Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 Scholars Nuclear K’s

Link – North Korea

The North Korean threat is constructed to find a new Other
Lal 9 (Prerna April 5 Freelance blogger for the Immigrant Rights and Race in America blog at Change.org, and serve as an Online Organizer for CODEPINK: Women for Peace. http://prernalal.com/2009/04/north-korea-is-not-a-threat-unveiling-hegemonic-discourses/ TBC 7/1/10)

While this is not a clash of civilizations, it is certainly a race war in that the entire discourse revolves around preventing certain kinds of people from acquiring and using nuclear weapons. Would the United States use the same tactics in France? Or even India? No, in fact it looked the other way on outrageous French nuclear testing in the Pacific and supports India’s nuclear program despite the fact that it is not a signatory of the NPT! Ronnie Lipschutz has some fine lines for us in On Security: To be sure, the United States and Russia do not launch missiles against each other because both know the result would be annihilation. But the same is true for France and Britain, or China and Israel. It was the existence of the Other that gave deterrence its power; it is the disappearance of the Other that has vanquished that power. Where Russia is now concerned, we are, paradoxically, not secure, because we see no need to be secured. In other words, as Ole Waever might put it, where there is no constructed threat, there is no security problem. France is fully capable of doing great damage to the United States, but that capability has no meaning in terms of U.S. security. On the other hand, see the Iran nuclear ‘crisis’ as an example. The United States has demonized Ahmadinejad at every opportunity and conjured him up as an Islamic fundamentalist and nationalist who will defy non-proliferation at all costs. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad cheekily asked the United States to join the rest of civilization in worshipping God. That is the discourse of race war but it is concealed by juridical discourse—the hegemonic discourse. To borrow from Michael Foucault, the United States is using the juridical schema of nuclear non-proliferation to conceal the war-repression schema. North Korea is the historical Other, the terrorist, the threat against whom the world must be protected in the juridical schema. Yet, under the war-repression schema, North Korea is a sovereign nation with the right to develop nuclear and communications technology. And this latest action is really nothing more than a plea for economic help.

Link – Middle East

Securitized depictions of the Middle East fail to describe reality
Muttimer 94 (David, professor of political science at suniversity of Vermont. Reimagining Security: The Metaphors of Proliferation” 1994 http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP25-Mutimer.pdf TBC 6/29/10 Pg. 29

In the Middle East, the region in which the present image could be said to have been born, the relationships among the various states are complex, and yet even accounting for these varied relations misses the sub- and trans-national dimensions of the politics of Middle Eastern security. For instance, the place of the Kurds in Iraq, and their relations to the Kurds in both Iran and Turkey, is an important element of the 'security' relationship in the eastern Middle East—and centrally involved in both Gulf Wars of the past fifteen years.58 Similarly, the Israeli relationship with the Palestinians involves complex relations among Palestinians living in Israel, Jews living in Palestine, Palestinians in neighbouring countries, and those countries' states. Despite this complexity, the power of the dyadic entailment shapes discussions of the region. The most prevalent dyadic construction, of course, is that which characterises the region's complexities as "the Arab-Israeli conflict". Yet the two most recent wars in the region involved an Arab state's army fighting one of another Muslim (though not Arab) state, and a broad coalition destroying an Arab state—a coalition that included both Arabs and, to all intents and purposes, Israel.

Link – Asia

Securitized descriptions of Asia fail – too simplistic
Muttimer 94 (David, professor of political science at suniversity of Vermont. Reimagining Security: The Metaphors of Proliferation” 1994 http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP25-Mutimer.pdf TBC 6/29/10 Pg. 30)

The same problems arise in other regions of concern. South Asia is, at its most simple, an intricate dance among India, Pakistan and the PRC—a construction which ignores the Kashmiris, Tamils and Sri Lanka. Despite the centrality of the triad of powers, there is a strong tendency to speak of the region in terms of the dyadic Indo-Pakistani relationship. Indeed, this tendency can be seen in part to have resulted in the growth of India's arsenal: The Indian military buildup may also be explained by the various decision-maker's political image of the state in international society. One of the problems with Indian leaders and policy-makers since the death of Prime Minister Jawaharal Nehru in 1964, is the feeling that India does not get enough respect, especially compared to China, with which it sees itself as essentially equal in size, population and economic development. Instead, India is constantly equated with Pakistan, a nation at one time one-fifth its size in population and capabilities, and only one-eighth its size since the creation of Bangladesh in December 1971.59 Similarly, in the North Pacific, while the relationship between North and South Korea is of central importance, the security dynamic cannot be understood outside the context of the relations among these two states and the PRC, Japan and the United States, at the very least. These five do not break into two neat groupings, and yet the dyadic, "North against South", representation of the problem is common.