Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Canadian JTF Adv. – 1AC – Soft Power Scenario (1/2)

Scenario 1 is Soft Power
Canadian influence high now, but it’s fragile

Troope 7(Stephen Chancellor of UBC (Canada) “A Century Later, Aspiring to Global Influence” UBC Report Dec. 6)JFS

In the latter half of the 20th century Canada emerged as one of the world’s most successful societies, noted for its broadly shared commitment to social inclusion, its embracing of cultural diversity, its robust economy, and its strong public finances. Yet these successes are fragile, and could be undermined in the short term by Canada’s under-performance in social, economic, scientific and cultural innovation. Already, Canada’s performance on the measures of social development and productivity is falling in comparison to OECD leaders.

The JTF is key to Canadian influence internationally

Spearin 8 (Chris, Political Science at University of British Colombia, Canadian Military Journal, http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no1/spearin-eng.asp)JFS

Clearly, a reduced Canadian SOF capability, despite hoped-for expansion, would pose several difficulties at different levels. As Colonel Horn observes: “Properly used, small, highly trained specialized units can give even a small state a deterrent power and military and political influence far in excess of that which the simply physical size of its armed forces might suggest.”¹⁷ Limited capabilities, therefore, would constrain Canada’s ability to contribute to a “SOF War” and thus have influence regarding policy. It would similarly reduce political capital Canada might accrue from other countries, particularly the United States.¹⁸

What is more, limited Canadian SOF abilities would restrict the particular activism of Canada’s executive branch of government. The increased centralization of government in Canada has long been noted, and, as identified by analysts such as Cohen and Deborah Avant, the manner by which the political control of violence is managed can further alter the distribution of power amongst governing institutions.19 In the particular case of SOF, because of the secrecy that often surrounds their operations and how they frequently relate directly to the achievement of strategic objectives, those in the highest echelons of government become the focus. Indeed, analysis of past operations finds that decisions to employ Canadian SOF helpfully work to deter criticism of government policy emanating domestically or internationally.20 However, the political elasticity of Canadian SOF would become brittle because of an increased brain/brawn drain to the private sector.
Canadian soft power allows for international conflict resolution, means that aff impacts won’t escalate

Marriot and Carment, 3 (Koren, Worked with the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy project as a researcher, and David, Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University and Associate Professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, “Conflict Prevention in Canada: A Survey of Canadian Conflict Prevention Professionals”, September)

The overriding theme that appeared in several of the responses was that Canada should support the work of international and regional organizations. UNICEF stated that by using soft power, “Canada is in a strong position to champion international laws and treaties through the UN and other regional and international bodies”. CUSO’s response reflected similar views, stating; “Canada is respected internationally for being a promoter of peace and human security, and should continue this role. It should continue to work within multi-lateral frameworks, including the UN, ensuring rule of law is adhered to in all its conflict prevention and interventions. Canada should support the reform of the UN in order to make it a more effective international body capable of effecting positive change in today's world. Canada should be more active in ensuring that people around the world share equitably in its resources. Canada should promote human rights and democratic development in all its international dealings including in trade and development.” Theresa Dunn expressed a related opinion, saying she believes Canada is strategically placed to become a leader in conflict prevention through its role as peace builder and often impartial agent. She went on to say that because of Canada’s size and commitment to conflict resolution through collaboration “we are able to move internationally with knowledge and expertise”. These views are fairly representative of a major portion of the responses received.

Canadian JTF Adv. – 1AC – Soft Power Scenario (2/2)

Canadian soft power key to solve Indo-Pak conflict

Axworthy 3, (Thomas, Chair of Asia-pacific foundation of Canada, National Post, www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/9/24_1.html)JFS

Asia is the most dangerous place in the world. With Americans dying daily in Iraq; the Bush road map for Israel and Palestine in tatters; and the ghostly visage of Osama bin Laden broadcast to the world by al-Jazeera on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, threatening all of us with even worse horrors; it may be difficult to fathom that the greatest threats to peace and security reside outside the Middle East. But in this league of infamy, Asia leads the first division. The six-nation talks with North Korea, for example, have ended with no discernible progress and North Korea moving at full speed to expand its nuclear arsenal. Everything that George Bush went to war to prevent in Iraq is occurring irrefutably in North Korea: There a rogue regime has starved hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, attacked its neighbours, built a nuclear bomb, and trafficked with terrorists. North Korea is the world's most deadly problem. Right behind is the situation in Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence service helped invent the Taliban; Islamists are honeycombed within the intelligence service and the armed forces. Pakistan has also developed nuclear weapons to protect itself in the 50-year conflict with India over Kashmir. Terrorists can either spark outrages in India hoping to bring about Armageddon in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or Islamists could promote a coup in Pakistan itself, putting a Taliban-style regime in power in Islamabad. The regime of President Pervez Musharraf presides over one of the world's most turbulent countries, and if you thought the Taliban in Afghanistan was a problem, what about if a similarly motivated group had its thumb on a nuclear trigger? In this Asian cauldron of animosity, one optimistic possibility is the emergence of a peaceful, engaged China. The Middle Kingdom has been the dominant player in Asia for 5,000 years, and in our time it has been a key ally of both North Korea and Pakistan. We are witnessing in the early years of the 21st century a China that is systematically turning away from the isolation and madness of the cultural revolution of Mao towards an engagement with its neighbours. This engagement is primarily economic. China's ascension to the World Trade Organization is of the utmost importance, but it is also strategic with China participating in the six-nation negotiations with North Korea. Encouraging China to take a constructive role in its own region is in the interests of us all. Canada might be able to play a small part in this engagement strategy. The National Post has recently run a foreign policy series with much debate about the utility of "hard views" and "soft power." Of course, you need both, and we need to invest more in both elements of power if we are to play a role in the world. With China, Canada does have some unique soft power assets.
Indo-Pak conflict escalates to global nuclear war

Fai 1 (Ghulam Nabi Washington Times)

The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. The boiling witches' brew in Kashmir should propel the United States to assertive facilitation or mediation of Kashmir negotiations. The impending July 14-16 summit in New Delhi between President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee featuring Kashmir on the agenda does not justify complacency.