Positive Peace Fixed

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Scholars
1 Positive Peace
Positive Peace
Positive Peace.............................................................................................................................................................1
Positive Peace....................................................................................1
*** Links ***..............................................................................................................................................................5

*** Links ***....................................................................................5
Link War..................................................................................................................................................................6
Link War.........................................................................................6
Link War..................................................................................................................................................................7
Link War.........................................................................................7
Link War..................................................................................................................................................................8
Link War.........................................................................................8
Link Hegemony........................................................................................................................................................9
Link Hegemony..............................................................................9
Link Media ............................................................................................................................................................10

Link Media ...................................................................................10
Link Media.............................................................................................................................................................11
Link Media....................................................................................11
***Impacts***..........................................................................................................................................................12
***Impacts***.................................................................................12
Impact No Solvency War....................................................................................................................................13

Impact No Solvency War...........................................................13
Impact No Solvency Poverty .............................................................................................................................14

Impact No Solvency Poverty .....................................................14
Impact War ............................................................................................................................................................15

Impact War ..................................................................................15
Impact War ............................................................................................................................................................16

Impact War ..................................................................................16
Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..................................................................................................................17

Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..........................................17
Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..................................................................................................................18

Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..........................................18
Impact Sexism........................................................................................................................................................19
Impact Sexism...............................................................................19
Impact Environment ..............................................................................................................................................20

Impact Environment .....................................................................20
Impact Environment ..............................................................................................................................................21

Impact Environment .....................................................................21
Impact Genocide....................................................................................................................................................22
Impact Genocide...........................................................................22

Scholars
2 Positive Peace
Impact Morality OWs Extinction.........................................................................................................................23

Impact Morality OWs Extinction.................................................23
***Alternative***.....................................................................................................................................................24
***Alternative***............................................................................24
Alternative Discourse ............................................................................................................................................25

Alternative Discourse ...................................................................25
Alternative Reject..................................................................................................................................................26
Alternative Reject.........................................................................26
Alternative Reject..................................................................................................................................................27
Alternative Reject.........................................................................27
Alternative Small Actions......................................................................................................................................28

Alternative Small Actions.............................................................28
Alternative Solves Politicians/Elites......................................................................................................................29

Alternative Solves Politicians/Elites..............................................29
A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ..............................................................................................................................30

A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ......................................................30
A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve....................................................................................................................................31

A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve...........................................................31
A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve....................................................................................................................................32

A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve...........................................................32
A2: Positive Peace = Violence/Revolt......................................................................................................................33

A2: Positive Peace = Violence/Revolt..............................................33
A2: Positive Peace = Authoritarianism.....................................................................................................................34

A2: Positive Peace = Authoritarianism............................................34
Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (1/2).......................................................................................................35

Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (1/2)...............................35
Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (2/2).......................................................................................................36

Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (2/2)...............................36
Positive Peace Good Solves Militarism.................................................................................................................37

Positive Peace Good Solves Militarism.........................................37 *** Answers to Positive Peace***...................................................39
Turn Social Services Solve Structural Violence....................................................................................................40

Turn Social Services Solve Structural Violence............................40
No Impact Direct Violence OWs..........................................................................................................................41

No Impact Direct Violence OWs.................................................41
A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause......................................................................................................................42

A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause.............................................42
A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause......................................................................................................................43

A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause.............................................43

Scholars
3 Positive Peace
Perm Solves Generally ..........................................................................................................................................44

Perm Solves Generally .................................................................44
Perm Solves Generally ..........................................................................................................................................45

Perm Solves Generally .................................................................45
Perm Solves Exclusive Focus Bad.........................................................................................................................46

Perm Solves Exclusive Focus Bad................................................46
Perm Solves Links.................................................................................................................................................47

Perm Solves Links........................................................................47
Perm Solves A2: Co-optation................................................................................................................................48

Perm Solves A2: Co-optation........................................................48
Perm Solves Militarism..........................................................................................................................................49

Perm Solves Militarism.................................................................49
Were a Prereq to the Alt..........................................................................................................................................50

Were a Prereq to the Alt..................................................................50
A2: Positive Peace No Equality.............................................................................................................................52

A2: Positive Peace No Equality....................................................52
A2: Positive Peace Justifies Violence....................................................................................................................53

A2: Positive Peace Justifies Violence............................................53
A2: Positive Peace Violent Authoritarianism........................................................................................................54

A2: Positive Peace Violent Authoritarianism................................54
A2: Positive Peace Revolution ..............................................................................................................................55

A2: Positive Peace Revolution .....................................................55
A2: Positive Peace Utopian ...................................................................................................................................56

A2: Positive Peace Utopian ..........................................................56
A2: Positive Peace Violence Key..........................................................................................................................57

A2: Positive Peace Violence Key..................................................57
A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ..............................................................................................................................58

A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ......................................................58
A2: Positive Peace Ethnocentrism ........................................................................................................................59

A2: Positive Peace Ethnocentrism ................................................59
A2: Positive Peace Efficacy ..................................................................................................................................60

A2: Positive Peace Efficacy .........................................................60

Lab
4 Trade-Off DA

Lab
5 Trade-Off DA
*** Links ***

Lab
6 Trade-Off DA
Link War
Understanding war as a discrete event obscures the structural roots of violence Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH Philosophical attention to war has typically appeared in the form of justifications for entering into war, and over appropriate activities within war. The spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, hounded sphere indicate assumptions that war is a realm of human activity vastly removed from normal life, or a sort of happening that is appropriately conceived apart from everyday events in peaceful times. Not surprisingly, most discussions of the political and ethical dimensions of war discuss war solely as an eventan occurrence, or collection of occurrences, having clear beginnings and endings that are typically marked by formal, institutional declarations. As happenings, wars and military activities can be seen as motivated by identifiable, if complex, intentions, and directly enacted by individual and collective decision-makers and agents of states. But many of the questions about war that are of interest to feministsincluding how large-scale, state-sponsored violence affects women and members of other oppressed groups; how military violence shapes gendered, raced, and nationalistic political realities and moral imaginations; what such violence consists of and why it persists; how it is related to other oppressive and violent institutions and hegemoniescannot be adequately pursued by focusing on events. These issues are not merely a matter of good or bad intentions and identifiable decisions.
Risk of war rhetoric privileges security over peacemaking, turning the case Waever 4 (Ole, Ph.D. in Political Science and Professor of International Relations at COPRI, Peace and Security, Contemporary Security Analysis and
Copenhagen Peace Research, pg 62-63, http://books.google.com/books?id=L2GKw5JcmYQC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%E2%80%9CPeace+and+Security %E2%80%9D,+%22Contemporary+Security+Analysis+and+Copenhagen+Peace+Research %22&source=bl&ots=7g5DLhB5ZY&sig=ujOh2GZXFvCSlxUWfsvrgOZyWWs&hl=en&ei=OMZXSo2ZN5GiswOqoanaBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&re snum=3, 2004, AD: 7-10-9)
President Bush
senior declared in 1989, Once again, it is a time for peace (quoted by Rasmussen 2001:341). The famous New World Order speech at the end of the Gulf War (March 6, 1991) was phrased mostly in terms of peace- enduring peace must be our mission. Nato enlargement is so hard for Russia and others to oppose because it is presented apolitically as the mere expansion of the democratic peace community (Williams 2001). The war on terror after 11 September 2001 has surprisingly few references to either peace or security- operation Enduring Freedom- but President George W. Bushs address on 7 October 2001 ended with Peace and freedom will prevail, and the (in)famous axis of evil was presented (29 January, 2002) in terms of a threat to peace. Peace has become the overarching concept of the two examined in this chapter. Security in turn, is gradually swallowed up into a generalized concern about risk. Societys reflections on itself are increasingly in terms of risk (risk society). More and more dangers are the product of our own actions, and fewer and fewer attributable to forces completely external to ourselves- thus threats become risks (Luhmann 1990). This goes for forms of production and their effects on the environment, and it goes for internal affairs, where it is hard to see the war on terrorism as a pure reaction to something coming to the West from elsewhere. Western actions in relation to Middle East peace processes, religion, migration and global economic policy are part of what might produce future terrorism. The short-term reaction to the 11 September attacks on the USA in 2001 might be re-assertion of single-minded aspirations for absolute security with little concern for liberty and and for boomerang effects on future security (Bigo 2002), but in general debates, the risk way of thinking about international affairs is making itself increasingly felt. We have seen during the last twenty years a spread of the originally specifically international concept of security in its securitization function to more and more spheres of domestic life, and now society takes its revenge by transforming the concept of security along lines of risk thinking (Waever 2002). Politically, the concepts of peace and security are changing places in these years. Security studies and peace research werer shaped in important ways by the particular Cold
War context, though not the way it is often implied in fast politicians statements about the post-Cold War irrelevance of peace research. Peace research and security studies I(or rather strategic studies) meant, respectibley to oppose or to accept the official Western policy problematique. Today, it is the othe way round. Peace research might be dated because peace is so
apologetic to be intellectually uninteresting, while security is potentially the name of a radical, subversive agenda.

Lab
7 Trade-Off DA
Link War
They dehistoricize war making complex solutions to the structural roots impossible Gur-Zeev 1 (Ilan, Head of the Department of Education at the University of Haifa, Summer,
http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~ilangz/peace23.html) CH
Pacifist writers as diverse as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barbara Deming have emphasized the fact that pacifism entails a critique of pervasive, systematic human violence. Despite its reductionist tendencies, there is much to learn from the ways in which pacifists conceive of war as a presence, as well as the pacifist refusal to let go of the ideal of peace. Characterizing pacifism as motivated by the desire to avoid specific events disregards the extent to which pacifism aims to criticize the preconditions underlying events of war. Following several initial moves in feminist philosophy, Peach rejects just war abstraction--of the realities, or "horrors," of war; dimensional evil, killable Others; and I the ethical responses needed to address the morality of war, such as a privileging of justice mil rights over love and caring. Following Elsluain, she believes that feminist just-war principles should be more particularized, contextualized, and individualized. But the abstraction of the particularities of war depends on an abstraction of war itself. The distance of such abstraction is created in part by willingness to think of war without considering the presence of war in "peaceful" times. Wars
becomes conceptual entitiesobjects for considerationrather than diverse, historically loaded exemplifications of the contexts in which they occur. In order to notice the particular and individual realities of war, attention must be given to the particular, individual, and contextualized causes and effects of pervasive militarism, as well as the patterns and connections among them
A crisis-driven approach to war focused on timeframe and risk assessment obscures the omnipresence of militarism at the root of violence Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH Ethical approaches that do not attend to the ways in which warfare and military practices are woven into the very fabric of life in twenty-first century technological states lead to crisis-based politics and analyses. For any feminism that aims to resist oppression and create alternative social and political options, crisis-based ethics and politics are problematic because they distract attention from the need for sustained resistance to the enmeshed, omnipresent systems of domination and oppression that so often function as givens in most people's lives. Neglecting the omnipresence of militarism allows the false belief that the absence of declared armed conflicts is peace, the polar opposite of war. It is particularly easy for those whose lives are shaped by the safety of privilege, and who do not regularly encounter the realities of militarism, to maintain this false belief. The belief that militarism is an ethical, political concern only regarding armed conflict, creates forms of resistance to militarism that are merely exercises in crisis control. Antiwar resistance is then mobilized when the "real" violence finally occurs, or when the stability of privilege is directly threatened, and at that point it is difficult not to respond in ways that make resisters drop all other political priorities. Crisis-driven attention to declarations of war might actually keep resisters complacent about and complicitous in the general presence of global militarism. Seeing war as necessarily embedded in constant military presence draws attention to the fact that horrific, state-sponsored violence is happening nearly all over, all of the time, and that it is perpetrated by military institutions and other militaristic agents of the state.

Lab
8 Trade-Off DA
Link War
Their reduction of war to the entities and particularities of the aff abstracts war, preventing contextualized responses to structural violence Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH But the abstraction of the particularities of war depends on an abstraction of war itself. The distance of such abstraction is created in part by willingness to think of war without considering the presence of war in "peaceful" times. Wars becomes conceptual entitiesobjects for considerationrather than diverse, historically loaded exemplifications of the contexts in which they occur. In order to notice the particular and individual realities of war, attention must be given to the particular, individual, and contextualized causes and effects of pervasive militarism, as well as the patterns and connections among them. Like other feminists, Peach criticizes the dualisms and dichotomies that underlie war and the other evils of patriarchy, including dichotomies between male and female, combatant and non-combatant, soldier and citizen, ally and enemy and state and individual which have dominated just-war thinking. Rather than relying on traditional dichotomies, a feminist application of just-war criteria should emphasize the effects of going to war on the lives of particular individuals who would be involved, whether soldier or civilian, enemy or ally, male or female. (Peach 1994. 166)

Lab
9 Trade-Off DA
Link Hegemony
Hegemony causes negative peace
Tavares 8 (Rodrigo l, June, Understanding regional peace and security: a framework for analysis., Vol. 14 Issue 2, p107-127, 21p, Contemporary Politics) CH The first instrument, armed violence, can be seen as a mechanism of state policy to shape the international system. In a paradoxical perspective, realist scholars and conservative policy makers tend to consider war as a rational tool to carve international order and stability (Waltz 1959; see also Howard 1970). The second instrument, balance of power, is an instrument (or a set of instruments) that states use to band together and pool their capabilities whenever one state or group of states appears to become a threat as it gathers a disproportionate amount of power. Although balance of power could be interpreted as a concept or a strategic doctrine, here the emphasis is on the mechanisms used by political agents to balance each others capabilities. In conjugation with this, hegemony is the dominance of one state over other states, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of relationship to its advantage. In the same line, alliances are military collective defence arrangements of states formed as a response to a common threat and as a way of maximizing security and minimizing the eventuality of an external attack. Modern military alliances are the subject of a significant body of literature (Osgood 1968, Walt 1987, 1997).
Negative peace trades-off with a focus on the structural roots of violence Von Heinegg 4 (Wolff Heintschel, * Prof. Dr. iur., Europa-Universitat Frankfurt (Oder); Charles H. Stockton
Professor of International Law, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, R.I., SummerThe Rule of Law in conflict and Post-Conflict Situations: Factors in war to peace transitions, Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy) CH
Before dealing with the different forms of terminating (and of suspending) an international armed conflict, it needs to be stressed that
the end of a war merely means a return to peace insofar as the situation thus created is characterized by the absence of military operations, including occupation. This situation, often referred to as "negative peace," of course does not mean a return to normal or amicable relations between the former belligerents, often referred to as "positive peace." n17 The latter condition, while not apt for an abstract and
comprehensive definition, n18 may be achieved through the exchange of diplomats and by the reestablishment of economic and cultural relations. There is, however, another aspect of this issue that is of importance in that context. A situation of "positive peace," which is, inter alia, based upon the principle of sovereign equality of States, regularly presupposes the
reestablishment of the full sovereignty of all belligerents. While the termination of an international armed conflict implies that any further use of armed force not justified by the right of self-defense will be contrary to the fundamental prohibition of the use of force, n19 the existence of negative peace does not necessarily imply the return of the vanquished state to full sovereignty. While there may be an exchange of diplomats as well as other forms of establishing diplomatic relations, the situation may not be characterized as a return to, or the establishment of, positive peace so long as the State concerned has not regained its full sovereignty. This was the case with Germany until its reunification because all questions relating to "Germany as a whole"
had been made subject to the so called "Allied reservations," which meant that neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor the German Democratic Republic were allowed to autonomously decide on that core question of their respective sovereignty. Moreover, Berlin remained under an [*848] occupational regime. n21 Only with the end of the Allied rights concerning Germany as a whole, including Berlin, did Germany and the Allies return to a situation of positive peace proper

Lab
10 Trade-Off DA
Link Media
Their mass media reports should be viewed skeptically They focus on the spectacle of violence, not its contextual roots Kroker 4 (Arthur, Cultural theorist and Canada Research Chair in Technology, Culture, and Theory
Department of Political Science University of Victoria, Arthur Kroker on Cyberwar, http://www.massivechange.com/media/MIL_ArthurKroker.pdf, AD: 7-9-9)EH Today not only the act of war itself, but also the perception of war is a technological event. In a significant way, there are always two theatres of war: actual battlefields with real casualties and immense suffering, and hyperreal battlefields where the ultimate objective of the war machine is to conquer public opinion and manipulate human imagination. Particularly since 9/11 and the prosecution of the so-called war on terrorism, we live in a media environment which is aimed at the total mobilization of the population for warfare. For example, in the American homeland, mobilization of the population is psychologically conditioned by an image matrix, fostering deep feelings of fear and insecurity. This is reinforced daily by the mass media operating as a repetition-machine: repeating, that is, the message of the threatening terrorist Other. For those living in the increasingly armed bunker of North America and Europe, we dont experience wars in any way except through the psychological control of perception through mass media, particularly television. The delivery of weapons
themselves intensely sophisticated forms of technology are part of the same system. So tech-mediated war is the total mobilization for warfare with us as its primary subjects and targets.
Media coverage divorces the public from the structural roots of violence Kroker 4 (Arthur, Cultural theorist and Canada Research Chair in Technology, Culture, and Theory
Department of Political Science University of Victoria, Arthur Kroker on Cyberwar, http://www.massivechange.com/media/MIL_ArthurKroker.pdf, AD: 7-9-9)EH Perhaps human vision itself has now been literally harvested by the war machine. When we see the unfolding world from the bombs eye view, this would mean that what we traditionally have meant by human perception vision, insight, ethical judgment, discriminating between reality and illusion has been effectively shut down, almost surgically replaced by the virtual vision machine of the militarized imagination. We are suddenly rendered vulnerable to the new virtual myths about the supposedly hygienic character of posthuman warfare. For instance,
the spectacle of the bombs eye view supports the illusion of war as being about so-called smart bombs, which are hyped as controllable in their targeting trajectories, with few civilian casualties. The audience becomes a spectator of this act, but its a complete fabrication. Only long after the first Iraq war was it revealed that many of the cruise missile shots, which were supposed to be precise in their target acquisitions, may have been staged video shots. The reality of that war had to do with massive
bombing raids and anti-personnel cluster weapons, all of which were deliberately aimed at civilian populations.
Media bias perpetuates militarism Kroker 4 (Arthur, Cultural theorist and Canada Research Chair in Technology, Culture, and Theory
Department of Political Science University of Victoria, Arthur Kroker on Cyberwar, http://www.massivechange.com/media/MIL_ArthurKroker.pdf, AD: 7-9-9)EH This is a very complex question. Industrial wars such as World War II have a necessary accident: high casualty rates both among the civilian population and mass armies of soldiers. In the post-historical time of assured nuclear destruction, mass conflict was avoided but the planet witnessed a contagious growth of local political wars, many of which were directly linked to the struggle for global supremacy on the part of the bipolar powers of America and Russia. In the unipolar world of American empire, power is maintained by military strategy aimed at full spectrum dominance by an increasingly cyberneticized military apparatus. The
empire fights for total sovereignty both over space and time. It seeks to virtualize warfare, reducing the unpredictable nature of urban war to the cybernetic certainties of precision weapons and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs. However, it is the fate of all otherworldly illusions to finally succumb to earthly realities. Consider the two Gulf Wars, which may have been statemanaged in the language of precision weapons and low civilian casualty figures, but were typified by anti-personnel cluster bombs aimed at terrorizing the Iraqi populations. Mass media do not discuss Iraqi civilian casualties since it is in the nature of empires to literally disappear the humanity of scapegoated populations. Perhaps we should keep in mind that the ultimate casualty in the new era of micro-warfare is the death of political hope and an ethics of reciprocity.

Lab
11 Trade-Off DA
Link Media
Media images overwhelm nuanced approaches to violence, crowding out alternative perspectives Barash 0 (David P., Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington, Approaches to peace: a leader in
peace studies, Oxford University Press, 2000, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/111756263?title=Approaches %20to%20Peace%3a%20%20A%20Reader%20in%20Peace%20Studies, AD: 7-10-9)EH Considering the positive connotations of peace as opposed to war, it is only air to asky why peaceeven in its inadequate and negative form as the mere absence of war- has not yet been attained. After all. Longing for a thousand years of peace when nothing like it has every been experienced, seems a bit like someone who has never attended a concert looking forward to a paradise in which he or she will spend eternity listening so some heavenly choir! Most people readily give lip service to peace, but perhaps at some level, they havent really desired it as fervently as they claim. For one thing, maybe peace is boring. There are lots of war movies, but precious few peace movies; lots of martial music but only a handful of peace songs, etc. As with rubber-necking at the scene of a traffic accident, peoples attention is drawn to extreme situations of violence, in which exciting things happen. Those who complain, for example, about a tendency for the news media to focus only on bad news must confront the fact that whereas people are likely to pay attention to a war or even a border clash between contending forces, they would be less than fascinated by a headline blaring France and Germany did not go to war today. For another thing, many people-despite their announced abhorrence of warmake exceptions in particular cases, especially in the interest of a greater good

Lab
12 Trade-Off DA
***Impacts***

Lab
13 Trade-Off DA
Impact No Solvency War

Militarism is the root cause The aff doesnt solve Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH Theory that does not investigate or even notice the omnipresence of militarism cannot represent or address the depth and specificity of the everyday effects of militarism on women, on people living in occupied territories, on members of military institutions, and on the environment. These effects are relevant to feminists in a number of ways because military practices and institutions help construct gendered and national identity, and because they justify the destruction of natural nonhuman entities and communities during peacetime. Lack of attention to these aspects of the business of making or preventing military violence in an extremely technologized world results in theory that cannot accommodate the connections among the constant presence of militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social phenomena, such as nationalistic glorifications of motherhood, media violence, and current ideological gravitations to military solutions for social problems.
Their solutions backfire, turning the case Felice 98 (William F., Professor of International Relations and Human Rights at Eckerd College, Militarism
and Human Rights, International Affairs, Vol. 74 No. 1, Blackwell Publishing, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2624664, A.D.: 7/10/09) JH The attitudes that sustain large and deadly military machines did not fall with the Berlin Wall. The logic
is mesmerizing. The world is a dangerous place divided into sovereign nation-states, each seeking to improve its position in an anarchic international system. There are few opportunities for cooperation. Each state maintains the right to be free from the scrutiny and intervention of other states in its internal affairs. Each nation is surrounded by danger and must protect itself to survive, which gives rise to a preoccupation with power, particularly military power. Internalizing this acute sense
of danger makes it easier to accept high taxation to pay for the militarization at the expense of social development. Yet such militarization in the name of security and peace often backfires and creates conditions of insecurity and conflict. Further, such expenditures consistently undermine the ability of nations to fulfil other international human rights, in particular economic and social rights. Security defined solely as the
heavily armed defence of ones borders. How does a nation provide a basic right to physical security without compromising other human rights? What types of military and other expenses should be budgeted to attain physical security?

Lab
14 Trade-Off DA
Impact No Solvency Poverty

Structural violence outweighs the aff and a failure to address human security makes their harms inevitable They treat the effect, not the cause Gilman 0 (Robert, President of Context Institute, Structural Violence, The Foundation of Peace IC #4,
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC04/Gilman1.htm, 2000, AD: 7-9-9)EH How legitimate is it to ascribe these deaths to the structural violence of human institutions, and not just to the variability of nature? Perhaps the best in-depth study of structural violence comes from the Institute for Food and Development Policy (1885 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103). What they find throughout the Third World is that the problems of poverty and hunger often date back hundreds of years to some conquest - by colonial forces or otherwise. The victors became the ruling class and the landholders, pushing the vast majority either on to poor ground or into being landless laborers. Taxes, rentals, and the legal system were all structured to make sure that the poor stayed poor. The same patterns continue today. Additional support is provided by the evidence in the above figure, which speaks for itself. Also, according to Sivard, 97% of the people in the Third World live under repressive governments, with almost half of all Third World countries run by military dominated governments. Finally, as a point of comparison, Ehrlich and Ehrlich (Population, Environment, and Resources, 1972, p72) estimate between 10 and 20 million deaths per year due to starvation and malnutrition. If their estimates are correct, our estimates may even be too low. Some comparisons will help to put these figures in perspective. The total number of deaths from all causes in 1965 was 62 million, so these estimates indicate that 23% of all deaths were due to structural violence. By 1979 the fraction had dropped to 15%. While it is heartening to see this improvement, the number of deaths is staggeringly large, dwarfing any other form of violence other than nuclear war. For example, the level of structural violence is 60 times greater than the average number of battle related deaths per year since 1965 (Sivard 1982). It is 1.5 times as great as the yearly average number of civilian and battle field deaths during the 6 years of World War II. Every 4 days, it is the equivalent of another Hiroshima. Perhaps the most hopeful aspect of this whole tragic situation is that essentially everyone in the present system has become a loser. The plight of the starving is obvious, but the exploiters don't have much to show for their efforts either - not compared to the quality of life they could have in a society without the tensions generated by this exploitation. Especially at a national level, what the rich countries need now is not so much more material wealth, but the opportunity to live in a world at peace. The rich and the poor, with the help of modern technology and weaponry, have become each others' prisoners. Today's industrialized societies did not invent this structural violence, but it could not continue without our permission. This suggests that to the list of human tendencies that are obstacles to peace we need to add the ease with which we acquiesce in injustice - the way we all too easily look in the other direction and disclaim "response ability." In terms of the suffering it supports, it is by far our most serious flaw.
Militarism is the root cause Felice 98 (William F., Professor of International Relations and Human Rights at Eckerd College, Militarism
and Human Rights, International Affairs, Vol. 74 No. 1, Blackwell Publishing, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2624664, A.D.: 7/10/09) JH
This human rights agenda can also only be implemented within a framework of peace. Militarism has neither created a world of peace and stability, nor protected the human right to physical security. Overemphasis on military superiority undermines the ability to build regimes of trust and harmony. The arsenals of the war system are symptoms of deep conflict. Arms control and disarmament and the demobilization of armed forces are prerequisites to providing the institutional framework within which nations may pursue implementation of the corpus of international human rights law. International security and stability are dependent on domestic security and stability. The roots of conflict within domestic societies are often the result of economic, social and environmental pressures which cause poverty and unemployment and pit one community, class, sex or ethnic group against another. Human rights as the core of domestic and foreign public policy can provide a route for the achievement of peace and stability. Preoccupations with balance of power and military prowess can only continue to
produce a world of insecurity and war. Policies based on outmoded notions of realpolitik exacerbate insecurities. The irony is that human rights policies provide the clearest road to achieve the realist objectives of security and stability. Long-term interests in international stability should compel governments to explore
human security and positive peace. It is commonly accepted that totalitarianism and human rights are incompatible. The negative impact of militarism on basic human rights must also be understood. A militarized society exists in contradiction to basic
human rights and negates the opportunities for human freedom.

Lab
15 Trade-Off DA
Impact War
Their conception of peace prescribes military solutions as violence control Sandy & Perkins 1 (Leo R and Ray, Co-Founder of Peace Studies at Plymouth State College and teacher of
philosophy at Plymouth State College, The Nature of Peace and its implication for peace education, online journal of peace and conflict resolution 4.2, http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/ENGSEMJ/v08/undervisningsmateriale/IL%20&%20HR/Topic %202%20-%20Reading.pdf, 2001, AD:7-10-9)EH Peace as the mere absence of war is what Woolman (1985) refers to as negative peace. This definition is based on Johan Galtungs ideas of peace. For Galtung, negative peace is defined as a state requiring a set of social structures that provide security and protection from acts of direct physical violence committed by individuals, groups or nations. The emphasis is ...on control of violence. The main strategy is dissociation, whereby conflicting parties are separated...In general, policies based on the idea of negative peace do not deal with the causes of violence, only its manifestations. Therefore, these policies are thought to be insufficient to assure lasting conditions of peace. Indeed, by suppressing the release of tensions resulting from social conflict, negative peace efforts may actually lead to future violence of greater magnitude. (Woolman, 1985, p.8) The recent wars in the former Yugoslavia are testimony to this. The massive military machine previously provided by the U.S.S.R. put a lid on ethnic hostilities yet did nothing to resolve them thus allowing them to fester and erupt later.
Defining war as an event implies that war can be justifies, guaranteeing militarized solutions to problems Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH
Just-war theory is a prominent example of a philosophical approach that real-rim-the-assumption that wars are isolated from everyday life and ethics. Such theory, as developed by St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Grotius, and as articulated in contemporary dialogues by many philosophers, including Michael Walzer (1977), Thomas Nagel (1974), and Sheldon Cohen (1989), take the primary question
concerning the ethics of warfare to be about when to enter into military conflicts against other states. They therefore take as a given the notion that war is an isolated, definable event with clear boundaries. These boundaries are significant because they distinguish the circumstances in which standard moral rules and constraints, such as rules against murder and unprovoked violence, no longer apply. Just-war theory assumes that war is a separate sphere of human activity having its own ethical constraints and criteria and in doing so it begs the question of whether or not war is a special kind of event, or part of a pervasive presence in nearly all contemporary life. Because the application of just-war principles is a matter of proper decisionmaking on the part of agents of the state, before wars occur, and before military strikes are made, they assume that military initiatives are distinct events. In fact, declarations of war are generally overdetermined escalations of preexisting conditions. Just-war criteria cannot help evaluate military and related institutions, including their peacetime practices and how these relate to wartime activities, so they cannot address the ways in which armed conflicts between and among states emerge from omnipresent, often violent, state militarism. The remarkable resemblances in some sectors between states of peace and states of war remain completely untouched by theories that are only able to discuss the ethics of starting and ending direct military conflicts between and among states

Lab
16 Trade-Off DA
Impact War
Understanding war as an event necessitates militarism which forecloses vital interrogation to determine true peace Richmond 7 (Oliver P., lecturer in the Department of International Relations, University of St. Andrews,
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Critical Research Agendas for Peace: The Missing Link in the Study of International Relations, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/5023019836?title=Critical%20Research%20Agendas %20for%20Peace%3a%20The%20Missing%20Link%20in%20the%20Study%20of%20International%20Relations, AD: 7/10/09) TR As a consequence what has emerged has been an orthodox assumption that first the management of war must be achieved before the institutions of peace can operate, at a global, regional, state, and local level. Peace has, in Western political thought in particular, been enshrined first in the belief that only a limited peace is possible, even despite more utopian leanings, and recently that peace can now be built according to a certain epistemology. Militarization, force, or coercion have normally been the key mechanisms for its attainment, and it has been imbued with a hegemonic understanding of universal norms, now increasingly instilled through institutions of governance. It is generally assumed by most theorists, most policymakers, and practitioners, that peace has an ontological stability enabling it to be understood, defined, and thus created. Indeed, the implication of the void of debate about peace indicates that it is generally thought that peace as a concept is so ontologically solid that no debate is required. There is clearly a resistance to examining the concept of peace as a subjective ontology, as well as a subjective political and ideological framework. Indeed, this might be said to be indicative of "orientalism," in impeding a discussion of a positive peace or of alternative concepts and contexts of peace. (18) Indeed, Said's humanism indicates the dangers of assuming that peace is universal, a Platonic ideal form, or extremely limited. An emerging critical conceptualization of peace rests upon a genealogy that illustrates its contested discourses and multiple concepts. This allows for an understanding of the many actors, contexts, and dynamics of peace, and enables a reprioritization of what, for whom, and why, peace is valued. Peace from this perspective is a rich, varied, and fluid tapestry, which can be contextualized, rather than a sterile, extremely limited, and probably unobtainable product of a secular or nonsecular imagination. It represents a discursive framework in which the many problems that are replicated by the linear and rational project of a universal peace (effectively camouflaged by a lack of attention within IR) can be properly interrogated in order to prevent the discursive replication of violence. (19) This allows for an understanding of how the multiple and competing versions of peace may even give rise to conflict, and also how this might be overcome. One area of consensus from within this more radical literature appears to be that peace is discussed, interpreted, and referred to in a way that nearly always disguises the fact that it is essentially contested. This is often an act of hegemony thinly disguised as benevolence, assertiveness, or wisdom. Indeed, many assertions about peace depend upon actors who know peace then creating it for those that do not, either through their acts or through the implicit peace discourses that are employed to describe conflict and war in opposition to peace. Where there should be research agendas there are often silences. Even contemporary approaches in conflict analysis and peace studies rarely stop to imagine the kind of peace they may actually create. IR has reproduced a science of peace based upon political, social, economic, cultural, and legal governance frameworks, by which conflict in the world is judged. This has led to the liberal peace framework, which masks a hegemonic collusion over the discourses of, and creation of, peace. (20) A critical interrogation of peace indicates it should be qualified as a specific type among many.

Lab
17 Trade-Off DA
Impact Structural Violence Outweighs

Structural violence outweighs nuclear war
Gilman 83 (Robert, President of Context Institute, Founding Editor of IN CONTEXT, A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture, Can we find genuine peace in a world with inequitable distribution of wealth among nations?, The Foundations of Peace, p. 8, AD: 7-11-09)MT How legitimate is it to ascribe these deaths to the structural violence of human institutions, and not just to the variability of nature? Perhaps the best in-depth study of structural violence comes from the Institute for Food and Development Policy (1885 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103). What they find throughout the Third World is that the problems of poverty and hunger often date back hundreds of years to some conquest - by colonial forces or otherwise. The victors became the ruling class and the landholders, pushing the vast majority either on to poor ground or into being landless laborers. Taxes, rentals, and the legal system were all structured to make sure that the poor stayed poor. The same patterns continue today. Some comparisons will help to put these figures in perspective. The total number of deaths from all causes in 1965 was 62 million, so these estimates indicate that 23% of all deaths were due to structural violence. By 1979 the fraction had dropped to 15%. While it is heartening to see this improvement, the number of deaths is staggeringly large, dwarfing any other form of violence other than nuclear war. For example, the level of structural violence is 60 times greater than the average number of battle related deaths per year since 1965 (Sivard 1982). It is 1.5 times as great as the yearly average number of civilian and battle field deaths during the 6 years of World War II. Every 4 days, it is the equivalent of another Hiroshima.
Structural violence kills more people than have died in all acts of direct violence Pilisuk 1 (Marc, GLOBALISM AND STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE Peace, Conflict, and Violence:
Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.) CH Limited material resources are not the only plight of poor people. Poverty inflicts psychological scars as well; it is an experience of scarcity amidst affluence. For many reasons, such as those discussed by Opotow (this volume), poverty produces the scorn of others and the internalized scorn of oneself. Indigence is not just about money, roads, or TVs, but also about the power to determine how local resources will be used to give meaning to lives. The power of global corporations in local communities forces people to depend on benefits from afar. Projected images of the good life help reduce different cultural values to the one global value of money. Meanwhile, money becomes concentrated in fewer hands. The world is dividing into a small group of haves and a growing group of paupers. This division of wealth inflicts a level of structural violence that kills many more persons than have died by all direct acts of violence and by war.
Structural violence outweighs NW Evangelista 5 (Matthew, Professor of International and comparative politics, Harvard University, Peace studies:
Critical Concepts in Political Science, 2005, http://books.google.com/books? id=9IAfLDzySd4C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22structural+violence%22+%22nuclear+war %22&source=bl&ots=m9wAXnUQqH&sig=4MnhVGRGJJ_Z8aS5SSmTptgRqYM&hl=en&ei=YBJZSoSeKYuqs wOQ9fjWBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6, AD: 7/11/9) TR But equally important is to recall that it is hardly possible to arrive at any general judgment, independent of time and space, as to which type of violence is more important. In space, today, it may certainly be argued that research in the Americas should focus on structural violence, between nations as well as between individuals, and that peace research in Europe should have a similar focus on personal violence. Latent personal violence in Europe may erupt into nuclear war, but the manifest structural violence in the Americas (and not only there) already causes an annual toll of nuclear magnitudes. In saying this, we are of course not neglecting the structural components of the European situation, (such as the big power dominance and the traditional exploitation of Eastern Europe by Western Europe) nor are we forgetful of the high level of personal violence in the Americas even though it does not take the form of international warfare (but sometimes the form of interventionist aggression).

Lab
18 Trade-Off DA
Impact Structural Violence Outweighs

Structural violence outweighs direct violence on magnitude and probability Pilisuk 97 (Marc, Fall, The hidden structure of violence, Fall97, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p25,
7phttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=7&sid=9058ddcf-1221-4296-8d1b98c9d5856a77%40sessionmgr7&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9712016914) CH Poverty, inequality, social marginality, and domination of resources all produce unneeded suffering and death. These structures are not acts of nature but products of social arrangements created by people in ways not easily noticed. There are relationships among cultural, structural, and direct violence. Culture, the normative beliefs and practices of a society, can be a source of violence by allowing a dehumanization of certain persons or groups. Cultural violence leads to structural violence when it is incorporated into formal legal and economic exchanges. While individual acts of direct violence have many causes, their occurrence is frequently predicated upon a larger and often hidden structure that induces violence (Galtung 1996). The three types of violence differ temporally. Direct violence is an event; structural violence is a process with ebbs and flows; cultural violence remains more invariant, given the slow transformation of basic culture. In most cases, there is a flow from cultural violence to institutionalized structural violence, and finally to eruptions of direct violent acts. Direct violence is used by both underdogs and top dogs but serves quite different purposes for the two groups. Underdogs use violence as a way to get out of a "structural iron cage" of powerlessness and poverty or to get back at the society that put them there. Top dogs, on the other hand, use violence as a way to keep or gain power (Galtung 1996). Structural violence is harder to identify than direct violence. One can recognize acts of rape or murder as violent and we abhor them. Examples of structural violence, however, look normal on the surface. Therefore, more often than not, structural violence is left unchanged and the cycle of violence continues.
Structural violence outweighs because its systemic Parson 7 (Kenneth, Peace Review, April-June, Structural Violence and Power, Peace Review; Apr-Jun2007,
Vol. 19 Issue 2, p173-181, 9phttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=7&sid=9058ddcf-1221-4296-8d1b98c9d5856a77%40sessionmgr7&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=25359940) CH Despite a long century of violencerapid proliferation of the instruments of mass violence, the increasingly complex organization and accelerated deployment of the forces of violence, and the widespread mediazation of violence over the last three decades aloneour theoretical understanding and articulation of violence itself has progressed much more slowly. Johan Galtung is one particular theorist who takes seriously the project of clarifying how our discourses of violence perpetuate or provide alternatives to relations of violence. Given his longstanding attention to structural violence and the extensive thinking he has done on the
relations between violence and power within the context of militarization, poverty, and political repression, his notions of peace and violence are not without substantial content and relevance to theorists of conflict and war
Structural Violence has a greater impact than Direct Violence Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=7&sid=fbf7951e-fa9b-4ac2-ba3b2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2) CH However, Galtung's major theoretical innovation was to posit a distinction between direct violence, where there is an actor committing the violence, and structural violence, where there is no such actor, On occasion he refers to this latter condition as 'social injustice', and he uses interchangeably the labels 'social injustice' and 'positive peace' to describe the absence of structural violence,-' However, he stressed that both the absence of direct violence and the absence of structural violence are significant goals, and that 'it is probably disservice to man to try, in any abstract way, to say that one is more important than the other'.

Lab
19 Trade-Off DA
Impact Sexism
Militarism allows for the justification of violence against women Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH To give one very clear example of the ways in which just-war evaluations of wars as events fail to address feminist questions about militarism, consider the widespread influence of foreign military bases on gendered national identities and interactions. In Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (1990), Cynthia Enloe illustrates how, while decisionmaking and economic power are held primarily by men, international relations and politics are inevitably played out on women's bodies in myriad ways, propagating racist, nationalist, and colonialist conceptions of femininity. One chapter, "Base Women," is devoted to a discussion of the ways in which local and global sexual politics shape and are shaped through the constant presence of thousands of military bases worldwide in the symbol of the soldier, the introduction of foreign conceptions of masculinity and femininity, the reproduction of family structures on military bases, and through systems of prostitution that universally coexist alongside military bases Enloe writes, "military politics, which occupy such a large part of international politics today, require military bases. Bases are artificial societies created out of unequal relations between men and women of different races and classes" and, one might add, different nations (Enloe 1990, 2). The constant, global presence of these bases is an example of the mundane givenness and subtle omnipresence of military violence. Most bases have managed to slip into the daily lives of the nearby community. A military base, even one controlled by soldiers of another country, can become politically invisible if its ways of doing business and seeing the world insinuate themselves into a community's schools, consumer tastes, housing patterns, children's games, adults' friendships, jobs and gossip. . . . Most have draped themselves with the camouflage of normalcy. . . . Rumors of a base closing can send shivers of economic alarm through a civilian community that has come to depend on base jobs and soldiers' spending. (Enloe 1990, 66) Just-war theoryeven feminist just-war theorycannot bring to light the ways ill which the politics of military bases are related to the waging of war, how militarism constructs masculinity and femininity, or how international politics are shaped by the microcosmic impacts of military bases. It therefore cannot address some of the most pressing ways in which militarism and war involve and affect women.

Lab
20 Trade-Off DA
Impact Environment
Militarism justifies continual environmental destruction Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the University of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH If environmental destruction is a necessary aspect of war and the peacetime practices of military institutions, an analysis of war which includes its embeddedness in peacetime militarism is necessary to address the environmental effects of war. Such a perspective must pay adequate attention to what is required to prepare for
war in a technological age, and how women and other Others are affected by the realities of contemporary military institutions and
practices Emphasizing the ways in which war is a presence, a constant undertone, white noise in the background of social existence, moving sometimes closer to the foreground of collective consciousness in the form of direct combat yet remaining mostly as an unconsidered given, allows for several promising analyses. To conclude, I will summarize four distinct benefits of feminist philosophical attention to the constancy of
military presence in most everyday contemporary life.
Militarism Destroys the Environment Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the University of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH In Scorched Earth: The Military's Assault on the Environment, William Thomas, a U.S. Navy veteran, illustrates the extent to which the peacetime practices of military institutions damage natural environments and communities. Thomas argues that even "peace" entails a dramatic and widespread war on nature, or as Joni Seager puts it, "The environmental costs of militarized peace bear suspicious resemblance to the costs of war" (Thomas 1995, xi). All told, including peacetime activities as well as the immense destruction caused by combat, military institutions probably present the most dramatic threat to ecological well-being on the planet. The military is the largest generator of hazardous waste in the United States, creating nearly a ton of toxic pollution every minute, and military analyst Jillian Skeel claims that, "Global military activity may be the largest worldwide polluter and consumer of precious resources" (quoted in Thomas 1995, 5). A conventionally powered aircraft carrier consumes 150,000 gallons of fuel a day. In less than an hour's flight, a single jet launched from its flight deck consumes as much fuel as a North American motorist burns in two years. One F-16 jet engine requires nearly four and a half tons of scarce titanium, nickel, chromium, cobalt, and energy-intensive aluminum (Thomas 1995, 5), and nine percent of all the iron and steel used by humans is consumed by the global military (Thomas 1995, 16). The United States Department of Defense generates 500,000 tons of toxins annually, more than the world's top five chemical companies combined. The military is the biggest single source of environmental pollution in the United States. Of 338 citations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1989, three-quarters went to military installations (Thomas 1995, 17).

Lab
21 Trade-Off DA
Impact Environment
Military practices destroy the environment both during war and peace time Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the University of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH There are many conceptual and practical connections between military practices in which humans aim to kill and harm each other for some declared "greater good," and nonmilitary practices in which we displace, destroy, or seriously modify nonhuman communities, species, and ecosystems in the name of human interests. An early illustration of these connections was made by Rachel Carson in the first few pages of The Silent Spring (1962), in which she described insecticides as the inadvertent offspring of World War II chemical weapons research. We can now also trace ways in which insecticides were put of the Western-defined global corporatization of agriculture that helped kill off the small family farm and made the worldwide system of food production dependent on the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto. Military practices are no different from other human practices that damage and irreparably modify nature. They are often a result of cost-benefit analyses that pretend to weigh all likely outcomes yet do not consider nonhuman entities except in terms of their use value for humans and they nearly always create unforeseeable effects for humans and nonhumans. In addition, everyday military peacetime practices are actually more destructive than most other human activities, they are directly enacted by state power, and, because they function as unquestioned "givens," they enjoy a unique near-immunity to enactments of moral reproach. It is worth noting the extent to which everyday military activities remain largely unscrutinized by environmentalists, especially American environmentalists, largely because fear allows us to he fooled into thinking that "national security" is an adequate excuse for "ecological military mayhem" (Thomas 1995, 16).

Lab
22 Trade-Off DA
Impact Genocide
The ideology of militarism guarantees genocide and unlimited violence Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the University of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH The feminization, commodification, and devaluation of nature helps create a reality in which its destruction in warfare is easily justified. In imagining an ethic that addresses these realities, feminists cannot neglect the extent to which military ecocide is connected, conceptually and practically, to transnational capitalism and other forms of human oppression and exploitation. Virtually all of the world's thirty-five nuclear
bomb test sites, as well as most radioactive dumps and uranium mines, occupy Native lands (Thomas 1995, 6). Six nuiltinationals control one-quarter of all United States defense contracts (Thomas 1995, 10), and two million dollars per minute is spent on the global military (Thomas 1995, 7). One could go on for volumes about the elleci of chemical and nuclear testing, military-industrial development and waste, and the disruption of wildlife, habitats, communities, and lifestyles that are inescapably linked to military practices. There are many conceptual and practical connections between military practices in which
humans aim to kill and harm each other for some declared "greater good," and nonmilitary practices in which we displace, destroy, or seriously modify nonhuman communities, species, and ecosystems in the name of human interests. An early illustration of these connections was made by Rachel Carson in the first few pages of
The Silent Spring (1962), in which she described insecticides as the inadvertent offspring of World War II chemical weapons research. We can now also trace ways in which insecticides were put of the Western-defined global corporatization of agriculture that helped k ill olf the small family farm and made the worldwide system of food production dependent on the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto.
Military practices are no different from other human practices that damage and irreparably modify nature. They are often a result of cost-benefit analyses that pretend to weigh all likely outcomes yet do not consider nonhuman entities except in terms of their use value for humans and they nearly always create unforeseeable effects for humans and nonhumans. In addition, everyday military peacetime practices are actually more destructive than most other human activities, they are directly enacted by state power, and, because they function as unquestioned "givens," they enjoy a unique near-immunity to enactments of moral reproach. It is worth noting the extent to which everyday military activities remain largely
unscrutinized by environmentalists, especially American environmentalists, largely because fear allows us to he fooled into thinking that "national security" is an adequate excuse for "ecological military mayhem" (Thomas 1995, 16). If environmental destruction
is a necessary aspect of war and the peacetime practices of military institutions, an analysis of war which includes its embeddedness in peacetime militarism is necessary to address the environmental effects of war. Such a perspective must pay adequate attention to what is required to prepare for war in a technological age, and how
women and other Others are affected by the realities of contemporary military institutions and practices.

Lab
23 Trade-Off DA
Impact Morality OWs Extinction

We have a moral obligation to help others in the face oF structural violence even if that leads to extinction. Watson 77 (Richard, Professor of Philosophy at Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, p. 118-119)
These arguments are morally spurious. That food sufficient for well-nourished survival is the equal right of every human individual or nation is a specification of the higher principle that everyone has equal right to the necessities of life. The moral stress of the principle of equity is primarily on equal sharing, and only secondarily on what is being shared. The higher moral principle is of human equity per se. Consequently, the moral action is to distribute all food equally, whatever the consequences. This is the hard line apparently drawn by such moralists as Immanuel Kant and Noam Chomskybut then, morality is hard. The conclusion may be unreasonable (impractical and irrational in conventional terms), but it is obviously moral. Nor should anyone purport surprise; it has always been understood that the claims of moralityif taken seriously supersede those of conflicting reason. One may even have to sacrifice ones life or ones nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one, he remains silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral, one distributes available food in equal shares (even if everyone then dies). That an action is necessary to save ones life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save ones life or nation. There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian. The moral world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks to the highest principlerecant or dieand it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough. I have put aside many questions of detailsuch as the mechanical problems of distributing foodbecause detail does not alter the stark conclusion. If every human life is equal in value, then the equal distribution of the necessities of life is an extremely high, if not the highest, moral duty. It is at least high enough to override the excuse that by doing it one would lose ones life. But many people cannot accept the view that one must distribute equally even in f the nation collapses or all people die. If everyone dies, then there will be no realm of morality. Practically speaking, sheer survival comes first. One can adhere to the principle of equity only if one exists. So it is rational to suppose that the principle of survival is morally higher than the principle of equity. And though one might not be able to argue for unequal distribution of food to save a nationfor nations can come and goone might well argue that unequal distribution is necessary for the survival of the human species. That is, some large groupsay one-third of present world populationshould be at least well-nourished for human survival. However, from an individual standpoint, the human specieslike the nationis of no moral relevance. From a naturalistic standpoint, survival does come first; from a moralistic standpointas indicated abovesurvival may have to be sacrificed. In the milieu of morality, it is immaterial whether or not the human species survives as a result of individual behavior.

Lab
24 Trade-Off DA
***Alternative***

Lab
25 Trade-Off DA
Alternative Discourse
Discourse is key to positive peace Gay 98 (William, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, December, The Practice of Linguistic nonviolence,
Peace Review, 10402659, Dec98, Vol. 10, Issue 4, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=7&sid=fbf 7951e-fa9b-4ac2-ba3b-2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d %3d#db=ap h&A N=1426690) CH Many times the first step in reducing linguistic violence is to simply refrain from the use of offensive and oppressive terms. However, just because linguistic violence is not being used, a genuinely pacific discourse is not necessarily present. Nonviolent discourse, like the condition of peace, can be negative or positive. "Negative peace" refers to the temporary absence of actual war or the lull between wars, while "positive peace" refers to the negation of war and the presence of justice. The pacific discourse that is analogous to negative peace can actually perpetuate injustice. Broadcasters in local and national news may altogether avoid using terms like
"dyke" or "fag" or even "homosexual," but they and their audiences can remain homophobic even when the language of lesbian and gay pride is used. A government may cease referring to a particular nation as "a rogue state," but public and
private attitudes may continue to foster prejudice toward this nation and its inhabitants. When prejudices remain unspoken, at least in public thrums, their detection and eradication are made even more difficult. Of course, we need to find ways to restrain hate speech in order to at least stop linguistic attacks in the public arena. Likewise, we need to find ways to restrain armed conflicts and hostile name calling directed against an adversary of the state. However, even if avoidance of linguistic violence is necessary, it is not sufficient. Those who bite their tongues to comply with the demands of political correctness are often ready to lash out vitriolic epithets when these constraints are removed. Thus, the practice of linguistic nonviolence is more like negative peace when the absence of hurtful or harmful terminology merely marks a lull in reliance on linguistic violence or a shift of its use from the public to the private sphere. The merely public or merely formal repression of language and behavior that expresses these attitudes builds up pressure that can erupt in subsequent outbursts of linguistic violence and physical violence.
Linguistic violence causes structural violence Resistance solves Gay 98 (William, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, December, The Practice of Linguistic nonviolence,
Peace Review, 10402659, Dec98, Vol. 10, Issue 4, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=7&sid=fbf 7951e-fa9b-4ac2-ba3b-2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d %3d#db=ap h&A N=1426690) CH The first step is breaking our silence concerning the many forms of violence. We need to recognize that often silence is violence; frequently, unless we break l he silence, we are being complicitous to the violence of the situation. However, in breaking the silence, our aim should be to avoid counter-violence, in its physical forms and in its verbal forms. Efforts to advance peace and justice should occupy the space between silence and violence. Linguistic violence can be overcome, but the care and vigilance of the positive practice of physical and linguistic nonviolence is needed if the gains are to be substantive, rather than merely formal, and if the goals of nonviolence are to be equally operative in the means whereby we overcome linguistic violence and social injustice.

Lab
26 Trade-Off DA
Alternative Reject
Moving away from crisis-driven politics solves Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH Moving away from crisis-driven politics and ontologies concerning war and military violence also enables consideration of relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena, and therefore can shape more nuanced theoretical and practical forms of resistance. For example, investigating the ways in which war is part of a presence allows consideration of the relationships among the events of war and the following: how militarism is a foundational trope in the social and political imagination; how the pervasive presence and symbolism of soldiers/warriors/patriots shape meanings of gender; the ways in which threats of state-sponsored violence are a sometimes invisible/sometimes bold agent of racism, nationalism, and corporate interests; the fact that vast numbers of communities, cities, and nations are currently in the midst of excruciatingly violent circumstances. It also provides a lens for considering the relationships among the various kinds of violence that get labeled "war." Given current American obsessions with nationalism, guns, and militias, and growing hunger for the death penalty, prisons, and a more powerful police state, one cannot underestimate the need for philosophical and political attention to connections among phenomena like the "war on drugs," the "war on crime," and other state-funded militaristic campaigns.
Rejecting negative peace opens the space for positive peace Salomon and Nevo 2 (Gavriel and Baruch, educational psychologists, University of Haifa, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Peace Education: The Concept, Principles, and Practices around the World, 2002, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/109637749?title=Peace%20Education%3a%20%20The%20Concept%2c %20Principles%2c%20and%20Practices%20around%20the%20World, AD: 7/9/9) TR It is obvious that peace education is not a single entity. A variety of distinctions can be offered. For one, peace has more than one meaning, and so does its absenceviolence. Galtung (1973) distinguished between positive and negative peace, with the former denoting collaboration, integration, and cooperation, and the latter denoting the absence of physical and direct violence between groups. He also coined the construct of "structural violence," denoting societal built-in inequalities and injustices. A second, possible distinction pertains to the sociopolitical context in which peace education takes place: regions of intractable conflict (Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998), regions of racial or ethnic tension with no overt actions of hostility (e.g., Leman, chap. 14, this volume), or regions of tranquility and cooperation. A third distinction can be made between desired changes: changes on the local, microlevel, for example, learning to settle conflicts and to cooperate on an interpersonal level, versus desired changes on a more global, macrolevel, for example, changing perceptions, stereotypes, and prejudices pertaining to whole collectives. Although in both cases individuals are the targets for change, the change itself pertains to two different levels: more positive ways of handling other individuals versus handling other collectives. Still another possible distinction is between the political, economic, and social status of peace education participants: racial or ethnic majority versus minority, conqueror versus conquered, and perpetrator versus victim. Clearly, peace education for the weak and dominated is not the same as for the strong and dominating (for important distinctions, see chapter 3 by Bar-Tal, this volume). Whereas these and other distinctions are of great importance, I think that the sociopolitical context in which peace education takes place supersedes the rest. It is the context that determines to an important extent (a) the challenges faced by peace education, (b) its goals, and (c) its ways of treating the different subgroups of participants. Thus, for example, a rough examination of peace education programs around the world suggests that whereas regions of relative tranquility emphasize education for cooperation and harmony (positive peace), promoting the idea of a general culture of peace, regions of conflict and tension emphasize education for violence prevention (negative peace), greater equality, and practical coexistence with real adversaries, enemies, and minorities. Whereas the former are likely to promote individual skills in handling local, interpersonal conflicts, the latter are more likely to address perceptions of and tolerance toward collectives.

Lab
27 Trade-Off DA
Alternative Reject
The ontopolitical act of rejection calls into question the negative peace worldview, prompting alternatives Burke 2 (Anthony, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of New South Wales,
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Aporias of Security, http://www.questia.com/read/5002461817? title=Aporias%20of%20Security, AD: 7/10/9) TR However, I believe that, more than ever, we do need to ask what it is to be secure. Surely we no longer know what security is--in that Platonic sense. Surely more than ten years after the end of the Gold War, after the Clinton Doctrine and the destruction of the Twin Towers, after humanitarian and policy disasters in Indochina, Africa, East Timor, the Middle East, and Central America, and after a growing body of humanist and critical scholarship has questioned security's unity, discursive structure, and political implications, security no longer possesses a credible wholeness. (1) This article begins from the premise that security's claims to universality and wholeness founder on a destructive series of aporias, which derive firstly from the growing sense that security no longer has a stable referent object, nor names a common set of needs, means, or ways of being, and secondly, from the moral relativism that lies at the center of dominant (realist) discourses of security that pretend to universality but insist that "our" security always rests on the insecurity and suffering of another. While this article argues strongly that security has no essential ontological integrity, it also argues that if the power and sweep of security are to be understood and challenged, its claims to universality must be taken seriously. They underpin and animate sweeping forms of power, subjectivity, force, and economic circulation and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Nor, in the hands of some humanist writers--who have sought to think human and gender security in radical counterpoint to realist images of national and international security--are such claims always pernicious. They have a valuable moral and political force that undermines, perhaps unwittingly, the logocentric presuppositions of the realist discourses they question. Yet a common assumption that security can be ontologically completed and secured does present a hurdle for the kind of "ontopolitical" critique that we really need. (2) The answer is not to seek to close out these aporias; they call to us and their existence presents an important political opening. Rather than seek to resecure security, to make it conform to a new humanist ideal--however laudable--we need to challenge security as a claim to truth, to set its "meaning" aside. Instead, we should focus on security as a pervasive and complex system of political, social, and economic power, which reaches from the most private spaces of being to the vast flows and conflicts of geopolitics and global economic circulation. It is to see security as an interlocking system of knowledges, representations, practices, and institutional forms that imagine, direct, and act upon bodies, spaces, and flows in certain ways-to see security not as an essential value but as a political technology. This is to move from essence to genealogy: a genealogy that aims, in William Connolly's words, to "open us up to the play of possibility in the present ... [to] incite critical responses to unnecessary violences and injuries surreptitiously imposed upon life by the insistence that prevailing forms are natural, rational, universal or necessary." (3)

Lab
28 Trade-Off DA
Alternative Small Actions

Small acts of resistance are key to positive peace Duncan 2 (Grace, Student of Peace and Conflict, School of Political Science and International Studies, UQ,
Winter, Peace, Action and Consequences, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=7&sid=fbf7951e-fa9b4ac2-ba3b-2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2) CH So the causes of this violence are personal as well as societal. Aaron has problemshis unemployment and his family but his reaction to those problems is far from inevitable. It can be argued that Aarons unhappiness has led to this violence as much as anything else. Any action that would reduce his unhappiness, a simple act of genuine kindness or compassion, would thus address this problem and contribute to positive peace. Such an act would be barely visible to the world at large, yet its contribution would be more durable because it goes closer to the source of the conflict. Clearly Aaron would not completely change his behaviour because one person was nice to him, but such an action can feed into the psychological web of human society and have ripple like effects. In this way, the action would be broad in its consequences and far less ambiguous than those mentioned above. While its results would be difficult to see, they should not be ignored. Clearly, this theory is a crude simplification of a complex situation, perhaps an oversimplification. It must be acknowledged that not all levels of action are appropriate or possible in all circumstances, nor are they available to all people. While smaller actions can be undertaken by almost anyone, bigger acts are reserved for those with political power or influence. The ethical stance generated by this theory is not that an individual should shun bigger acts (if they are available to them), because of their ambiguity and short shelf-life, in favour of smaller interpersonal actions. It is that smaller acts have ethical priority because of the relative purity and durability of their consequences, and should not be compromised in pursuit of big actions. They should not be forgotten or judged less important simply because they are subtle and unspectacular and do not occur in the more glamorous public or international spheres. People have different ideas about how best to pursue peace and these, at times, seem irreconcilable. This paper has explained, through the device of the continuum of action for peace, what I see as the connections and relationships between various types of acts that have this aim. It has dealt with the fact that actions undertaken with purely altruistic motives can sometimes have ambiguous results, particularly if they are big actions, and especially if they lose sight of these connections and of the ultimate aim of positive peace. The hypothetical example used is intended only as a thought-experiment. It would be the task of further study to show how such ideas are manifested in the real world.

Lab
29 Trade-Off DA
Alternative Solves Politicians/Elites

Gradualism is the only way to solve preparing for conflicts brings them into existence, dragging the world into a nuclear holocaust politicians cannot solve, the alternative must occur alone Groten and Jansen 81 (Hubert and Juergen, Doctorate in International Studies and Peace Lobbyist,
Interpreters and Lobbies for Positive Peace, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, Special Issue on Theories of Peace 175-181, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/424209, A.D.: 7/9/09) JH
With regard to peace research as we know it, we may conclude that nothing can be done. This does not seem to worry peace researchers unduly. As shown above, they have been allowed to settle down as a scholarly community, tolerated by the powers that be and by the public. In addition, the impact that critical peace research can make is largely reduced by political pressure that faces the peace researchers with the alternative of either refraining from publishing any radical conclusions from their research or of seeing public acceptance and public funds withdrawn. This dampens any enthusiasm, especially as there is no positive feedback to cheer one up. This is because the rulers tolerate peace research, and the masses, the people who should be interested in it, know nothing about it. Not raising their voices too high to avoid disturbing the peace is what peace researchers seem to have resigned themselves to. All this is happening at a point of history when the world is poised on the brink of a holocaust; when the behaviour of man, under the influence of what Osgood calls 'psycho-logic',8 must be qualified as par- anoid; when the spiralling arms race has been allowed to take on a frightening reality of its own. This is happening when one of the leading German scholars and scientists, Carl F. von Weizsacker, who among other things has a well-earned reputation as a peace researcher, is setting energetically about the task of propagating the need for nuclear shelters for the people.9 He, too, seems to have resigned himself this time to yet
another war taking its natural course - it cannot be helped, it is all so human. After that war is over, we must sit down and seriously think about preventing war. Now there is nothing we can do but construct shelters. Von Weizsacker surely knows that the speeding up of civilian defence adds momentum to the spiralling conflict as it makes war a working proposition again in the minds of many. How can this suicidal folly be stopped? Our answer is gradualism. It makes sug- gestions that do not strain the social and political system or the individual too much. Its basic assumption, that symbolic uni- lateral steps can prepare the way to qual- itative
disarmament, ought to be taken up again. New thinking, though, has to be added to gradualist theory where the addressees are concerned. So far the proponents of gradualism have been addressing themselves mainly to politicians. But most of the politi-
cians in responsible positions have many conflicting interests to take care of and conflicting pressures to respond to. What is more important, they are not so personally involved since they are the ones who are least affected by the effects of structural violence, and they are well-cushioned against the absence of positive peace. However,
there is a small band of politicians who would be prepared to take up the cause of positive peace provided they are given encouragement and continuous support by their voters. There is no support for a positive peace policy from the dominant strata of society because they are not aware of the necessity of such a policy.

Lab
30 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Vagueness

We must move forward toward positive peace attempts to define the goal are only constructions of a flawed mindset Groten and Jansen 81 (Hubert and Juergen, Doctorate in International Studies and Peace Lobbyist,
Interpreters and Lobbies for Positive Peace, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, Special Issue on Theories of Peace 175-181, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/424209, A.D.: 7/9/09) JH 'Peace is not merely the absence of war, collective violence or threats to use violence; the idea of peace must be rendered
using terms like 'justice', 'freedom', 'development', and 'solidarity'.'5 Expanding the concept of peace in this way does not make it any more workable than does reducing it to a normative formula such as: peace is meeting man's basic needs or providing the minimum for subsistence.6 The difficulties that arise when one tries to define peace are aptly summarized in the following words: 'All the
attempts at pro- ducing a comprehensive definition of what positive peace is must be seen in the light of the quest for an all-embracing political system which as a minimum guarantees the survival of mankind and as its maximum creates a social order in which the welfare and happiness of man are achieved.'7 Is it at all possible to find a useful and practicable definition of positive peace? As it embraces both the road and the goal, both the method or process and the aim, it would have to incorporate an analysis of present- day society and, at the same time, would have to trace the picture of a new, just society. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. What we ought to be concerned with cannot be a comprehensive definition but, rather, an analysis of the existing situation that would provide us with the tools to start changing society. Another idea becomes essential here. This is democratization which, like positive peace, is both the goal, i. e., a democratic society free from structural violence, and the road leading to it, i.e., a procedure that takes in the masses and is supported by them. The goal can be named but it
need not be defined. What matters is the process, the road leading to it, the key to it, positive peace being the guideline. The idea then is not to use up one's energy trying to present people with a picture of what may be in store for them but to prepare the way, advancing by small steps, taking first things first. Of course providing a clear analysis of the existing situation is more than many peace researchers ever do; but this is not sufficient in itself. It is, however, equally insufficient to point to a utopia. Doing first things first also implies that critical peace research cannot be 'neutral' or 'objective' in the sense that it appeals to all and sundry in bland scientific terms. It has to take sides. It has to prepare action. This means first of all realizing that there is nobody eagerly waiting for recipes or in- structions from peace research. Critical peace researchers have to understand that their aims are not the aims of the people dominating society. What critical peace research has to offer can only be put into practice with the help of those people who are most seriously affected by the absence of positive peace. Only they can initiate and implement any policy that com- bats structural violence. It is not to the rulers of society that positive peace appeals; it is to the dispossessed and oppressed that the value and the chances of positive peace must be proved. However, they are not aware of the terms' structural violence' and 'positive peace' that have so far been reserved to academic circles, as jargon, and to a few privileged people, as esoteric knowledge

Lab
31 Trade-Off DA
A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve

A movement towards positive peace is a prerequisite to solving all harms even a small transition solves the most intense impacts of structural violence Barash 0 (David P., Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington, Approaches to peace: a leader in
peace studies, Oxford University Press, 2000, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/111756263?title=Approaches %20to%20Peace%3a%20%20A%20Reader%20in%20Peace%20Studies, AD: 7-10-9)EH It is important to be against war. But it is not enough. We also need to be in favor of somethingsomething positive and affirming: namely, peace. Peace studies is unique not only because it is multidisciplinary and forthrightly proclaims its adherence to values, but also because it identifies positive visions of peace as being greater than the absence of war. The positive peace toward which peace studies strives may be, if anything,even more challenging than the prevention of war. It is a variation on what has been called the dog-car problem. Imagine a dog that has spent yars barking and running after cars. Then, one day, it catches one. What does it do with it? What would devotees of peace do with the world if they had the opportunity? This is not a useless exercise, as before any future can be established, it must first be imagined. And moreover, unlike our hypothetical car-chasing dog, the establishment of positive peace is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. The movement toward positive peace is likely to be halting and fragmentary, with substantial success along certain dimensions, likely failures along others. On balance, the project is formidable, nothing less than a fundamental effort to rethink the relationship of human beings to each other and to their shared planet. If war and its causes are difficult to define- and this is assuredly the case- the positive peace is even more elusive. (It can even be dangerous, since disagreements over what constitutes a desirable peace can lead to war.) Earlier, we briefly considered just war doctrine. The conditions for a just peace are no less strenuous or important. The relevant issues include- but are not limited to- aspirations for human rights, economic fairness and opportunity, democratization, and what, specifically, is desire, or how much emphasis to place on each goal. The pursuit of positive peace nonetheless leads to certain agreed principles, one of which is a minimization of violence, not only the over violence of war, but also what has been called structural violence a condition that is typically built into many social and cultural institutions. A slave-holding society may be at peace in that it is not literally at war, but it is also rife with structural violence. Structural violence has the effect of denying people important rights such as economic opportunity, social and political equality, a sense of fulfillment and self-worth, and access to a healthy natural environment. When people starve to death, or even go hungry, a kind of violence is taking place. Similarly, when human beings suffer from diseases that are preventable when, they are denied a decent education, housing, an opportunity to play, to grow, to work, to raise a family, to express themselves freely, to organize peacefully, or to participate in their own governance, a kind of violence is occurring, even if bullets or clubs are not being used. Society visits violence on human rights and dignity when it forcibly stunts the optimum development of each human being, whether because of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, ideology, and so on. In short, structural violence is another way of identifying oppression, and positive peace would be a situation in which structural violence and oppression are minimized. In addition, social injustice is important not only in its contribution to structural violence, but also as a major contributor to war, often in unexpected ways. For many citizens of the United States and Europe, as well as privileged people worldwide, current lifestyles are fundamentally acceptable. Hence, peace for them has come to meant the continuation of things as they are, with the additional hope that overt violence will be prevented. For others- perhaps the majority of our planet- change of one sort or another is desired. And for a small minority, peace is something to fight for! A Central American peasant was quoted in the New York Times saying I am for peace, but not peace with hunger.

Lab
32 Trade-Off DA
A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve

Positive peace is a process Were the necessary first step Bilgin 5 (Pinar, Assistant Professor, Ph.D, International Politics and Security, University of Wales, Regional
Security in the middle East: A Critical Perspective, 2005, http://www.questia.com/read/108556832?title=Regional %20Security%20in%20the%20Middle%20East%3a%20%20A%20Critical%20Perspective, AD: 7/10/9) TR As an analytical move, broadening security entails questioning the military-focused security agendas of Cold War Security Studies and calling for opening up the agenda to include other non-military threats. In making
this move, students of critical approaches to security have followed in the footsteps of Peace Researchers who, from the 1960s onwards, had gradually widened their conceptions of peace and violence. Distinguishing between 'negative' and 'positive' peace, John Galtung argued that peace defined as here by the absence of armed conflict is 'negative peace'. 'Positive peace', maintained Galtung, means the absence of not only direct physical violence but also indirect (and sometimes unintentional) 'structural violence' - that is, those socio-economic institutions and relations that oppress human beings by preventing them from realising their potential. Galtung (1969, 1996) also emphasised that to attain 'positive peace', it is not enough to seek to eliminate violence; existing institutions and relations should be geared towards the enhancement of dialogue, cooperation and solidarity among peoples coupled with a respect for the environment. It is also worth noting here that for Galtung (1996:265) peace is not a static concept; it is rather a process (as with security and emancipation for students of critical approaches to security; see Booth 1991b; Wyn Jones 1999). Building upon Peace Researchers' broadening of the concepts of violence and peace that took human beings as the referent, students of critical approaches to security broadened security to include - in Ken Booth's words - 'all those physical and human constraints which stop them from carrying out what they would freely choose to do' (Booth 1991b: 319; Booth 1999b: 40). Such constraints may include human rights abuses, water shortage, illiteracy, lack of access to health care and birth control, militarisation of society, environmental degradation and economic deprivation as well as armed conflict at the state- and sub-state level. Accordingly, the purpose behind broadening security, from a critical perspective, is to become aware of threats to security faced by referents in all walks of life and approach them within a comprehensive and dynamic framework cognisant of the interrelationships in between. Understood as such, broadening security does not simply mean putting more issues on governments' security agendas, but opening up security to provide a richer picture that includes all issues that engender insecurity. In other words, although the broadening of governmental security agendas is an offshoot of broadening security, it is not its main purpose. After all, the US Central Intelligence Agency also broadened its agenda in the 1990s (Johnson 1993), but sought to address them through its traditional practices.

Lab
33 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace = Violence/Revolt

Positive peace precludes the possibility of violence or revolution Groten and Jansen 81 (Hubert and Juergen, Doctorate in International Studies and Peace Lobbyist,
Interpreters and Lobbies for Positive Peace, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, Special Issue on Theories of Peace 175-181, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/424209, A.D.: 7/9/09) JH Peace research is called upon to break this doubly vicious circle. It can do this if it takes its central concept, peace, more seriously. Only then will it take itself seriously. And only then will it accept its responsibilities to the people. To do this, it has to come down from its academic pulpit. It is here that the concept of 'positive peace' comes
in.3 'Positive peace' is central to a peace research that claims to be a critical social science. When peace research started some twenty years ago there were the 'armers', who aimed at controlling military conflicts by calling for arms, and new arms at that; and there vere the 'disarmers'. This distinction was not sufficient. Only when Johan Galtung broke down the narrow concept of violence as personal, direct violence by introducing the concept of 'structural violence' could peace research develop into a critical social science. Those social scientists that have opted for critical peace research believe that structural violence is present wherever man is deprived of his potentiality by the working of the very structure of society itself. So this kind of violence is produced by the structure of society and it, in turn, supports this structure. According to this concept, any social injustice is structural violence. Direct, personal violence is but one aspect of this violence. Starting from this concept, Dieter Senghaas developed his concept of 'organized peacelessness'. Critical peace research is more radically critical of society and considers a 'peace' policy that advocates deterrence as not only too limited but also as preserving the social status quo characterized by structural violence. This does not mean, however, that critical peace research, on a continuum of possible policies, is placed firmly at the end advocating revolution. On the contrary, it rules out revolution as this implies the use of direct violence. So on this continuum peace research stops short of revolution; it equally rejects the policy of deterrence as a means not capable of bringing about positive peace. This does not mean, however, that it does not take into account short and medium-term approaches as well. It has to in order to reach its addressees. At this point a somewhat closer inspection of the category central to peace research, positive peace, is called for. Positive
peace can only be achieved in the absence of structural violence and the violent structures that go with it. Positive peace is social justice.

Lab
34 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace = Authoritarianism

Positive peace resists authoritarianism Potter 4 (Nancy Nyquist, PhD in Rhetoric from the University of Minnesota, Putting Peace into practice, pg.
14-15, http://books.google.com/books?id=uQ4Ab7drluQC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22negative+peace%22+%22
positive+peace%22+%22inseparable %22&source=bl&ots=JyUFsQfWT3&sig=LtO877TxxXq2bEOC_aGIbd7_kU0&hl=en&ei=WRRZSpChF4XcsgOZ5OCZCg&sa =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4, A.D.: 7/11/09) JH
The language of positive peace is quite compatible with the democratic spirit and is diametrically opposed to authoritarian traditions. Since the language of positive peace resists monologue and encourages dialogue, it fosters an approach to public policy debate that is receptive rather than aggressive and meditative rather than calculative. The language of positive peace is not passive in the sense of avoiding engagement; it is pacific in the sense of seeking to actively build lasting peace and justice. In this sense, while the language and practice of positive peace facilitates the continuation of politics rather than its abandonment, it also elevates diplomacy to an aim for cooperation and consensus rather than competition and compromise. The language of positive peace provides a way of perceiving and communicating that frees us to the diversity and open-endedness of life rather than the sameness and finality of death that results when diplomacy fails and war ensues. The language of positive peace, by providing an alternative to the language of war and the language of negative peace, can introduce into public policy discourse shared social values that express the goals of a fully politicized and enfranchised humanity.

Lab
35 Trade-Off DA
Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (1/2)

Positive peace resolves the underlying causes of conflicts and violence- facilitates the development of relationships which restore and preserve community values and needs. We should be encouraging the government to pass policies of peace and justice Sandy and Perkins 1 (Leo R and Ray, Co-Founder of Peace Studies at Plymouth State College and teacher
of philosophy at Plymouth State College, The Nature of Peace and its implication for peace education, online journal of peace and conflict resolution 4.2, http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/ENGSEMJ/v08/undervisningsmateriale/IL%20&%20HR/Topic %202%20-%20Reading.pdf, 2001, AD:7-10-9)EH Positive peace, in contrast, is a pattern of cooperation and integration between major human groups.... [It] is about people interacting in cooperative ways; it is about social organizations of diverse peoples who willingly choose to cooperate for the benefit of all humankind; it calls for a system in which there are no winners and losers--all are winners; it is a state so highly valued that institutions are built around it to protect and promote it (OKane, 1991-92). It also involves the search for positive conditions which can resolve the underlying causes of conflict that produce violence (Woolman, 1985, p.8). The strategies used for this purpose are called associative, and they are characterized by a high level of social interaction [which] enables more rapid resolution of conflict by providing maximum contacts through which solutions may arise (Woolman, 1985, p.8). Woolman also describes the sort of social reorganization that would provide the best opportunity for real peace. Essentially, he espouses Galtungs idea of smallness and decentralization of power and authority. Thus, small scale social organization offers a better environment for encouragement of local autonomy, participation, and high levels of inter-group interaction. Big countries, corporations, and institutions are generally regarded as negative structures because they are prone to depersonalization, excessive centralization of decisionmaking, and patterns of center-periphery exploitation. Gene Sharp (1980) in his Social Power and Political Freedom adroitly elaborates these points. The condition of smallness does much to reduce feelings of anonymity and powerlessness. It also facilitates the development of relationships which can restore and preserve community values and spiritual needs which should take precedence over the materialism that is so central to Western culture. (Woolman, 1985, p.12). Consistent with these approaches, Reardon (1988) places global justice as the central concept of positive peace and asserts that justice, in the sense of the full enjoyment of the entire range of human rights by all people, is what constitutes positive peace (p.26). In a similar vain, Trostles (1992) comprehensive definition of peace clearly places it
within a positive context: [Peace is] a state of well-being that is characterized by trust, compassion, and justice. In this state, we can be encouraged to explore as well as celebrate our diversity, and search for the good in each other without the concern for personal pain and sacrifice. ... It provides us a chance to look at ourselves and others as part of the human family, part of one world. The role of the individual peacemaker from this perspective would involve people who, . . . work toward promoting a world in which nonviolent interaction and social equality are the norm. . . . Individuals of conscience should work to create a trickle
up theory. . . .by starting at the grassroots level to encourage corporate leaders, political figures, and government officials to establish policies promoting peace and justice. This includes not only participating in government by voting, etc., but also standing against a government that does not operate in the best interest of global harmony. (Trostle, 1992) A peacemaking government would require a system of non-military national service (to). . . include the Peace Corps and exchange student or exchange citizen programs. . .as well as the duty of largely developed nations to share technology and surpluses of any kind with those countries in need and less developed (Trostle, 1992). Offering another broad positive view of peace is MacLeod (1992) who defines it as, an awareness that all humans should have the right to a full and satisfying life. For an individual this means developing his own and his loved ones potential growth, and for reaching out to his neighbors to help assure that they have the same chance. For communities, this means developing fair regulations for living together, and encouraging programs that will enhance fellowship among its many diverse elements. For nations, this means encouraging its citizens to strive for enhancement of a benign attitude toward all elements of their own society and toward all other nations. Towards an adequate definition It is difficult not to see in these positive approaches to the definition of peace radical implications for a reorganization of our society and, indeed, our entire world. There is no denying that a positive conception of peace along the lines suggested by Galtung, Sharp, Reardon, et al. would involve fundamental changes on the level of the individual psyche and the nationstate as well. At both levels genuine peace requires the advent of a new self-lessness, a willingness to see our fellow humans as our brothers and sisters, and--as the traditional religions have always counciled--

Lab
36 Trade-Off DA
Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (2/2)

to love them as we love ourselves. But besides this subjective component of each individuals altruistic love, there must be justice which depends on the right sort of social organization. This is Reardons point. It is also implied by Trostles state of well-being ... of global harmony ... part of one world. The suggestion here is that, at the very least, a state of (genuine) peace is something beyond what can be achieved by the traditional system of sovereign nation-states. The problem, of course, is that this system lacks a system of workable law, each state being the ultimate arbiter of whether it will wield force in its pursuit of national interest or not. Without workable world law its hard to see how there can be justice, and so, peace, in its true sense. The world federalists have expressed this point succinctly but powerfully: There can be no world peace without international justice; no international justice without world law; and no effective world law without institutions to make, interpret and enforce it.3 And the world
federalists may be right when they make this requirement of enforceable world law a sine qua non for the abolition of the age-old institution of war itself. Certainly Albert Einstein thought so when he declared that Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, of law, of order--in short, of government (Einstein, 1968). In conclusion, we believe that a proper definition of peace must include positive characteristics over and above the mere absence of belligerence. Rather, it must include those positive factors that foster cooperation among human groups with ostensibly different cultural patterns so that social justice can be done and human potential can freely develop within democratic political structures. And this--promoting social justice/freedom by democratic means--will almost certainly require more selfless concern at all levels: at the personal level, more brotherly love; and at the international level, less narrow national self-interest-- a goal which we believe will require a diminution of the current system of nation states and the gradual emergence of a world community self-governed by world law. In this way, a truly peaceful world will be a world where war has been made impossible--or, at least much less likely--by a new community where people not only see themselves in their hearts as part of one human family, but where, in (political-legal-moral) reality, they really are part of such a family. Lessons for peace education Finally, what do these insights about the definition of peace mean for peace makers, and peace educators generally, in the 21st Century? We think they mean first that peace makers must stress that the long range goal of peace
education should be the elimination of war as a method of resolving disputes. Reardon (1988) anticipated this when she said that peace education must confront the need to abolish the institution of war (p.24). To date there has not been a widespread perceived need to do so. Establishing the need is a challenge that lies ahead.
But, secondly and at least equally important, our reflections about the nature of peace also suggests that the abolition of war will require more than the mere cessation of hostilities among peoples--not that that would be bad if we could get it. The problem is, as we saw earlier, that we probably cant get it without a radical reconstruction of interpersonal and international
relations along the lines suggested by our earlier examination. And paramount among these relations are the ideas of social justice and world law. The importance of these ideas in successfully pursuing the quest of abolishing war is, we think, an equally important implication for the future of peace education. Of course, the quest for peace and the abolition of war will be a long one requiring us to dig deeper into the very depths of the human and institutional psyches which lead civilized peoples to resort to force and, hopefully, to find and build the elusive peace. This quest requires that we teach for peace and not just about peace.

Lab
37 Trade-Off DA
Positive Peace Good Solves Militarism

Pursuit of positive peace minimizes structural violence, an inherent condition of injustice that is a major contributor to oppression and war Barash 00 (David P., Professor of Psychology, University of Washington, Approaches to Peace: A Reader in
Peace Studies, 2000, http://www.questia.com/read/111756263?title=Approaches%20to%20Peace%3a%20%20A %20Reader%20in%20Peace%20Studies, AD: 7/9/9) TR The pursuit of positive peace nonetheless leads to certain agreed principles, one of which is a minimization of violence, not only the overt violence of war, but also what has been called structural violence, a condition that is typically built into many social and cultural institutions. A slave-holding society may be at peace in that it is not literally at war, but it is also rife with structural violence. Structural violence has the effects of denying people important rights such as economic opportunity, social and political equality, a sense of fulfillment and self-worth, and access to a healthy natural environment. When people starve to death, or even go hungry, a kind of violence is taking place. Similarly, when human beings suffer from diseases that are preventable, when they are denied a decent education, housing, an opportunity to play, to grow, to work, to raise a family, to express themselves freely, to organize peacefully, or to participate in their own governance, a kind of violence is occurring, even if bullets or clubs are not being used. Society visits violence on human rights and dignity when it forcibly stunts the optimum development of each human being, whether because of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, ideology, and so on. In short, structural violence is another way of identifying oppression, and positive peace would be a situation in which structural violence and oppression are minimized. In addition, social injustice is important not only in its contribution to structural violence, but also as a major contributor to war, often in unexpected ways. For many citizens of the United States and Europe, as well as privileged people worldwide, current lifestyles are fundamentally acceptable. Hence, peace for them has come to mean the continuation of things as they are, with the additional hope that overt violence will be prevented. For others perhaps the majority of our planet change of one sort or another is desired. And for a small minority, peace is something to fight for! A Central American peasant was quoted in the New York Times as saying I am for peace, but not peace with hunger. There is a long tradition suggesting that injustice is a primary cause of war. The French philosopher Denis Diderot, for example, was convinced that a world of justice and plenty would mean a world free of tyranny and war. Hence, in his 18th-century treatise, the Encyclopedia, Diderot sought to establish peace by disseminating all the worlds technical information, from bee-keeping to iron forging. And, of course, similar efforts continue today, although few advocates of economic and social development claim that the problem of violence can be solved simply by spreading knowledge or even by keeping everyones belly full.

Lab
38 Trade-Off DA

Lab
39 Trade-Off DA
*** Answers to Positive Peace***

Lab
40 Trade-Off DA
Turn Social Services Solve Structural Violence

Inequitable distribution of resources and social services is violence the aff is a necessary action Galtung 69 (Johan, Norwegian sociologist and founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies discipline, Violence,
Peace, and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, Vo. 6 No. 3, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/422690, A.D.: 7/10/09) JH
Resources are unevenly distributed, as when income distributions are heavily skewed, literacy/education unevenly distributed, medical services existent in some districts and for some groups only, and so on.'4 Above all the power to decide over the distribution of resources is unevenly distributed.l5 The situation is aggravated further if the persons low on income are also low in education, low on health, and low on power - as is frequently the case because these rank dimensions tend to be heavily correlated due to the way they are tied together in the social structure.'6 Marxist criticism of capitalist society emphasizes how the power to decide over the surplus from the production process is reserved for the owners of the means of production, who then can buy themselves into top positions on all other rank dimensions because money is highly con- vertible in a capitalist society - if you have money to convert, that is. Liberal criticism of socialist society similarly emphasizes how power to decide is mono- polized by a small group who convert power in one field into power in another field simply because the opposition cannot reach the stage of effective articulation. The important point here is that if people are starving
when this is objectively avoidable, then violence is committed, regardless of whether there is a clear subject-action-object relation, as during a siege yesterday or no such clear relation, as in the way world economic relations
are organized today.17 We have baptized the distinction in two different ways, using the word-pairs personal- structural and directindirect respectively. Violence with a clear subject-object relation is manifest because it is visible as action. It corresponds to our ideas of what drama is, and it is personal because there are persons committing the violence. It is easily captured and expressed verbally since it has the same structure as elementary sentences in (at least Indo- European) languages: subject-verb-object, with both subject and object being persons. Violence without this relation is structural, built into structure. Thus, when one husband beats his wife there is a clear case of personal violence, but when one million husbands keep one million wives in ignorance there is structural violence. Correspondingly, in a society where life expectancy is twice as high in the
upper as in the lower classes, violence is exercised even if there are no concrete actors one can point to directly attacking others, as when one person kills another.

Lab
41 Trade-Off DA
No Impact Direct Violence OWs

Direct violence outweighs structural violence Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH The difficulties in Galtung's approach can be seen clearly when one recalls his view that it is probably a disservice to man to try to see either direct or structural violence as the more important. To this it can be replied that, particularly in its most recent formulations, Galtung's idea of structural violence embraces a number of forms which scarcely anyone would regard as seriously as the crushing, tearing, piercing, burning, poisoning, evaporation, strangulation, dehydration and starvation which constitute personal somatic violence,'^ To treat being deprived of 'cultural stimuli' as an evil commensurable with being torn to pieces is a step so audacious as to demand very specific moral justitication. This Galtung fails to supply, and as a result, his notion of peace is a very unsatisfactory ideal against which to evaluate a social order.

Lab
42 Trade-Off DA
A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause

Discrete causes of war do exist Structural violence isnt the root cause
Patomaki 2 (Heikki, U of Helsinki, The Challenge of Critical Theories: Peace Research at the Start of the New Century, JPR 38(6),
http://www.prio.no/misc/Download.aspx?file=%2Fcscw%2Frd%2FReplication+Data%2Ffile41602_wjprappendix1.doc.)
What Galtung fails to do is spell out more generally the essential ontological qualities of society. Social systems are open: neither the intrinsic nor the extrinsic condition of closure is, in general, applicable. Social entities including socio-historically formed social actors and their understandings and relations can and do change, and any social whole, specified in whatever manner, is susceptible to extrinsic influences, including influences from non-social layers of reality (physical, biological, ecological etc.). In a sense that every event has a real (structured and complex) cause, ubiquity determinism holds; but causality does not have anything to do with constant conjunctions. Causality is about the production of outcomes. Moreover, socio-historically formed human/social beings and their contextual reasons for action are also causally efficacious.
The focus on structural violence instead of direct violence makes preventing war impossible. Thompson 3 (William, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of International
Relations at Indiana University, A Streetcar Named Sarajevo: Catalysts, Multiple Causation Chains, and Rivalry Structures, International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), AD: 7-10-9) BL Richard Ned Lebow (20002001) has recently invoked what might be called a streetcar interpretation of systemic war and change. According to him, all our structural theories in world politics both overdetermine and underdetermine the explanation of the most important events such as World War I, World War II, or the end of the Cold War. Not only do structural theories tend to fixate on one cause or stream of causation, they are inherently incomplete because the influence of structural causes cannot be known without also identifying the necessary role of catalysts. As long as we ignore the precipitants that actually encourage actors to act, we cannot make accurate generalizations about the relationships between more remote causation and the outcomes that we are trying to explain. Nor can we test the accuracy of such generalizations without accompanying data on the presence or absence of catalysts. In the absence of an appropriate catalyst (or a streetcar that failed to arrive), wars might never have happened. Concrete information on their presence (streetcars that did arrive) might alter our understanding of the explanatory significance of other variables. But since catalysts and contingencies are so difficult to handle theoretically and empirically, perhaps we should focus instead on probing the theoretical role of contingencies via the development of what if scenarios.

Lab
43 Trade-Off DA
A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause

There is no root cause of war
Ahmed 8 (Jan, Bill, Asia Observer, Staff, http://www.asiaobserver.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,453/func,view/id,3803/catid,26/.)JR War arises because of the changing relations of numerous variables--technological, psychic, social, and intellectual. There is no single cause of war. Peace is equilibrium among many forces. Change in any particular force, trend, movement, or policy may at one time make for war, but under other conditions a similar change may make for peace. A state may at one time promote peace by armament, at another time by disarmament, at one time by insistence on its rights, at another time by spirit of conciliation.
All empirical reality denies their claims Reducing structural disparities has not reduced the tendency toward war and the causes of war are complex
Rummel 79 (R.J., Understanding war, power, and peace, U of Hawaii, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE13.HTM#CHAP) There have been about 350 wars of all kinds since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, which once and for all defeated Napoleon's lust for power. If this number fairly well represents the frequency of war in history, there have been nearly 13,600 wars since 3,600 B.C.1 The toll of human misery measures around 30,000,000 direct battle deaths since Waterloo and 1,000,000,000 since 3,600 B.C.1a Then there are the uncountable deaths, the broken bodies and lives from the ravages and effects of these wars. Nor has war abated. Not with civilization. Not with education and literacy. Not with burgeoning international organizations and communications. Not with the swelling library of peace plans and antiwar literature. Not with the mushrooming antiwar movements and demonstrations. In the 25 years after World War II, for so many the war to create and insure peace for generations, some 97 internal and international wars occurred. Total deaths about equal those killed in World War II. On any single day during these 25 years slightly more than 10 internal or international wars were being fought somewhere.1b Nor is war increasing. Although there are ups and downs in the intensity and scope of warfare, the historical trend is level: a little more than six major international wars per decade and 2,000,000 battle deaths. Around this trend there are at least three cycles of warfare, showing different peaks around every 10, 25, and 50 years.
Empirical analysis is effective and liberating

Rummel 79 (R.J., Understanding war, power, and peace, U of Hawaii, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE13.HTM#CHAP) After all, it is through an intimate, personal experience with our close friends and relatives, with all their virtues and vices, that enables us to see them as individuals and develop reliable expectations (predictions) of their behavior. But yet, we also find that for an understanding of those close to us we must push toward common elements. Certain common needs (hunger, sex), certain common interests (status, love), certain common psychological mechanisms (frustration, ego), certain social and cultural factors (peer-group pressure, cultural norms). Even in our closest relationships, understanding seems to presuppose a mixture of intimate personal knowledge and an insight into common causes, conditions, explanations, and so on. Similarly with war. To understand a war or a situation in which war is likely is partly to know the war or situation intimately, of course. As historians, journalists, and diplomats do. But to understand also requires knowing what this war or situation has in common with other such wars or situations.
There is no root cause of violence

American Psychological Association 7 (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/featuredtopics/feature.php?id=38&ch=2.) JR Violence is a learned behavior. Like all learned behaviors, it can be changed. This isn't easy, though. Since there is no single cause of violence, there is no one simple solution. The best you can do is learn to recognize the warning signs of violence and to get help when you see them in your friends or yourself.

Lab
44 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves Generally

We dont need to exclude the aff Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's
Studies at the Univerity of Georgia, War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 31-48) CH I propose that the constancy of militarism and its effects on social reality be reintroduced as a crucial locus of contemporary feminist attentions, and that feminists emphasize how wars are eruptions and manifestations of omnipresent militarism that is a product and tool of multiply oppressive, corporate, technocratic states.' Feminists should be particularly interested in making this shift because it better allows consideration of the effects of war and militarism on women, subjugated peoples, and environments. While giving attention to the constancy of militarism in contemporary life we need not neglect the importance of addressing the specific qualities of direct, large-scale, declared military conflicts. But the dramatic nature of declared, large-scale conflicts should not obfuscate the ways in which military violence pervades most societies in increasingly technologically sophisticated ways and the significance of military institutions and everyday practices in shaping reality. Philosophical discussions that focus only on the ethics of declaring and fighting wars miss these connections, and also miss the ways in which even declared military conflicts are often experienced as omnipresent horrors. These approaches also leave unquestioned tendencies to suspend or distort moral judgement in the face of what appears to be the inevitability of war and militarism.
Treating structural and direct violence as a zero-sum game makes both worse Should do both Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=7&sid=fbf7951e-fa9b-4ac2-ba3b2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2) CH
Given the cogency of the case against methodological essentialism, there is no desire to argue here that there are any logical grounds for preferring one usage of a term in political theory over another,''* However, there can be sound practical reasons for favouring a particular usage, A particular usage might provide distinctions of meaning which a different usage might obliterate,^- Furthermore, it might be so well entrenched that any departure from it would be liable to cause confusion. Finally, a particular term, when used consistent to refer to one
thing, may acquire irremediably favourable or unfavourable overtones, to the extent that to use it to mean anything else might give the new referent an unwarranted lustre or tarnish, A Russian anecdote reported by Vladimir Bukovsky illustrates this clearly: A Jew came to his Rabbi and asked: 'Rabbi, you are a very wise man. Tell me, is there going to be a war?' 'There will be no war,' replied the Rabbi, 'but there will be such a struggle for peace that no stone will be left standing,'-* The difficulties in Galtung's approach can be seen clearly when one recalls his view that it is probably a disservice to man to try to see either direct or structural violence as the more important. To this it can be replied that, particularly in its most recent formulations, Galtung's idea of structural violence embraces a number of forms which scarcely anyone would regard as seriously as the crushing, tearing, piercing, burning, poisoning, evaporation, strangulation, dehydration and starvation which constitute personal somatic violence,'^ To treat being deprived of 'cultural stimuli' as an evil commensurable with being torn to pieces is a step so audacious as to demand very specific moral justitication. This Galtung fails to supply, and as a result, his notion of peace is a very
unsatisfactory ideal against which to evaluate a social order,

Lab
45 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves Generally

Perm solves peace and violence are coexistent parts of life, making the maintenance of human rights and social services possible Kemp 3 (Graham, Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology, Keeping the Peace: Conflict
Resolution and Peaceful Studies around the World, October 2003, p. 14-15, AD: 7-11-9) MW The thesis that violence coexists with peace can be illustrated in reference to Colombia, considered one of the
most violent places on earth. Colombia has endured an armed conflict among the army, guerrillas, and paramilitaries for more than fifty tears, Statistics show that the rate of assassinations in Colombia has grown as high as 89.5 per 100,000 inhabitants per annum (Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 1999:34). However, whereas about 250,000 men and women fighters engage in deadly confrontation, the remaining 40 million people go about their work peacefully, raising children, building a home, having a family, interacting with friends and neighbors, believing that a better future is yet to come. In effect,
widespread direct violence and many forms of structural and cultural violence coexist with a very strong sense of family, community, and cooperative networks. In Colombia, interpersonal relations are easily established, and people are renowned for their friendliness and warmth. More impressively, in the face of conflict, entire communities have established themselves as "peace areas," where participants in conflict are not allowed to use the territory as part of the war scenario or involve members of the community in it. Additionally, there are many efforts involving peace building, campaigns for human rights, expanding participation in the public sector, and improving social services. Finally, many other informal forms of solidarity exist among ordinary people as they go about their daily lives. Ultimately, this observation explains why a war-torn society does not collapse. The existence of peace does not count on the partial or total abolition of violence or war. There is peace amidst great violence; there is violence associated with fighting for peace. In the same way, it is unrealistic to believe that the more likely peace, the less likely violence, and vice versa. In fact, both phenomena can increase or decrease simultaneously, or can be present at the same time and place. Viewing peace and violence as coexisting has practical consequences. Rather than opposing extremes of a continuum like different ends of the same cotton string peace and violence each make cotton strings of their own. And both peace and violence, together with many other social entities, wave the fabric of life.

Lab
46 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves Exclusive Focus Bad

Inclusive solutions for peace are preferable to exclusive notions Do both solves Duncan 2 (Grace, Student of Peace and Conflict, School of Political Science and International Studies, UQ,
Winter, Peace, Action and Consequences, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=7&sid=fbf7951e-fa9b4ac2-ba3b-2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2) CH This theory is based on a few key ideas. First, it rests on the assumption that global problems such as genocide, war and poverty are ultimately the result of human failings and imperfections. This is a psychological, rather than a political or structural understanding of the world. By that I mean that while institutions, economies, ideas and perceptions obviously play a central role in creating or destroying peace, they are understood to have been constructed by previous societies, by human beings with psychological motivations that are not dissimilar from our own. The power of economic forces, for example, could be seen as the power of greed and fear of poverty. The power of nationalism derives from the human desire to be accepted and protected within a group. Through this understanding of the world, it can be seen that people have a profound ability to determine their collective destiny. Just as the present condition of society was constructed by the past, so the future condition will be created by the present. Second, negative peace and positive peace will be considered as existing along a continuum. While negative peace is merely the absence of armed conflict, positive peace is much more. Drawing upon Johan Galtungs (1969) definition, positive peace will be taken to mean a condition in which no human being is influenced so that their physical and mental realizations are below their potential realizations. While it may seem somewhat utopian, this definition is useful for describing the aim of an action. Thus, this discussion includes under its umbrella of action for peace any act that could conceivably lead to such a condition and contribute to a more peaceful world.
Exclusive focus on either form of violence is worse Examining both solves their impacts Schnabel (Albrecht, Senior Research Fellow at Swiss peace and a Lecturer in International Organizations and Conflict
Management at the University of Bern Institute of Political Science, The human security approach to direct and structural violence http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2008/files/SIPRIYB0802C.pdf) CH
Galtungs differentiation between direct and structural violence is not an undisputed approach, but it makes sense in the context of human security analysis. If human security generally means the security of people their physical safety, their economic well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms,9 then threats experienced by individuals and communities that are part of specific social, cultural, economic and political communities are not limited to direct armed violence. Such threats may be overt expressions of violence committed by specific and identifiable actors or covert expressions of violence inherent in the disadvantaged position of individuals and communities in a social, political or economic system that is upheld by power structures beyond their control. Without violence there is greater potential to provide and meet at least basic human needs, and to develop possibilities to satisfy needs that determine not only survival but also well-being and quality of life. Galtung seems to have sensed the need to give greater consideration to the structural aspects and sources of violence and to shift exclusive (or primary) focus, particularly by governments, from the prevention of direct violence to the prevention of structural violence. Whether done voluntarily due to a sense of national and international responsibility or forced by others promoting such norms, such a shift would lower violence and increase human security.

Lab
47 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves Links

Idealistic conceptions of peace do not need to exclude external manifestations of war and political changes to avert them
Rinehart 95 (Milton, July, Title: Understanding the concept of `peace', Peace & Change, 01490508, Vol. 20, Issue 3, ) CH The Numinar paradigm includes concepts of peace that are more idealistic, intra- and interpersonal, both internal and external. Peace is idealistic in that nonmaterial goals and processes are valued. Peace is not necessarily related to economic prosperity. In addition, peace is idealistic in that it is constructed and maintained through social processes that can be progressively revised. Peace is intra- and interpersonal in that the best level at which to begin peacemaking is internal. Peace must first exist within the individual in his or her relationship to others; peace is more the product of interactional patterns or subjective states than of social structures. Yet external concepts of peace are not excluded. Social systems must also be changed. The problem of peace is the problem of the internal, but shared, subjective states of people: the manner in which we interpret each other's actions and the value preferences that underlie our own actions. Cox comments, "To make peace with people, we need to understand them. To understand them, we need to engage in a holistic and participatory research which treats social reality as structured in purposive, value-laden, institutional and non-axiomizable ways."[19]
We dont preclude an interest in structural violence

Rinehart 95 (Milton, July, Title: Understanding the concept of `peace', Peace & Change, 01490508, Vol. 20, Issue 3, ) CH For example, Galtung and Gandhi represent the fuzzy area in between the peace paradigms. Galtung's social justice concept suggests the creation of intra- and interpersonal peace by changing the social structures that prohibit the possibility of such peace. Here the ends appear Numinar, but the means are clearly Popular. Further, I have argued in this article that the worldview hidden beneath this concept remains fear based while containing some degree of faith in human potential.
Their alternative is additive Doesnt exclude our conception of war

Rinehart 95 (Milton, July, Title: Understanding the concept of `peace', Peace & Change, 01490508, Vol. 20, Issue 3, ) CH Even though I have used some opposing terms to contrast the Popular and the Numinar paradigms, they do not appear to be dialectically related as polar opposites. Rather, the Numinar appears to integrate yet go beyond the Popular in some key ways. First, although the emphasis on peacemaking in the Numinar view is on the intra- and interpersonal level, the need for structural change is accepted. Peace is found through the integration of both internal and external processes. Second, the idealistic peace of the Numinar is not the antithesis of the materialistic peace of the Popular. Rather, it subsumes the material aspects of social reality in the larger process of the reconstruction of that reality.

Lab
48 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves A2: Co-optation

Defense posture doesnt preclude solutions to structural violence Groten and Jansen 81 (Hubert and Juergen, Doctorate in International Studies and Peace Lobbyist,
Interpreters and Lobbies for Positive Peace, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, Special Issue on Theories of Peace 175-181, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/424209, A.D.: 7/9/09) JH In the absence of any even partly suc- cessful alternative procedure, there is nothing to lose if we suggest the following:
Interpreters and go-betweens are needed to communicate the important message of critical peace research to the people. They must be women or men who can relate to both groups, or can be brought to do so. The group of people closest to the workers because they are together on the job and have other things in common are what we might call 'skilled workers'. In the general way we suggest this term be used it applies to all oc- cupations. The 'skilled worker' would also be in a good position to collaborate with committed peace researchers towards the common goal. Thus the 'skilled worker' could be a medium and a contact for both sides involved. She or he would act as an interpreter and a link between the mass of democratic voters, the niches of democratic workers and the peace researchers. She or he would be the vital link in a network of people of good will united under the common aim of communicating to the voters what peace research has to say about structural violence and positive peace and about possible activities. There would be communication among all those involved but the main job would lie with the 'skilled workers', i. e., to pass on the information to the people at work. This network of people of good will would have to be loosely organized. Most emphatically it would not be a state organization. It would not engage in research as such. Rather, it would draw
on the findings of critical peace research and transpose them to other levels of thinking and language use. 'Skilled workers' would be essential. Trade unions could help to prepare them. School teachers could be in it, though not qua school teachers. The local and regional press would be instrumental in communicating information and raising consciousness. This may sound utopian but there is no harm in trying this road. Civic action groups have proved through their involvement in ecology that a group of dedicated people can influence politics. It is not the group itself, or in our case the network, that can influence high politics but they can form lobbies that are sure to find some politicians who are glad to bring their influence to bear on high politics once they receive support from their voters. Even small groups could produce results to begin with. And once there are results it is never difficult to find more dedicated people among all those whose main concern is positive peace. Peace researchers know
there is structural violence and that we must work for positive peace. They only need people of good will to help them pass on this knowledge to those who can decide by using their democratic vote. Interpreters and lobbies ought to be used as links. Perhaps this will work.
Eschewing security proposals wont create positive peace and security plans arent coopted Jahn 83 (Egbert, Author of Nationalism in Late and Post-Communist Europe: Nationalism in the Nation States
and Doctor of Relations, Peace Research and Politics within the Field of Societal Demands, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/423797, A.D.: 7/9/09) JH Peace cannot be the result of just one policy, but of different and opposing policies. Otherwise, an absolute world
dictatorship would be the precondition which would merely make the will of others an object of a peace dictator. That is why the label 'German peace research' is as absurd as for example social- liberal peace research. The very day when peace research agrees with German foreign policy either total world peace will have come true, or - and this is more probable - the scientific death of peace research will have come. Peace research which corresponds completely to the policy of a national government, a party or a peace organization is no more than peace ideology. Peace research has to keep permanent distance
to a policy with peace intentions and to question national, partisan and bureaucratic prejudices which blur scientific reasoning. This cannot be accomplished without distance to everyday politics. Without
effective leisure, time and work no scientific reasoning is possible. Therefore, I would like to have at least one room in the ivory tower devoted to applied science within the turmoil of political expectations and attacks. Distance does not imply shunning contacts with parties, government departments and peace organizations. On the contrary, without an approach to and knowledge of political life in detail, one cannot observe at a suitable distance; at best one would reject politics out of prejudice. Valueoriented peace research is a science which draws its questions and problems from society and takes no refuge in the ivory tower. However, peace research cannot let itself be directed by societal expectations. There must be an appreciation of the fact that peace research cannot formulate a scientifically well-founded analysis with regard to every violent incident on earth. Peace researchers may utter political statements concerning Afghanistan, El Salva- dor or the NATO decision on the moderniza- tion of missiles in Europe, but then they do not act as scientists, but as politicians with the borrowed reputation of their scientific institution or their function.

Lab
49 Trade-Off DA
Perm Solves Militarism

The permutation prevents a military-focus, prescribing nuanced solutions Schnabel 7 (Albrecht, Senior Research Fellow at Swiss peace and a Lecturer in International Organizations and Conflict
As discussed in the previous section, the human security concept implies that the provision of human security requirements is largely the responsibility of states. Many states need to rethink and refocus their security policies and systems in order to provide effective human security for their population andin cooperation with other states and coordinated by intergovernmental organizationsassist or encourage states that lack the necessary capacities to follow suit. The responsibility to protect concept seems a suitable response to these calls for the provision of universal human security. Yet it is for this very reason that scepticism prevails about the legality of a new norm that considers human security as an innate right and the provision of human security as the responsibility of states. Such expectations seem to be at odds with states rights to sovereignty and non-intervention. Protagonists of the concept point out that their workand the accompanying evolving global normapplies only to direct violence and, in that context, the extreme action of military intervention under the responsibility to protect concept is concerned only with the most grievous crimes: mass atrocities and genocide. However, the basic assumptions of the concept justifying measures short of military intervention are applicable to direct violence in more general terms and to structural violence committed by national and international cultural, social, economic and political structuresa major paradigm shift in international norms and values
Focusing on both provides balanced solutions Schnabel 7 (Albrecht, Senior Research Fellow at Swiss peace and a Lecturer in International Organizations and Conflict
Galtung argues that there is no reason to believe that the future will not bring us richer concepts and more forms of social action that combine absence of personal violence with [the] fight against social injustice [i.e. negative and positive peace] once sufficient activity is put into research and practice.10 This appendix suggests that human security may well be the concept that offers this opportunity. Focusing on the impact that both types of violence have on the human security of individuals and communities, without prejudicing one over the other in terms of strategic, political or economic significance, allows a more effective focus on the basic needs of individuals, compared to the security needs of states as expressed in more traditional national security thinking. This approach responds to one of the original components of the human security concept: that national and international political and security structures should consider human security equally important to national security. At this juncture, the human security concept is able to advance the distinctions between direct and structural violence and between negative and positive peace. In combination with a heightened sense of (or a moral and legal call for) responsibility by human security providersthose who govern individuals and communities, the referent objects of human security both accountability and responsibility for the prevention of human insecurity might eventually enter the theory and practice of international law and custom.

Lab
50 Trade-Off DA
Were a Prereq to the Alt

Events of war preclude solutions to structural violence No alt without our action Rabie 94 (Mohamed, professor of International political economy, Georgetown University, Praeger, Conflict
Resolution and Ethnicity, 1994, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/14788166?title=Conflict%20Resolution %20and%20Ethnicity, AD; 7/11/9) TR In countries where democracy does not exist and where the control of authoritarian states over peoples' lives and fortunes is real, the nonviolent resolution and prosecution of political conflict is an impossibility because violence is the major tool of the oppressor rather than the oppressed. Democratization as the first order of concern, which the proponents of a limited definition of peace further advocate, cannot be effected without freedom and liberty, two conditions for access to cherished values. Therefore, a realistic definition of peace ought to take both arguments into consideration. This is particularly important since the proponents of positive peace tend to view it more as a process and less as a stationary state of political affairs, while the others see it generally in opposite terms. In fact, human experience seems to indicate that the absence of war and violence cannot be maintained without social justice, and social justice cannot be achieved under conditions of war and violence. Consequently, an operational definition of realistic peace would probably describe it as the absence of violence under conditions and relationships that provide for the nonviolent resolution of political conflict and the freedom to pursue legitimate individual and group goals without threat or coercion. Peace, to be real and human, must be understood and employed as a continuous process to lessen social tension, resolve political conflict, and create conditions to pursue freedom and justice through a gradual evolution of human perceptions and sociopolitical institutions. Thus, a strategy for universal peace must deal not only with war but also with the very forces and conditions that cause the eruption of war and induce the spread of violence in the first place. It must also strive to change a people's perceptions of the other in order to humanize the adversary, acknowledge his grievances, and legitimize his basic concerns. Above all, it must lay the foundation for transforming existing group relationships and state and civil society institutions, with a view to creating new more dynamic ones committed to promoting compatible visions and values with developing shared interests.
War causes structural violence Schnabel 7 (Albrecht, Senior Research Fellow at Swiss peace and a Lecturer in International Organizations and Conflict
Among the causes of insecurity, armed violence is a factor of unique significance because it: (a) causes human insecurity and prevents the adequate provision of human security through its debilitating direct and indirect effects; (b) acts as an accelerator of human insecurity, with knock-on effects that increase the negative impact of existing levels of violence and harm; and (c) is often the articulation of underlying, protracted and unresolved structural violence and thus an indicator of societal and political instability. Armed violence is a highly visible pointer to the long overdue necessity of addressing structural violence and its manifestations.

Lab A2: Positive Peace Innate Violence
51 Trade-Off DA
Violence is inherent in human nature, solving innate violence precludes any hope of positive peace solutions Rabie 94 (Mohamed, professor of International political economy, Georgetown University, Praeger, Conflict
Resolution and Ethnicity, 1994, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/14788166?title=Conflict%20Resolution %20and%20Ethnicity, AD; 7/11/9) TR The varied peace definitions have given rise to the concepts of "positive peace" and what might be called "passive or negative peace." 23 James H. Laue, for example, defines peace not only as a cherished goal sought by all individuals and states, but also as "a process of continuous and constructive management of differences toward the goal of more mutually satisfying relations, the prevention of escalation of violence, and the achievement of those conditions that exemplify the universal well-being of human beings and their groups from the family to the culture and the state." 24 It is a definition of positive peace that moves from the elimination of violence to dealing with the causes of conflict and proceeds to achieving universal happiness. Positive definitions of peace transform conflict resolution into a continuous peacemaking and peacekeeping process to deal with social conflict and create the socio-economic and political conditions that guarantee social justice. Thus, to the proponents of positive peace, the elimination of hunger and poverty and the establishment of justice are the true conditions of real peace and the most effective social measures to reduce the threat of war and undermine the causes of serious conflict. For such a peace to become a reality, they advocate, among other things, the creation of international superstructures to deal with regional and interstate conflict and limit the powers of the nation-state. In addition, they call for the establishment of a new international economic order that guarantees a more balanced distribution of global resources among nations, and effects the restructuring of trade relations between the industrialized and the developing countries on more equitable terms. 25 However, proponents of passive peace argue that the order of priorities should be reversed. They maintain that the tendency to commit mass violence, which characterizes many intergroup and international relations, is in itself a primary obstacle to the establishment of justice and the fulfillment of human goals. Thus, as Robert Pickus says, "establishing the minimum conditions for the non-violent resolution and prosecution of political conflict becomes the first objective." 26

Lab
52 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace No Equality

Positive Peace is impossible because transactions cant be equal for everyone Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH Galtung's notion of exploitation is open to similar criticism. For Galtung it is not sufficient that everyone benefit from an exchange transaction; the benefit must be equal. This leads to the paradox that a state of peacean absence of both structural and personal somatic violencemay be disturbed by a trans action which makes one person better off without making any other person worse off, a transaction which would constitute a Pareto improvement. By this curious usage, Galtung risks infringing his own requirement that a definition of peace 'should not be entirely subjectivistic ("agreed to by many")'."*" Many writers, of course, do dismiss Galtung's concern for relative as opposed to absolute benefits from trade. A good example is W. Arthur Lewis, who know the answer and . . , since I think what matters is the absolute progress of the ldcs and not the size of the gap, 1 do not care,

Lab
53 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Justifies Violence

Turn- Positive Peace Justifies human violence by stopping rational priorities among peace objectives Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH The normative dimension of Galtung's notion of positive peace is clear. However, it is in the writings of Galtung's fellow Norwegian Christian Bay that the danger that a notion of positive peace might be used to justify coercive or violent action emerges more clearly. Bay is generally sympathetic to Galtung, but sets out a more sophisticated and carefully elaborated theory in which the concept of needs plays a greater role than in Galtung's writings.'^ Bay accepts the distinction drawn by Galtung between personal and structural violence (although on at least one occasion, he has treated violence as the negation of freedom rather than peace'"), and like Galtung, he proposes a very broad meaning for the word 'violence'. For Bay, violence signifies the infliction, by commision or omission, of any damage or harm to any human being. Any broader-than-conventional concept of violence and of peace as the absence of large-scale violence, brings us back to the necessity of establishing rational priorities among peace objectives, too, just as we have seen that rational priorities are needed among human rights claims. All kinds of violence, under this broad umbrella term, are obviously not equal. This insight marks a considerable advance from Galtung's undiscriminating formulation. Bay continues that we require positive as well as negative peace: the latter meaning the absence of war, the former meaning the achievement of social and international justice. This leads us back to the problematique of human rights priorities, for social justice refers to securing access of all persons to the where withal that will meet their essential needs

Lab
54 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Violent Authoritarianism

Positive Peace justifies Authoritarian regimes and Direct Violence Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=7&sid=fbf7951e-fa9b-4ac2-ba3b2c07e8326bd2%40sessionmgr2) CH The 'positive' sense of the word 'liberty' derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master, I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were from outside,*'' The notion that freedom consists in selfmastery, insofar as it implies that man can be in a condition of lack of self-mastery from w hich he must be liberated,*-"' parallels the notion that positive peace is a condition in which structural violence is absent because man's needs are being satisfied. Notions of both positive liberty and positive peace, conceived in terms of the satisfaction of needs, derive their content ultimately from particular subjective conceptions of the nature of man. Berlin's philosophical pluralism** is directed against the moral and political authoritarianism which can result from an attempt to derive a specific political programme from a single dogmatic conception of human nature which does not take account of the diversity of individuals. Notions of positive peace have also been used to justify political authoritarianism, and even the resort to direct violence. This is perfectly illustrated in an article by Lars Dencik. Dencik defines conflicts as 'incompatible interests' and writes that incompatible interests are here defined objectively, i,e, by the observing scientist according to his theory and is Isicl independent of the actual subjective consciousness of the actors involved. This means that incompatible interests are conceived of as structural (actor independent), the structure defined according to the theory of the scientist.

Lab
55 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Revolution

Positive Peace Leads to Revolution Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH From this crude notion of objective interests, Dencik draws the conclusion that in certain situations "revolutionary violence" may be the necessary means to obtain conflict resolution proper', Nor is Dencik the only writer to justify revolution by reference simply to his own conception of the interests of others. As Jenkins writes: Whereas negative peace results in the stabilization of the status quo, positive peace has much more revolutionary implications. There is a clear analogy in medical science; the goal of health is pursued via the negative route of surgery and drugs, and through the positive route of preventative medicine. One focuses on the curing of illness once it has occurred, whilst the other seeks to create an environment where disease does not occur,*' One might equally regard the contrast as one between piecemeal and Utopian social engineering, to use the terminology popularized by Sir Karl Popper."

Lab
56 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Utopian

Positive Peace is Utopian Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH This contrast suggests another direction from which the question of the possible implications of the ideal of positive peace might be approached: can concepts of positive peace first be labelled and second criticized as Utopian! This largely depends upon the characteristics by which one chooses to identify a Utopia. Mannheim dubbed as Utopian those orientations transcending reality which, 'when they pass over into conduct, tend to shatter, either partially or wholly, the order of things prevailing at the time','' Frank and Fritzie Manuel wrote: Utopians are almost always tragic or tragi-comic figures who die unfulfilled; the future does not begin to conform to their fantasy. Then appear the disciples or curious readers who have not been shaken in their innermost being with anything like the intensity of the original Utopian visionary, and they adapt, prune, distort, refine, render banal, make matter-of-fact the Utopia, so that it re-enters the world as a force for good or evil. Compromises with existence are affected. The ironclad formula is relaxed,'^ With the possible exception of Marcuse, none of the thinkers discussed in this paper deserves so harsh a judgment. Yet clearly writers such as Galtung and Bay would concede that the achievement of their peaceful ideal worlds demands a radical alteration of existing attitudes and institutions. Thus, the idea of Utopia which provides most scope for a critical appraisal of the notion of positive peace may be that set out by Leszek Kolakowski: First, we shall talk about Utopias having in mind not ideas of making any side of human life better but only beliefs that a definitive and unsurpassable condition is obtainable, one where there is nothing to correct any more. Second, we shall apply the word to projections which are supposed to be implemented by human effort, thus excluding both images of an otherworldly paradise and apocalyptic hopes for an earthly paradise to be arratged by sheer divine decree. Consequently, conforming to the second criterion, the revolutionary anabaptism of the sixteenth century may be included in the history of Utopias so conceived, but not various chiliastic or adventist movements and ideas which expect the Kingdom on earth as a result of Parousia, On the other hand, according to the first criterion, I would not describe as Utopian various futuristic technological fantasies if they do not suggest the idea of an ultimate solution of mankind's predicament, a perfect satisfaction of human needs, a final state,^

Lab
57 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Violence Key

Turn: Direct Violence is Key to positive Peace Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH In conclusion, the problem with Bay's and Galtung's notions of positive peace is thus not that they are Utopian, but rather that they can accommodate the use of direct violence and coercion as means to achieving 'peace'. This suggests at the very least that if 'positive peace' is to be defended as a social goal, it needs to be justified with much more plausible moral arguments than have hitherto been adduced in its favour. Needs theory, in the vague and confused form set out by Bay, is unable to provide such justification. This does not mean that a concept of peace going further than the minimalist cannot be developed and defended. A concept of peace stressing negative liberty as well as the absence of direct violence would permit a peaceful society to be distinguished from a well-run prison. However, until such a concept attains general acceptance, the clarity of scholarly discourse may well be fostered by the use of the minimalist concept of peace rather than the positive notions considered in this paper.

Lab
58 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Vagueness

Positive peace as a term is so vague and inclusive that distinguishing it from other peaceful measures is difficult Fogarty 00 (Brian E., professor of sociology, College of St. Catherine, War, Peace and the Social Order,
http://www.questiaschool.com/read/85687291?title=War%2c%20Peace%2c%20and%20the%20Social%20Order, AD: 7/10/9) TR "Positive" definitions of peace seek to be more comprehensive. The mere prevention of war, or negative peace, is viewed as a limited goal at best, because it does not address many of the other forms of structured violence that are so prevalent in the world. Many countries are not at war, yet they are ruled by cruel despots or are exploited by corrupt elites or distant empires. These, it is argued, should not be considered societies at "peace." Others are so poor and dis-integrated that they are rife with violence, crime, and selfdestruction. Even in the absence of war, it violates the sensibilities to think of such places as peaceful. It is worth an ironic note, too, that these are frequently the conditions in societies where "peace" has been imposed by a foreign power. The trouble with expanding the definition of peace is that it is difficult to know where to stop. When I teach the sociology of medicine, it is common practice to engage students in a discussion of what "health" is. We often begin with the simple definition of health as the "absence of disease," but it soon becomes apparent that such a definition is of little use. Discussion progresses to social definitions, such as "ability to carry out normal role obligations" and social "normalcy." Before long the class has progressed all the way to the World Health Organization's ( WHO) definition of health: "a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" ( World Health Organization 1958 ). The problem with this sort of definition is that it is so inclusive and so general that it becomes difficult to distinguish health from any number of other desirable things. Health, according to the WHO, seems to be goodness and truth and justice and equality and beauty and selffulfillment, all rolled into one. No doubt this could serve fairly well as a definition of peace, too. And this is the kind of problem encountered in defining peace: Ideas about peace become so imbued with one's own values that one is unable to distinguish it from other desirable states. Consequently, "positive" definitions of peace tend toward vagueness. Attempts to arrive at a positive definition of peace have ranged from the introspective to the cosmic, and include "universal responsibility" ( Brenes 1990 ), "global cooperation" ( Fischer 1996 ), and "respect for life" (Harris 1990).
Structural violence is a term so incogent that it makes solutions to problems less likely Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH The distinction between direct and structural violence has not met with universal acceptance. To one critic structural violence was simply 'anything that Galtung didn't like',-^' To Johnson, Galtung's efforts 'to combine peace with justice in the notion of "positive peace" appear strained, an unrealistic attempt to keep the best of both worlds'," And J, David Singer, after noting the new notion of structural violence, charged that radical peace researchers had 'corrupted the communication channels, sown conceptual confusion, and discredited the scientific mode',-'"' However, Galtung's approach is also open to a more specific criticism, which relates to the value of the term 'positive peace' in scholarly discourse. It is that the notion of structural violence runs together ideas better kept apart.
Peace as the absence of war is more conceptually coherent, allowing concise analysis Maley 85 (William, The University of New South Wales at Duntroon, Peace, Needs and Utopia, Political
Studies, XXXIIl, 578-591, Political Studies) CH Thus, although the idiosyncrasy of Galtung's usage is not logically objectionable, his running together of inequity, exploitation and imperialist under the common rubric of violence, obliterating distinctions which other writers might wish to make or indeed investigate, provides some basis for preferring a more exact definition of peace, such as the minimalist one.

Lab
59 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Ethnocentrism

Positive peace is inherently ethnocentric, favoring Western ideals of truth, justice, and freedom Fogarty 00 (Brian E., professor of sociology, College of St. Catherine, War, Peace and the Social Order,
http://www.questiaschool.com/read/85687291?title=War%2c%20Peace%2c%20and%20the%20Social%20Order, AD: 7/10/9) TR But the most troublesome problem with defining "positive" peace is that its confusion with other valued states creates a strong tendency toward ethnocentrism. To even use the term "positive" is to engage a system of values in thinking about the concept. Thus students of peace in Western societies tend to define peace in terms of democracy, social equality, and "justice." In a roundtable discussion in the U.S. Institute of Peace Journal, Carl Gershman asserted: It should be self-evident that a society organized democratically according to the principles of consent, the rule of law, and respect for the rights of the individual will behave more peacefully in its foreign relations than a society governed by force and repression. The case for this view . . . should not need to be restated. ( United States Institute of Peace 1990 ) In the same discussion, R. J. Rummel concluded that "In sum, democracies are the least violent regimes, totalitarian states the most." This sort of thinking is expressed in religious terms as well. For example, Catholic social teaching asserts: The Catholic tradition has always understood the meaning of peace in positive terms. Peace is both a gift of God and a human work. It must be constructed on the basis of central human values: truth, justice, freedom, and love. ( Second General Council of Latin American Bishops 1970, italics mine). But are these really "central" human values? Would these all be held in equally high esteem by Muslims, Hindus, or devotees of nontheistic or animistic religions? Or more pointedly, would they be defined in the same way? The appeal to freedom may mean individual, personal liberty to a Westerner, but quite another thing to peoples of more traditional cultures, in which individuals are deeply rooted in kinship and community obligations. And "truth" may be even more difficult to pin down as scientific, religious, and ideological knowledge systems alternatively lay claim to truth in various of the world's cultures. Finally, justice may be the most problematic of all, for it is clear that ideals of justice vary widely from one culture to the next. In contemporary American society, for example, one basic tenet of justice is that all people should have equal opportunities for success or failure, but that neither success nor failure should be guaranteed (the extent to which this ideal is practiced is another matter). But there have been, and still are, many cultures in which this definition would be considered a grave injustice, or a nonsensical ideal. In some cultures tradition may specify that birthright or religious status, or age, or gender justly ascribes status and confers privilege on some, subservience on others. In a cross-cultural survey, Pen ( 1971) identified twenty-one different views of economic justice alone. The problem with many positive conceptualizations of peace is that they are at best value-bound, hopelessly tied up in a variety of Western cultural beliefs and values. Defining peace in terms of "truth" or "justice" ignores real differences among cultural ideals. At worst, these ways of thinking about peace are little more than ideological slogans. Either way, they exert very strong influence over the kinds of questions asked about peace, and also over the sorts of actions people are likely to undertake to make it.

Lab
60 Trade-Off DA
A2: Positive Peace Efficacy

There are no guarantees that positive peacebuilding could work in every society Barnett et al 7 (Michael, Hunjoon Kim, Madalene ODonnell, Laura Sitea, Global Governance, Peacebuilding:
What is in a Name?, 2007, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/5021483861?title=Peacebuilding%3a%20What %20Is%20in%20a%20Name%f, AD: 7/10/9) TR Because there are multiple contributing causes of conflict, almost any international assistance effort that addresses any perceived or real grievance can arguably be called "peacebuilding." Moreover, anyone invited to imagine the causes of violent conflict might generate a rather expansive laundry list of issues to be addressed in the postconflict period, including income distribution, land reform, democracy and the rule of law, human security, corruption, gender equality, refugee reintegration, economic development, ethnonational divisions, environmental degradation, transitional justice, and on and on. There are at least two good reasons for such a fertile imagination. One, there is no master variable for explaining either the outbreak of violence or the construction of a positive peace but merely groupings of factors across categories such as greed and grievance, and catalytic events. Variables that might be relatively harmless in some contexts can be a potent cocktail in others. Conversely, we have relatively little knowledge regarding what causes peace or what the paths to peace are. Although democratic states that have reasonably high per capita incomes are at a reduced risk of conflict, being democratic and rich is no guarantor of a positive peace, and illiberal and poor countries, at times, also have had their share of success. Second, organizations are likely to claim that their core competencies and mandates are critical to peacebuilding. They might be right. They also might be opportunistic. After all, if peacebuilding is big business, then there are good bureaucratic reasons for claiming that they are an invaluable partner.

Positive Peace Fixed

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Positive Peace Fixed

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

*** Links ***..............................................................................................................................................................5

Link Media ............................................................................................................................................................10

Impact No Solvency War....................................................................................................................................13

Impact No Solvency Poverty .............................................................................................................................14

Impact War ............................................................................................................................................................15

Impact War ............................................................................................................................................................16

Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..................................................................................................................17

Impact Structural Violence Outweighs..................................................................................................................18

Impact Environment ..............................................................................................................................................20

Impact Environment ..............................................................................................................................................21

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Impact Morality OWs Extinction.........................................................................................................................23

Alternative Discourse ............................................................................................................................................25

Alternative Small Actions......................................................................................................................................28

Alternative Solves Politicians/Elites......................................................................................................................29

A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ..............................................................................................................................30

A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve....................................................................................................................................31

A2: Aff Alone Doesnt Solve....................................................................................................................................32

A2: Positive Peace = Violence/Revolt......................................................................................................................33

A2: Positive Peace = Authoritarianism.....................................................................................................................34

Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (1/2).......................................................................................................35

Positive Peace Good Solves Root Cause (2/2).......................................................................................................36

Positive Peace Good Solves Militarism.................................................................................................................37

Turn Social Services Solve Structural Violence....................................................................................................40

No Impact Direct Violence OWs..........................................................................................................................41

A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause......................................................................................................................42

A2: Structural Violence = Root Cause......................................................................................................................43

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Perm Solves Generally ..........................................................................................................................................44

Perm Solves Generally ..........................................................................................................................................45

Perm Solves Exclusive Focus Bad.........................................................................................................................46

Perm Solves Links.................................................................................................................................................47

Perm Solves A2: Co-optation................................................................................................................................48

Perm Solves Militarism..........................................................................................................................................49

Were a Prereq to the Alt..........................................................................................................................................50

A2: Positive Peace No Equality.............................................................................................................................52

A2: Positive Peace Justifies Violence....................................................................................................................53

A2: Positive Peace Violent Authoritarianism........................................................................................................54

A2: Positive Peace Revolution ..............................................................................................................................55

A2: Positive Peace Utopian ...................................................................................................................................56

A2: Positive Peace Violence Key..........................................................................................................................57

A2: Positive Peace Vagueness ..............................................................................................................................58

A2: Positive Peace Ethnocentrism ........................................................................................................................59

A2: Positive Peace Efficacy ..................................................................................................................................60

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

*** Links ***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Impact No Solvency War

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Impact No Solvency Poverty

human rights and negates the opportunities for human freedom.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Impact Structural Violence Outweighs

* Links *..............................................................................................................................................................5

* Links *

* Answers to Positive Peace*