Systemic Change

[Joshua Hoe]

It is absurd to say that none of the topics that we wrote foreclose the
option to change US Foreign Policy.  The rest I understand where you are
coming from....In fairness the composition of the committee changes from
year to year and this is actually a very broad set of aff topics....I
understand your concerns and am sorry that your option was overlooked.  Josh


>From: CoopDB8 at aol.com
>To: ifjxh at hotmail.com, EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu
>Subject: Re: Systemic Change
>Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:13:16 EDT
>
>Josh writes:
>
><< I also want to mention that COOP's comments are very strange given that
>  during the entire process he argued for a broad topic with total
>affirmative
>  flexibility and Ede is arguing for a broad topic with almost no
>affirmative
>  flexibility.  Strange that COOP is fighting for limiting aff ground to
>one
>  systemic and large action.>>
>
>A slight mischaracterization of my arguments, no?  I was more concerned
>during the meeting for the PROCESS than the outcome.  I mentioned several
>times how I thought the process used was foreclosing some possible areas
>for
>debate and priviledging others.
>
>The process led to a list of "action mechanisms" which were then grouped
>into
>the three areas of debt relief, development assistance, and conflict
>resolution...and then things appeared set....craft resolutions for each of
>these mechanisms.  The discussion of "to list or not to list and why" was
>secondary.  The option of starting discussion from the perpective of an
>AREA
>and THEN figuring out from our understanding of that area (geographical,
>that
>is) how to limit action mechanisms was largely ignored probably because of
>the difficulty in having prior knowledge of the situation in 50+
>nation-states (this is where an expert may come in handy).
>
>In the end, I think time constraints and the committee's general negative
>slant (many members cited "predictable negative ground" as the GOAL of the
>resolution when Greg asked the question at the very beginning of the
>process....not "fair division of ground"....not "strategic
>flexibility"...."predictable NEGATIVE ground") meant that the option of a
>broad action (some form of "change") to a smaller area was never going to
>be
>seriously discussed.  I recall trying to interject this concern several
>times
>during the meeting and feeling rather dismissed either because members
>would
>act like "we're going to get to that..." or like it was already
>covered...(like the "qualitative increase" argument under the development
>assistance resolution......"yeah, we have covered the whole systemic change
>thing....you can argue qualitative increase...").
>
>What I have CONSISTENTLY argued for both before, during, and after the
>meeting is the option of a resolution with broad action (some "change"
>function - allowing systemic changes) limited by some narrow area...just
>the
>OPTION.
>
>I understand the problems inherent in any of the "change" mechanisms....the
>bidirectionality isn't so problematic as the ability to let any additional
>increase represent a "change".
>
>But are we saying here that, as a community, we will NEVER AGAIN be able to
>debate CHANGES is existing U.S. foreign policy?  That that option is
>FOREVER
>closed because there is NO WAY to craft a resolution that gets past the
>problem of allowing any additional increase to be debated too?  Is this
>what
>we are saying?
>
>COOP
>Universe of Miami

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com