Constructive Engagement discussion
Here is a discussion of one of the key terms in the resolutions this year – “Constructive Engagement” – from a CEDA topic paper in 2007. Some of the discussion overlaps and should be a good introduction. I wouldn’t use this as any time of ‘framers intent’ but just as a starting off point.
(http://www.cedatopic.com/Middle_East_07.pdf)
Most of the literature, really virtually all of it, just uses the word “engagement” without the modifier “constructive,” although the latter is certainly still somewhat of a term of art. Constructive engagement” is a term that was initially used by the United States in relation to our policy toward the apartheid government of South Africa.( 145 Gary Campbell, “The American-Syrian Crisis: the End of Constructive Engagement,” MIDDLE EAST INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN, April 2003, Volume 5, Number 4, http://www.meib.org/articles/0304_s1.htm)
It has also been used frequently in terms of policy toward China. Our rationale for including it would be to prevent “counter-intuitive” notions of “engagement” such as “engaging in combat”. While “engagement” is very commonly used to mean “more peaceful interaction” it is also used in a variety of many other elastic ways. Adding the term “constructive” helps to tie-down the use of the word engagement.
Creating a unidirectional resolution allows us to exploit the controversy framework to its fullest. Requiring the affirmative to be “liberal” toward one of the nations in the resolution creates unidirectional ground for the negative. Adding “constructive” makes it virtually impossible for the affirmative to defend an interpretation that would allow them to have the United States attack Iran, for instance, which we think is important for predictable negative ground.
Furthermore, our recommendation to include “constructive” is primarily based on our community’s past successful experience with this term. It was part of the “rogue states” resolution, (The 1999-2000 CEDA resolution was: “That the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy of constructive engagement, including the immediate removal of all or nearly all economic sanctions, with the government(s) of one or more of the following nation-states: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea”) which was very similar in style to this proposal. On that resolution affirmative teams did not run affirmatives “back the other way” by defining engagement in the sense of “military engagement” or
“engaging in combat.” We are also encouraged that there are very strong “liberal direction” plans, which should discourage the affirmative from wanting to play games with the direction of engagement.Finally, the term “constructive engagement” generally is thought to authorize an element of quid-pro-quo give-and-take in the foreign policy. Previous examples of this foreign policy have involved offering economic benefits in exchange for certain behavior from the target government. This allows affirmatives to write their plans with more nuance than merely just increasing U.S. contact or interaction. We view this as a positive characteristic. This would allow affirmative plans to more closely hew to the proposals in the literature that deal with “Grand Bargains” to Iran, or offers to Syria regarding Israel and the Golan Heights. We clearly think it desirable for the affirmative ground to include a plan that would offer Iran substantial economic incentives and security guarantees in exchange for their efforts to limit their nuclear weapons program. Permitting that form of conditionality – which is ensured by adding the word “constructive” – is essential to affirmative ground.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
A strict read of the provenance of “constructive engagement” would open aff. up for a brutal T argument if “constructive engagement” is not defined as the alternative, or reciprocal, to realpolitiks. The general consensus has been that “constructive engagement” presents a soft line approach. I’m sure some quality cards with historical commentary on constructive engagement.
With that said, an interesting aff. approach, one which I’m considering, could be to welcome the T argument but counter any historical cards on “constructive engagement” with cards from Frank Luntz about government “Redefining Context” (gov right to define). The argument could be made from the aff. that the USFG regularly redefines the context of words for political consideration, and Luntz devotes an entire chapter in his book to this idea. Aff. could use the tons of anecdotal evidence from the Bush administration about “redefining context”. A great example could be the Clear Skies Act of 2003 which actually increased pollution.
wow – that would be really tough Tariq – given the fact that NFA-LD is a researched style of debate I think literature checks are an important part of the game. If we are able to disregard all the research / publications that define CE (constructive engagement) in favor of something new then I think all negatives are in real trouble…
I think you’d have an uphill battle to justify why Aff’s being able to define CE anyway they want is better for debate than using the established literature.
Of course, as long as you have strong frontlines answering the obvious responses it may well work!
It could also be a fascinating exploration of the static nature of foreign policy – UNTIL we redefine things nothing will change.. I’m thinking of the movie 13 days where they were trying to avoid an act of war so they called the intervention a ‘blockade.’ Of course, I believe Guantanamo Bay is also an example of the administration just redefining prisoner of war to enemy combatant and I don’t think that’s somewhere you want to go!
Found something Cuba specific that relates to adopting a policy of CE. I’m sure this will also help people define CE and avoid unnecessary T debates.
Title:
The United States and Cuba: From a strategy of conflict to constructive engagement. By: Schulz, Donald E., Journal of Interamerican Studies & World Affairs, 00221937, Summer93, Vol. 35, Issue 2
With all of the new directions in the NDT/CEDA world, if you found a judge who supported your idea of redefining context then it should work. Afterall, the term constructive engagement was contextual to begin with and hasn’t been used much. Also, there are so many facets of constructive engagement that the community will inevitably decide if an Affirmative must do all or part of what is considered to be CE. And in terms of the earlier reply regarding the “provenance” of CE, for one if you can redefine the term based upon a new context then hard-line would also be Topical; but actually what I meant is that some CE is more “hard” than others. Some CE is do this and we’ll do that..and if you don’t do this we’ll do that…and then other CE is more…hey, let’s do this for you to help you out. So there is still a distinction. I believe the joke is that you can call it “constrictive engagement”.
The only way you really see the term Constructive Engagement used together is to Reference Ronald and South Africa. This topic will make for so many sweet debates.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I believe that constructive engagement has been deemed bidirectional, in that you can be soft- or hard-line. You can simply give help or you can give conditional help. You can give something so that Cuba will do something positive, or you can hold back something so that Cuba will do something positive. Cuba can do something positive by starting something or ending something, too.