It is day two of the NFHS Topic Committee meeting in Deerfield, Illinois. There are eight working topics that were discussed yesterday in committee and that are being discussed by the entire group today. The complete working resolutions (still subject to change, so comments are encouraged) that have been discussed so far include:
Cyber Warfare: The United States federal government should establish rules of engagement governing its use of cyber warfare. Previous version: The United States federal government should increase anti-cyber warfare operations.
Southeast Asia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development assistance to Southeast Asia.
Russia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the Russian Federation. Previous version: The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the Russian Federation on military security issues.
Space: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
India: The United States federal government should substantially increase its cooperation with India in one or more of the following areas: civilian space programs, nuclear proliferation, trade.
Urban Renewal: The United States federal government should substantially increase its urban renewal assistance in the United States.
IMF/World Bank: The International Monetary Fund and/or the World Bank should eliminate one or more economic policy conditions placed upon Highly Indebted Poor Countries.
China: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, currency, environment.
Do you have thoughts about any of these potential resolutions? Post a comment and I’ll bring it to the attention of the committee. In particular, it would be great if people who are familiar with doing “Word PIC research” would make sure that we do not repeat the “Sub-Saharan Africa” disaster (where the resolution included a term that did not have a defense against a critique of its usage).
Tim Alderete is live-blogging the meeting on Cross-X.com:
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=179537…
Stefan Bauschard is live-blogging the meeting on Planet Debate:
http://planetdebate.com/ (just look at the latest posts on the homepage)
The term "anti-cyber wafare operations" is not a term of art. If anyone wants to do some research to try to find a better term, your help would be greatly appreciated.
I feel as if this cyber warfare resolution is the most interesting out of the three put out. The other two to me seem a bit recycled and will have a lot of the same cases that we have had in recent resolutions. I could easily see people reading an Afghanistan aff very similar to those people have been writing for this year. South East Asia to me seems a bit less similar to past topics, but I think its too similar still to the Africa topic and in ways the social service topic. Im sure someone could find a definition of development that included health assistance and then we would easily have PEPFAR in SEA or condoms for sex workers in Bangkok. While much of the literature will be region specific it would most likely just replicate that which was read for the Africa and social service topic.
US Cyber Command used the phrase, "Cyber Defense Resources"
Space was the newest topic that was discussed — the final wording is posted.
@James Hoggatt
This is a different term – Cyber defense is about Defending or Hardening our critical infrastructures against cyber attacks. Cyber warfare operations include both Offensive Cyber warfare attacks And using Cyber Tools to Defend against Cyber attacks.
Tim, if that's the case re: cyber warfare operatoions there is no need to include "anti" it's just making the resolution incoherent. "Cyber warfare operations" yields 43K hits on google in quotes. "anti-cyber warfare operations" yields 3–all debate blogs. I get that the "anti" is probably there to alleviate bidirectionality concerns, but it's way worse than "cyber warfare operations." Defining something as "not" X or "against" X is a really bad idea in a resolution, I'd rather have a term that was bidirectional that had some concrete meaning.
I will see if I can find a term of art, but I'm not optimistic, from Feb 12, 2010 the American Forces Press Service via: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=5…
Setting the parameters for a discussion of the cyber threat also is problematic. “One of the difficulties in the cyber world is the definition you use: what’s an attack? Do they have to do physical damage? Is intelligence gathering an attack? Does somebody have to get hurt? These are all questions we are wrestling with,” the deputy secretary said.
“We are in the early stages of defining the doctrine on cybersecurity, and I think even the basic concepts of what constitutes an attack and what’s an appropriate and proportional response are things we are still working through,” he said.
These issues must be raised with allies, he said, but it is hard to do so until the United States can define for itself some of the basics.
@TimAlderete
I assumed "anti-cyber warfare operations" inferred only the defense aspect as opposed to the totality of cyberwar. Thus why I suggested what I did. If the intent is just cyberspace operations then sure, just removing anti should do it.
The search for "anti-cyber warfare operations" comment was raised in the committee already – the answer was that "anti-cyber warfare" is common, and "cyber warfare operations" is common, so somehow the combination will provide a workable definition. This issue is going to be raised again…
The Reason it is in right now is that one of the alternatives was "limit the use of cyber warfare operations" that was designed to be like the WMD topic – and the thought was that it might be too limiting to force the Affirmative to Ban Offensive operations by the US military – that much of the literature on it might be classified. I will suggest the option of just removing "anti".
What happened to Roy's regime change topic?
Roy's topic didn't make the cut, but there is some talk about writing an Israel topic paper for next year.
All eight "working resolutions" are now posted above — discussion is continuing on numbers one and three and then we'll be voting on which to carry over until tomorrow.
The cyber warfare resolution has been substantially upgraded:
The United States federal government should establish rules of engagement governing its use of cyber warfare.
Thoughts on this one?
hmm idk how good a topic the IMF one would be but it sounds like it would be interesting to have a topic with a non-USFG actor.
It seems weird to have two potential actors under the IMF topic.
Is it just me or does urban renewal sound like social services all over again?
It may just be me but Southeast Asia, Russia, Space, and Urban Renewal all sound like huge topics with few limiting phrases/words and I agree with Choi that urban renewal will see a lot of repeats (seems like jobs, block grants).
Cyber warfare seems difficult to find evidence on the negative side, seeing as a lot of the proposed policies may have solvency advocates but no one that really refutes them because they are not implemented and haven't come up for debate.
I do like the others, but I feel like the phrase 'environment' in the China resolution can mean a number of things when we mainly are referring to carbon reductions. Also, a list of those 'highly indebted countries' in the IMF topic may be useful to clarify what exactly those countries are rather than having bad T debates on the question
@Rick
<blockquote cite="#commentbody-10249">
Rick :
It seems weird to have two potential actors under the IMF topic.
It would be unique – and I tried to speak to this issue at the meeting, but I kinda talked in circles and didn't manage to explain myself the way I wanted to. Here is the information from the topic paper: Both the IMF and World Bank are intimately involved in the aid and debt conditionality process. I don't know that both are necessary to solve, but including both gives the Aff the option to use either or both. If the Affirmative chooses both, they get the strategic gain of solvency, and the strategic loss of opening themselves to PICs.
Jubilee Debt Network Glossary [http://www.jubileeusa.org/resources/debt-resources/glossary.html
Rather than lending, the IMF allows a member to use its resources, which involves the member exchanging its own currency for SDR's from the Fund (see purchase). The member is then obliged to buy back its own currency (see repurchase) within a specified time, and to pay charges (the equivalent of interest) on the outstanding amount until it does so. The amount which can be made available to each member, and its voting strength within the Fund, are determined by its quota (see quota) The IMF has played a central part in the debt strategy since 1982, primarily through its catalytic role (see catalysis) and the conditionality of external financing from other sources on compliance with the terms of IMF programmes.
Since 1980, the Bank has also provided loans in support of programmes of structural adjustment in developing and Eastern European countries. Like the IMF, the Bank's highest
decision-making body is nominally the Board of Governors, but its 22-member Executive Board is much more important in practice. The Bank's Management is headed, and the Executive Board is chaired, by its President, traditionally American. The Bank's capital is provided by contributions from its member countries, but its operations are financed mainly by borrowing from the international financial markets. The World Bank is made up of three main parts: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which lends mainly to the governments of middle-income countries; the International Development Association (IDA), which lends only to the governments of low-income countries; and the
International Financial Corporation (IFC), which lends to and invests in private sector companies in developing countries.
HIPC is a specific list – it is determined by a set of Criteria set up by the IMF and World Bank for their aid and debt policies. Here are some definitions of it, and if you goto the these cites, you can look at a list
Heavily Indebted Poor Country
Jan Joost Teunissen, Forum on Debt and Development, 2004 [FebHIPC Debt Relief – Myths and Reality http://www.fondad.org/uploaded/HIPC%20Debt%20Relief/Fondad-HIPC-Contents-Authors.pdf
HIPCs (heavily indebted poor countries): There are currently 42 countries defined by the IMF and World Bank as HIPCs. HIPC criteria include assessment by the World Bank and IMF showing a “potential need for HIPC debt relief” and per capita income below $785, with entitlement to borrow on IDA-only terms from the World Bank and from the IMF’s PRGF.
World Health Organization Glossary of globalization, trade and health terms 2010 http://www.who.int /immunization_financing/analyses/debt_relief/glossary/ en/index.html
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs)
As of September 2009, this means a group of 40 developing countries which are classified as being heavily indebted poor countries on the basis of their income and external debt levels. Common characteristics of these countries is their eligibililty for highly concessional assistance from the International Development Association (IDA), and from the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and that they face an unsustainable debt situation even after the full application of traditional debt-relief mechanisms.
David Woodward, The Save the Children Foundation, 1992 [Debt, Adjustment and Poverty in Developing Countries. National and International Dimensions of Debt and Adjustment in Developing Countries, http://www.emeraldinsight .com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextA rticle/Pdf/0060250609_ref.html
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC)
28
The HIPC Initiative, adopted in 1996, provides exceptional assistance to eligible countries to reduce their external debt burdens to sustainable levels, thereby enabling them to service their external debt without the need for further debt relief and without compromising growth. It is a comprehensive approach to debt relief which involves multilateral, Paris Club, and other official and bilateral creditors. To be eligible, countries must (1) have established a strong track record of performance under programs supported under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and the International Development Association (IDA); (2) be IDA-only and PRGF-eligible; (3) face an unsustainable debt burden; and (4) have developed a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. A strong track record of policy implementation is intended to ensure that debt relief is put to effective use. Following a comprehensive review in 1999, the Initiative was enhanced to provide faster,
deeper, and broader debt relief and to strengthen the links between debt relief, poverty reduction, and social policies. In 2005, the HIPC Initiative was supplemented by the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI).
Department for International Development Glossary 2009 [ April 22
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutDFID glossary.asp
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
An initiative launched by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1996 to provide debt relief to the poorest countries. Revised in 1999 to deliver twice as much debt relief as the original initiative.
HIPC
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries – see above
The Bretton Woods Project, 2010 [http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/glossary
index.shtml
Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries (HiPCs)
Forty-one low-income countries whose external debt level is deemed to be unsustainable.
Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HiPCI) Arrangement for reducing multilateral, bilateral and private sector debt for the poorest, most indebted countries.