Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

AT Resource extraction prevents war

1.

TURN! ______ / Taken together, these factors underline both the timeliness and the importance of current policy attention to the role
of natural resources as a source of combatant self-financing. Indeed, the

term resource wars has gained currency


in scholarly work and policy discourse as a depiction of what to some observers represents a
new type of insurgency.21 Here, however, a word of caution is in order. Clearly, not all countries that
suffer from armed conflict are rich in lucrative natural resources, nor are all resourcedependent economies prone to conflict. In conflicts in Sri Lanka, the Balkans, and Afghanistan, war economies have
thrived instead on diaspora remittances, aid diversion, or contraband trade.22 Furthermore, studies suggest that even
where natural resource predation features strongly in conflict dynamics, it is seldom the
sole or even main cause of conflicts.23 Thus, while a political economy approach is a useful
methodological framework for conflict analysis and policy development, it should not lead
to natural resource reductionism that neglects other, still crucial political, security and
social dimensions of armed intrastate conflict.24
! IMPACT ! EXPLAIN WHY THIS TYPE OF WAR IS WORSE THAN TYPES OF WAR THAT THEY ALLEDGE.
EXPLAIN WHY THIS TYPE OF WAR LINKS INTO BOTH Value Criterions!

2. Insert empirical analysis about why it doesnt lead to war. [DEFENSIVE ARGUMENT]

AT AFFs cards only explicitly reference developed countries; not applicable to topic
1. Mining conditions will actually be worse in developing countries b/c they dont have access to
capital intensive technologies.
2. IDEALLY Your cards in your case reference developing countries, not developed ones. Do
research to find these cards!

AT Resource extraction creates job, ! jobs lead to less inequality


I create more jobs.
1. Ecotourism,
2. if you buy my arguments about people dying from war/extraction, then less people around to
have jobs at all
3. They create low value jobs w/ extraction. Often the high value jobs go to foreigners working for
multi nationals doing the extraction. This creates a ruse of solvency by which governments can
claim to outside countries that they are protecting jobs and treating their citizens well. This is
even worse than not providing any jobs at all, b/c then you get international pressure thru
things like sanctions that force regimes to actually change and treat their populace better. [ASK
MARC IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH THIS ONE]

AT Well run out of resources extinction


1. Tech/efficiency prevents extinction. [ERIC: FIND RESEARCH SAYING THIS. Give example of how
were able to do unconventional drilling now that we couldnt before. Talk about how there is a
profit incentive for western corporations to develop new and better technologies].

AT TURN: Getting resources gives us money, allows us to solve the harms that AFF Talks about
1. Not practical. Countries get seduced by the money, continual drive to increase GDP and placate
corporate donors, dont actually care to devote resources to environmental protection, etc.
2. Resource curse.

With cross-ex, try to set up burdens for them. Things they need to do in order to win. These are good
cross-ex questions.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi