vershbow on U.S. View of NATO Enlargement, Fort McNair conference, 12 April 2001.
112. NATO Handbook 2001, Chapter 3: The Opening Up of the Alliance
113. The Future of NATO by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, (first published in El Pais Yearbook 2000).
114. NATO Parliamentary Assembly, The 2001 Vilnius Spring Session, Declaration on NATO Enlargement, Vilnius, 31 May 2001.
115. The Dynamics of NATO Enlargement: The difficult road to stability in Europe and Russia, speech by Markus Meckel, Vice President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Washington DC, 12 June 2001.

Southeastern Region…
116. NATO's New Members: A Model for Ukraine? The Example of Hungary by James Sherr (Conflict Studies Research Centre, Royal Military Academy), Sandhurst 2000.
117. Address by the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Macedonia at the individual dialogue Between the Republic of Macedonia and NATO, 3 May 2000.
118. Slovenia is Preparing for NATO Membership Invitation, Press Release, Slovenian Public Relations and Media Office, 20 April 2000.
119. Bratislava Statement, adopted by the Prime Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, 11 May 2001.
120. Romania's integration into NATO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania.
121. Second International Conference on the Lessons learned and the Enhancement of Membership Action Plan, Sofia, 28-29 May 2001
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Actors, Boundaries and Fiat

This year’s resolution (Resolved: That the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be significantly reformed or abolished) leaves a lot of wiggle room. So who can the actors be? What exactly are the boundaries of this resolution? Who do we have fiat over? These are the questions I seek to answer here. Keep in mind this is purely based upon my bias.


First off, the actors. Unlike last year, where medical malpractice law was a state issue only in the United States, this year’s resolution provides no actor, however it does give us some ideas and guidelines for the actors. There are several possibilities (this doesn’t mean I’m advocating any of them, and I’ll discuss their pros and cons in a minute): 1) the NAC, or North Atlantic Council; 2) the legislatures of the member-nations; and 3) the UN, or United Nations.

The first one, the NAC, is probably the most reliable and hardest to challenge. If you are making a change to NATO, it should go through it’s governing body, right? This actor will only work if you aren’t changing the NAT (North Atlantic Treaty), though. If you are redirecting funds, or changing NATO’s mission or something of that vein, this is your actor.

The second one, the legislatures of member-nations, would be the hardest to fiat for obvious reasons – how often would all 26 nations agree? This actor would be necessary, however, if your plan included a change to the NAT.

The final one, the UN, would be a bit shaky, but if you think about it, it can be logical. I personally wouldn’t run that, but the UN is the "parent" of NATO (what I mean is NATO was born of the UN, Article 53). This would be necessary for a removing NATO from the UN type of case.

Obviously, there are more actors available to be used, but I believe these to be a) the most logical, and b) the most popular.


So now that we understand the actors of this resolution, we’ll look at the boundaries. Just what parts of NATO can be changed, anyways? There are five realms of change (or a combination of the three): 1) changing the structure of NATO (i.e. the NAT); 2) changing the mission of NATO; 3) adding to the current system; 4) abolishing the whole thing; and 5) a whole resolutional approach.

The first, changing the structure of NATO, will probably be the hardest to do if you have to change the actual treaty itself. If you are, for example, reforming the way military troops are given and the amount of money from each country, this would probably be an easy, and easily topical, approach.

Second, changing the mission of NATO. This would be the simplest change. You would just use the NAC, and everything would be great as far as boundaries and actors go.

Next, adding to the current system, wouldn’t really be a reform at all, but an addition. Topically, you might be able to get away with it. It would be hard, and a decent t-press could kill this case. But I know they’ll be run anyway.

The fourth, abolishing the whole thing, is as topical as anything. Probably the most topical case you can run. There’s not much else to say.

Finally, a whole resolutional approach. I personally am not an advocate of the whole resolution theory. However, it would be insanely hard to find any evidence that would say "NATO is perfect the way it is, it needs absolutely no changes whatsoever", and thus, this case is a huge advantage to the Affirmative team this year. This is a fairly simple resolution to prove true at face value.

The boundaries this year are pretty clear and clean cut. Of course, a lot depends on your definitions, but that’s always the case.


The last thing I’m writing about now is fiat. The silly, annoying, four letter word that puts a damper on the best of Affirmative cases, and the most pristine of Negative speeches. What can the Affirmative team claim fiat over this year? There are a few answers to this question: 1) any actors that can be remotely connected to the resolution (a very liberal, and unfair, position); 2) NATO specific actors (more narrow and reasonable); 3) resolution-specific actors (a good idea, but figure out what those are); and 4) NAC only (too narrow and silly).

First, any actor remotely connected to the resolution would include the EU, AU, any government entity of any member-nation (or even prospective member-nations)… and so on. This would be super easy to defeat logically, so I would advise against running it personally.

Second, this is probably the most reliable: if it’s connected to NATO, it would work. If you’re reforming the treaty, you have to fiat the member-nation’s legislatures. That’s just how this works. If you’re reforming the mission, you fiat the NAC. Things like that.

Third, this is probably too vague to be of any help. Of course, you can see the actors and boundaries above for my take on this, but it’s probably going to vary, so it’s unreliable.

Fourth, this is just ridiculous. It narrows the scope of the resolution so much, it’s almost a guaranteed Affirmative loss. The NAC is the legislative body of NATO, yes. But we didn’t use the USG to change state MML last year. It’s really illogical.


I hope this helped clarify some of the issues with these subjects under this resolution. Comments are encouraged, because I’m learning this along with the rest of you.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Welcome to the further development of Definitive Debate!

Welcome to Polemic Rants! Beyond Definitive Debate, the blog is designed to enhance your debating experience in a way that a sourcebook cannot do. We strongly encourage you to visit our sourcebook’s website (www.ddsourcebook.goingup.us) if you have not already done so. We would also encourage you to purchase our sourcebook, but you’re welcome to be involved here without doing that. More details on the sourcebook are available at the above website.

The contributors to this blog are the debaters (and their partners) and former debaters who worked on our sourcebook. More information about each contributor is available on our main page.

We hope for this to be an interactive experience for the debate community to discuss issues pertaining to this resolution, specific cases, debate theory, and debate in general. Please, please, please comment, most especially if you don’t agree with our take on it. The other thing to keep in mind is that this is our opinion (educated though it may be), and our opinion only.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns or random thoughts, please don’t hesitate to comment here or direct them to definitive.debate@gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)