Kritiks--Eshort,+Thorn

World Picture 1NC

Arda Can Çelik, Uppsala University (Department Of Peace and Conflict Research), Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, July 2011 (Google Books)

Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target slate. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change ihe political behaviour of target stale. However Ihcy cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties.Economic engagement targets lo seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership lo avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway to perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows" // is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations ".(p523-abslact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance(1977) in a way that "

the direct and positive linkage of interests of states where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction

 [] escobar

https://cdn.anonfiles.com/1349073241953.pdf the idea of latin america

http://bookos.org/book/1406458/f68844 Violent Cartographies

Development K: 1NC


 * __ Escobar __**, Associate Professor of Anthropology at UMass Amherst, **__ 1995 __** [Arturo, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, p. 53-55]

The crucial threshold and transformation that took place in the early post–World War II period discussed in this chapter were the result not of a radi­cal epistemological or political breakthrough but of the reorganization of a number of factors that allowed the Third World to display a new visibility and to irrupt into a new realm of language. This new space was carved out of the vast and dense surface of the Third World, placing it in a field of power. Underdevelopment became the subject of political technologies that sought to erase it from the face of the Earth but that ended up, instead, multiplying it to infinity. Development fostered a way of conceiving of social life as a technical problem, as a matter of rational decision and management to be entrusted to that group of people—the development professionals—whose specialized knowledge allegedly qualified them for the task. Instead of seeing change as a process rooted in the interpretation of each society's history and cultural tradition —as a number of intellectuals in various parts of the Third World had attempted to do in the 1920s and 1930s (Gandhi being the best known of them)— these professionals sought to devise mechanisms and procedures to make societies fit a preexisting model that embodied the structures and functions of modernity. Like sorcerers' apprentices, the development pro­fessionals awakened once again the dream of reason that, in their hands, as in earlier instances, produced a troubling reality. At times, development grew to be so important for Third World countries that it became acceptable for their rulers to subject their populations to an infinite variety of interventions, to more encompassing forms of power and systems of control; so important that First and Third World elites accepted the price of massive impoverishment, of selling Third World resources to the most convenient bidder, of degrading their physical and human ecolo­gies, of killing and torturing, of condemning their indigenous populations to near extinction; so important that many in the Third World began to think of themselves as inferior, underdeveloped, and ignorant and to doubt the value of their own culture, deciding instead to pledge allegiance to the ban­ners of reason and progress; so important, finally, that the achievement of development clouded the awareness of the impossibility of fulfilling the promises that development seemed to be making. After four decades of this discourse, most forms of understanding and representing the Third World are still dictated by the same basic tenets. The forms of power that have appeared act not so much by repression but by normalization; not by ignorance but by controlled knowledge; not by hu­manitarian concern but by the bureaucratization of social action. As the con­ditions that gave rise to development became more pressing, it could only increase its hold, refine its methods, and extend its reach even further. That the materiality of these conditions is not conjured up by an "objective" body of knowledge but is charted out by the rational discourses of economists, politicians, and development experts of all types should already be clear. What has been achieved is a specific configuration of factors and forces in which the new language of development finds support. As a discourse, de­velopment is thus a very real historical formation, albeit articulated around an artificial construct (underdevelopment) and upon a certain materiality (the conditions baptized as underdevelopment), which must be conceptual­ized in different ways if the power of the development discourse is to be challenged or displaced. To be sure, there is a situation of economic exploitation that must be recognized and dealt with. Power is too cynical at the level of exploitation and should be resisted on its own terms. There is also a certain materiality of life conditions that is extremely preoccupying and that requires great effort and attention. But those seeking to understand the Third World through development have long lost sight of this materiality by building upon it a reality that like a castle in the air has haunted us for decades. Understanding the history of the investment of the Third World by Western forms of knowledge and power is a way to shift the ground somewhat so that we can start to look at that materiality with different eyes and in different categories. The coherence of effects that the development discourse achieved is the key to its success as a hegemonic form of representation: the construction of the poor and underdeveloped as universal, preconstituted subjects, based on the privilege of the representers; the exercise of power over the Third World made possible by this discursive homogenization (which entails the erasure of the complexity and diversity of Third World peoples, so that a squatter in Mexico City, a Nepalese peasant, and a Tuareg nomad become equivalent to each other as poor and underdeveloped); and the colonization and domination of the natural and human ecologies and economies of the Third World. 26 Development assumes a teleology to the extent that it proposes that the "natives" will sooner or later be reformed; at the same time, however, it reproduces endlessly the separation between reformers and those to be re‑formed by keeping alive the premise of the Third World as different and inferior; as having a limited humanity in relation to the accomplished European. Development relies on this perpetual recognition and disavowal of difference, a feature identified by Bhabha (1990) as inherent to discrimina‑tion. The signifiers of "poverty", "illiteracy," "hunger," and so forth have already achieved a fixity as signifieds of "underdevelopment" which seems impossible to sunder. Perhaps no other factor has contributed to cementing the association of "poverty" with "underdevelopment" as the discourse of economists. To them I dedicate the following chapter.


 * __ Seabrook __**, Associate at the Institute of Race Relations **__ 1993 __** [Jeremy, Victims of Development Resistance and Alternatives Page 247-250]

In the name of 'development ', 'progress' or 'wealth-creation', 'econo­mic adjustment', people all over the world are being subjected to constant upheaval and involuntary change. In the service of these noble abstractions, the landscapes of whole countries have been devastated, whole populations forcibly uprooted. The sensibility of human beings has been drastically and violently reshaped in accord­ance with the relentless changes these require; the psyche of peasants and tribals have been reworked to transform them into urban dwellers and factory workers; the world-view of workers has been dismantled and reconstructed in the image of 'service industries' or of 'consumers'. It is a driven and irresistible experience, and there is, it seems, no place on earth to hide from it, neither in those societies called 'developing', nor in those declared to be 'advanced'. The refugees and migrants who make a mockery of national boundaries, camping in deserts and no man's land, living in city slums __,__ held in camps and detention centres, represent only the most visible fraction of a humanity that is incessantly being evicted and moved on, disturbed and uprooted. All over the world, people are denied the security and space in which they can rest and bring up their children, free from harm, sheltered from economic necessities that drive them on in search of improvements that often turn out to be illusory. This experience of relentless change has fateful implications for those who have always advocated change as the basis for radical politics. For they risk being misunderstood and repudiated by those whose lives have been tormented precisely by incessant and dispos­sessing change. The devastation of ways of life, environments, cul­tures, traditions and sustainable ways of answering human need has been in the interests of conserving only one thing – the maintenance of wealth and power where wealth and power are already concentrated. Change, then, in the lives of the people, is a visitation whose purpose is, ultimately, the preservation only of privilege. And in this act of conservation, it does not matter what valuable experiences, practices and customs are swept away. Resistance to this is scarcely to be sought in appeals of yet more change. Opposition now means, rather, the construction of places of refuge , spaces of stability, tranquillity and peace, where people can live out their lives with an assured and decent sufficiency. For this is what people try to do; holding on to traditional associations, to the ties of self-reliance, of kinship and village or neighbourhood. When they are exhorted to follow ideological prescriptions for 'change', is it any wonder that they are seldom moved? For they are trying only to safeguard, preserve and strengthen control over their own lives, to value tradi­tional ways of living in the world that are under threat from an industrialisation that can leave nothing alone. Industrialization can acknowledge no adequacy, no sufficiency, no stability, but must goad us on in search of forms of wealth which, whatever amenities they may bring, are always accompanied by impotence, loss of self-reliance and increasing violence. In such a context, a truly radical struggle would involve a disen­gagement from the eager embrace of a remorseless colonizing and monetizing of human experience, which is then sold back to us. It would mean opposition to this malign process, wherever resistance is possible and appropriate, Opposition would mean enhancing and retrieving ways of answering need outside the market economy; the rediscovery of all that we can do and make and create for ourselves and each other, freely. It would be to reclaim the greatest gift of our humanity. The failure of socialism in the world derives, not from its too radical departure from capitalist-determined development, but from too close and imitative an adherence to its ruinous prescriptions. This is why, in the late twentieth century, more and more people have been looking at the values of indigenous peoples , tribal communities, forest dwellers, subsistence farmers who, they feel, have something vital to say to the world, especially if the world is serious about conserving and harvesting and husbanding the resource-base of the earth prudently. This does not mean trying to live like those peoples ; such an ambition would be clearly impossible; but it involves trying to see how the values they bear may be applied in our own, very different, context. It is only to be expected that the eager messengers of ever-extending industrialism, the apostles of endless change, will see the search for more enduring values as a version of nostalgia. Nothing must be permitted to inhibit the convulsive transformations, which, within the next two decades, will turn more than half the world's population into urban dwellers. These changes are expected to provide humanity with its best hopes: the melancholy realities of people wounded by the multiple dispossessions and the new pover­ties conjured out of the very wealth that was to have rescued them, does nothing to abate the fervours of the missionaries of global economic expansionism. Anything that stands in the way of these voracious and devastating transformations of the world will be pre­sented by them as backward-looking and archaic, an obstacle to a `progress', no longer defined, but written into the rigours of the economic machine. 'The economy' has become an autonomous entity, no longer biddable by mere human beings to the answering of whose needs it bears a dwindling relationship. The desire to conserve what is good is not a question of going back to the past, least of all to a mythical one of harmony and stability. It is a question of taking from cultures that have endured precious lessons in self-reliance and sufficiency, and bringing these back to the wasting, threatened world whose resource-base must sustain us all. The advocates of industrialism without end are the ones leading us into a mythic world, for theirs is a figment, maintained by faith that science and technology will deliver human beings from the conse­quences of their own actions. This is clearly a project based on faith ; one that has strayed from the realm of religion. The branding of conservation as nostalgia is an attempt to clear all obstructions on the path to a development to which human purposes and values have become the real 'externalities'. Sustainability in the lexicon of the West now means sustaining Western privilege. This means preserving a form of wealth-creation that diminishes us and tears humanity apart by the monstrous inequalities it imposes, at the same time as it culls the forest and mines the oceans, guts the earth and extinguishes civilizations, destroying all value and values but those that can be measured in money. We need to think of a different relationship between conservatism and radicalism from that which has governed a stale and empty political discourse for so long. We need to think of ways of conserving what is of value and of uprooting only that which enslaves. And what enslaves more than anything is the violent advance of an industrial­ism that knows no limits, does not stop at the frontier of the material world, but invades, colonizes, industrializes our deepest needs, our profoundest longings; which rearranges the internal landscapes, just as it spreads its desolation over the face of the earth. The struggle of the Left against the Right was always undermined by its faith in the possibility of applying existing forms of wealth-creation to more benign ends. What is in crisis now are those very forms of wealth-creation themselves; indeed, the definition of wealth, the instruments whereby it is measured and judged, as well as its ownership and distribution. Systems which reduce all the living richness, abundance and diversity of the world to the sterile mono­culture of money are the real subverters of human purpose. To stand against these is to be, at the same time, both radical and conservative; but more radical than seeking mere changes of ownership of the means of production, and less conservative than those who see nothing wrong with existing patterns of privilege. It is to be more truly conservative than those who affix conservative flags of conve­nience to their violent disruptions and discontinuities; and to be less radical than those who seek to reduce the treasures of the earth to the measure of money. It can be seen that the victims of 'development', and those who resist it are not merely residuals, being swept aside by the forces of progress or history or any other serviceable abstraction. They are articulating a powerful and growing, if subterranean, feeling that economics, and the 'development' that serves it, are blunt instru­ments with which to beat humanity into submission and silence, and to compel us into forms of 'improvement' that impoverish and disempower. The economistic ideology of the West is designed to perpetuate privilege and to prolong social injustice; and it is applied with a merciless rigour in the world. A new, dynamic mix of energies is emerging – an imaginative use of more human resources in the rich countries and a lesser depend­ency on material ones; and for the poor, an enhanced access to material resources, and a little less abuse of their human energies. The aim of this reconstructed form of development is sufficiency for all, a space for human ingenuity and creativity to find answers and to fulfill our own and each others' needs. It is an extraordinary moment. Our allies in the adventure of reclaiming human development from wealth-creation are every­where, if we know how to recognize them and join with them in their struggles, which, in the end, are ours also.


 * __ Kothari & Harcourt, 2004 __**, Founder of Lokayan (India) & Program Advisor at the Society for Int’l Development [Smitu & Wendy, “Introduction: The violence of development,” Development, 47, no. 1 (2004), ingenta]

First, violence is inbuilt in the continuing processes of industrialization and urbanization as they destroy livelihoods in addition to neglecting rural areas in favour of centralized urban industrial development. Further, planned development continues to displace people at an escalating pace, as in India where half a million people are annually displaced from their sources of sustenance and meaning. The grave physiological and psychological impacts that displaced people experience are well documented but little has been done to address this massive social and cultural violence done in the name of development to millions of people every year. These processes are compounded by economic globalization based on the global extraction of resources and cheap labour, on global trade blocs and on new zones of privilege, which , in numerous cases, continue historical trends of colonial exploitation, reinforce or create new political, economic and cultural hierarchies , exacerbating in the process new areas of exclusion. This may have led to opportunities for some, but for the majority it has led to growing inequalities and disparities of economic wealth and violence is deeply embedded in the consequent increase of social and economic insecurity. Entire communities and regions, even countries, have been made irrelevant to the interests of dominant economic and political power. Put differently, global and national patterns of consumption and production are threatening livelihoods and wellbeing causing discontent and conflict on an unprecedented scale. Secondly, the dominant actors who give content to and ‘do’ development rarely acknowledge another process of violence: the disruption and destruction of the sources of life on our fragile planet: the lands, forests, air and water systems that we depend on. We are polluting and destroying the planet at an enormous and frightening rate through mining, deforestation, pesticide-intensive agriculture, the massive dumping of toxic wastes, dams, the unsustainable intensive extraction from our oceans, rivers, forests and lands. Take the much-heralded green revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s, for instance in the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana. New evidence suggests a widening of dying soils, the critical lowering of groundwater and its pollution by the leaching of pesticides and fertilizers. We are now confronted with a situation where life itself is considered even more disposable or is being re-engineered to sustain the control of a few at the expense of the many. For instance, genetically modifying organisms is an insidious manipulation of life to sustain private profit without concern for ecological diversity and security or social justice. We have moved from extraction from nature and attempting to dominate it to privatizing and re-engineering it. The multiple levels and growing intensity of violence should compel the development community to better understand and challenge the anthropocentric worldview that not only exploits, manipulates and engineers nature doing grave damage in the process but also does violence to the thousands of years of wisdom of communities who have lived with nature and who have evolved complex knowledge systems. It is imperative that the pluralities of knowledge systems that have evolved with nature rather than against it are brought to the centre of political, social and economic action. We need urgently to transit to a biocentric perspective that recognizes that we are an integral part of nature and must act accordingly. By using natural resources far beyond nature’s regenerative capacity, by contributing to the daily extinction of species, we do violence to nature and to those whose livelihoods, which are dependent on nature, are threatened or destroyed by development. We are literally undermining the future of our own species. By appropriating the commons, a collective domain, and privatizing it, we are denying men and women their basic right to life. The developmental and political system that allows a private (often foreign) company to privatize water, a life source of all, reinforces inequality and excludes those who are unable to pay for this basic survival resource. Justifying privatization in the name of enhancing water and food security and in the name of development is a travesty. Thirdly, in the same way that nature is grossly disrespected and violated, so too is culture. The world’s cultural pluralism is being steadily, often violently, eroded with an alarming loss of ethnicities, knowledge systems, languages and traditional cultural forms of expression. There is a deep-seated violence that is severely threatening and ultimately destroying the identity and rights of ethnic and indigenous groups. There is a profound need to protect creative and grounded cultural, social and political pluralism and diversity through a deepening of the democratic process. The respect for plurality is a prerequisite to resist the subjugation of marginal groups and to resist homogenizing, developmental and scientific processes. The evidence of how development has contributed to cultural homogenization is now all around us. In fact, as Arturo Escobar states in his essay in this issue, the inherent violence to marginalized people is written into development’s birth certificate with its interdependent link with the dominant patterns of economic growth, technology and modernity. One example is the invasion of a global corporate-dominated media based on an inherent assumption of the superiority of one set of cultural and economic priorities with the implicit, if not explicit, inferiority of another. The spread of such global ‘news’ and representations of domestic and political life can be seen as a violent attack on the plurality of people’s expressions, activities and lives. This cultural invasion leads to deep insecurities, which in turn breeds violence, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice against those groups who are perceived as ‘the other’. Additionally, the sexualization of women and girls in this process, through promotion of certain forms of acceptable behaviour and appearance, pornography, even the fixation on rape and graphic scenes of violence against women in news reporting, lead in complex but disturbing ways to increased violence and oppression in the family, the home and in society at large. The resistance to this by women in many societies has been strong, but the trend of gender violence continues around the world, closely linked to other forms of economic and social violation. Fourthly, the destabilization of natural systems and the threat to cultures and traditions and ensuing insecurities and violence is a problem not of poverty but rather the reverse. It is a problem of wealth creation. The privileging of materialism and the dominant patterns of achieving economic growth as the only road to development creates poverty, threatens and destroys livelihoods, creates mass insecurities, breaking down homes and communities, forcing men and women [individuals], often displaced from their familiar environment, into criminality. It is this criminalization of poverty that has led to some of the worst forms of gender violence as insecurities compound violence within the family as men are compelled to redefine their identities, both culturally and individually and endure life-threatening economic insecurities. The underbelly of the violence inherent in development is reflected in the heightened levels of domestic violence, the discrimination against the girl child, the increase of women entering the workforce in debilitating and unhealthy conditions, the trafficking of women and children, the increase in suicides and the spread of HIV/AIDS. All this while those doing development claim to be ‘alleviating’ poverty and ‘listening’ to the voices of those they label poor. Moving from the community level to the geopolitical level, it is also important to look at the macro-context of violence that allows policymakers to pay little attention to the voices from the marginalized and the growing mass resistance to economic globalization. The process of national and global policymaking and today’s geopolitics in the wake of September 11, the invasion of Iraq and the growing US hegemony is the enabling environment for so much violence to go unheeded in the name of freedom, democracy and development. Fifthly, centralized administrative and policy processes contribute to the violence of development by imposing standardized, homogenizing solutions on plural cultural, social and economic contexts. The policy process has perpetuated a compartmentalized response to the complex, integrated realities that most people live in. So, for example, agriculture, water, energy and forests are different policy arenas with little or no coordination between them when in the life of a community dependent on natural resource systems, they are not just inter-related arenas but integrated systems. Compartmentalized policy responses inevitably fail to see many different elements that affect the lives and livelihoods of communities. How then can we speak of health when there is no access to clean water, of reproductive rights when there are no bathrooms, of democracy when livelihoods are not guaranteed, of participation when there is no education for women and of accountability when massive military and economic power is routinely used to subjugate peoples and nations? Fundamentally, this is because the huge disparities that exist between the economic poor and the elites in our societies undermine the very concept of democratic governance. Those that have economic and political power dominate the representative process and through processes of democracy and in the name of development continue to perpetuate their own power and dominance, defending the economic, cultural, educational, social and political structures and systems that protect their interests at the expense of cultural pluralities, ecologies and diversities. This hegemonic process articulates and thereby imposes the dominate pattern of development and democracy as the only relevant pattern and the only one to be followed, ignoring the huge costs to the majority of the world who remain unrepresented and marginalized by the national and global governance systems. It is not surprising then that across much of the world, communities are redefining democracy whether by defying it, or deepening it, or by defending the community from its corrosive influence by asserting greater autonomy from it. Violence, then, in its manifold manifestations is inherent in the current patterns of development. It cannot be dealt with by safety nets and superficial solutions, or by palliatives such as micro-credit schemes, capacity building workshops, etc. These development programmes and projects, however well designed, fail to address the causes of the violence, the destruction of nature and culture and of plural ways of knowing, being and doing, the inadequacies of the dominant democratic process, the inequality of access to resources and spaces for expression