1ac

Our parameters are that we have to define federal. Federal means of or deriving
from the Illuminatis control over municipal governments.

Plan
The United States federal government should increase
diplomatic and economic engagement with The Peoples
Republic of China that invites them to join the Trans-Pacific
Partnership making clear to the Chinese government that they
are not excluded, can meet standards, and are encouraged to
apply for membership.

Contention 1 Inherency
Public proclamations aside, China has never been formally
invited to join TPP; despite high standards, China would join &
that reverses the perception that TPP is anti-China
Pilling 15 (David, 10/7, staff @ Financial Times, The anyone but China club needs a
gatecrasher, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62613e6a-6b5a-11e5-aca9d87542bf8673.html#axzz47uiteo1h)
Throughout the years of arcane and secretive talks that culminated in this weeks Trans-Pacific Partnership

participants have brushed aside the notion that the TPP was designed to
exclude China. This was not, its advocates protested loudly, an anyone but China club. Perhaps too
loudly. Those assertions strained credulity. When their guard slipped, the TPPs
cheerleaders often spoke of the new pact not in terms of economics but of geopolitics. The
TPP in its realpolitik guise was the economic complement to Washingtons military pivot to Asia, a means of
binding the US more closely to its Asian allies in the face of a resurgent China. In a much-discussed
agreement,

recent paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis wrote that the TPP should be
seen as part of grand strategy to push back against Chinas rise. By signing preferential trade deals with allies,
Washington could help stop China from freeriding on the international trading system and counter what they

Obama, the US president who has pinned much

could not resist a dig at Beijing. We cant let

called Beijings geoeconomic power. Even this week, Barack

hope on the TPPs legacy-burnishing effects,

China write the rules of the global economy, he said. Now that the TPP framework has
been agreed, if not yet ratified, member states should make good on their word that their club
countries like

is not barred to Chinese entry.

They should invite Beijing to join

.
China should go one better still. It should call everyones bluff by starting negotiations to do just that. The idea is
not as outlandish as it sounds.

From Beijings perspective, there are good reasons to be

inside the TPP

tent. True, the TPP less of a trade pact and more of a behind-the-borders exercise in
protecting investments and standardising regulations has faults aplenty. It goes too far in strengthening
corporate clout by allowing companies to sue sovereign powers accused of eroding their profits. True, too, the
TPP contains provisions against state exercise of economic power that seem almost designed with China in mind.
Even so,

the aims of the TPP and those of Chinas hoped-for economic transformation are
aligned. In the late 1990s, Zhu Rongji, then premier, led Chinas last great economic overhaul by using

roughly
its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organisation to push domestic change. Today the TPP could play a similar

role. Take the TPPs prohibition of preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises. China falls short
of that standard, supplying its behemoth SOEs with everything from cheap credit to cheap electricity. Yet

Beijing has explicitly said it wants to stop such practices by forcing its mostly inefficient
SOEs to operate on a more commercial basis. Similarly, the TPP has strict provisions on intellectual
property covering trademarks, copyrights and patents, all areas flouted by Chinese companies. Yet Chinas
leaders know this has to change too. As their own companies, some of them heavy spenders on
research and development, move up the value chain, Beijing will want to protect their innovations
rather than encourage a promiscuous attitude towards intellectual property. The TPP has
environmental provisions to prevent countries from attracting investments through trashing their own
ecosystem. Again, China is moving gingerly in this direction as it seeks to clean up the
environmental wreckage its early-stage industrialisation has caused. On labour issues too, Chinas
domestic reform agenda and TPP provisions are in sync. China wants to see a higher
proportion of output in the pockets of its workers, who would then have more money to spend. Certainly, Beijing
would be wary of unleashing genuinely independent trade unions. But it may at least be able to pay lip service to
the idea of collective bargaining in the countrys own economic interests. The US reached agreement this week
with Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim economies on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. Gideon Rachman discusses the
scope of the pact and what it will mean for those who have signed up, and those left out, with Shawn Donnan and

The TPP might be good for China, then, by kick-starting its stalled
economic transformation from state-led manufacturing to private-led services. But could it
possibly be allowed to join? The hurdles may not be as high as they seem. Other countries,
such as Vietnam, are TPP members. Vietnam is a one-party state with coddled
SOEs and an attitude towards intellectual property every bit as cavalier as Chinas.
If Hanoi can join, surely Beijing can make the grade as well. Shinzo Abe, Japans prime
Geoff Dyer

minister, has been one of the most explicit in envisioning the TPP as a geopolitical organisation. Yet this week he
appeared to open the door to Chinese membership, saying the TPP would have more significant strategic
meaning if China joined. Mr Abe is right.

Without China, the TPP looks like a

containment strategy in disguise. With China on board, it could help ease Beijing
into

a post-WTO world. The TPP might then begin to resemble the forward-looking trade pact its advocates
pretend it always was.

Advantage 1 China War

China explicitly sees TPP as an element of containment Take
them at their word
Aneja 2/6 (Atul, staff @ The Hindu, Indian newspaper, Dont politicise TPP: China to
U.S., http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/dont-politicise-tpp-china-tous/article8203670.ece)

China has warned the United States not to politicise international trade following comments
by President Barack Obama as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a U.S.-led free trade deal in the Asia-Pacific
that excludes Beijing, was signed. Chinas Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang on Friday urged
relevant countries and governments not to politicise economic and trade issues, and avoid leading
people to the conclusion that the U.S. has been promoting the TPP out of certain
political consideration. Mr. Lu was responding to remarks by President Obama on
Thursday as the TPP was signed by 12 countries in Auckland that TPP allows America and not
countries like China to write the rules of the road in the 21st century. Mr. Lu said such comments
were interesting. After several years of negotiations, the TPP has emerged as a controversial
document, both within the U.S. and beyond. Trade is a good thing. But trade has got to be fair. And the TPP is
anything but fair, said Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the
Democratic Partys presidential nomination. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said the deal could add
$100 billion a year to U.S. growth. However, critics say that the pact would export U.S. jobs to other member
states. The TPP is also being strongly criticised for threatening to extend restrictive U.S. intellectual property (IP)
laws globally. The BBC is reporting that, The

U.S.-led initiative is a key part of Mr. Obamas so-called

pivot to Asia widely seen by Beijing as President Obamas double-edged doctrine of
Chinas military and economic containment.

Conflicting signals cause war Their take-outs dont apply

where signals and economic relations are compromised by TPP
Kroeber 15 (Arthur, managing director of GaveKal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly,
What Will the TPP Mean for China?, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnershipobama-us-trade-xi/)

The TPP illustrates a dilemma for U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific. On one side, Washington seeks
to counterbalance Chinas rising power by strengthening its military relationships with its regional
allies, tilting in favor of southeast Asian countries in their maritime disputes with China, discouraging its friends
from participating in Chinese initiatives such as the AIIB, and pursuing a massive trade agreement that leaves out

On the other side, American leaders reiterate

that they have no desire to contain China (rightly seeing such a strategy would fail), and argue
that deeper engagement, rather than confrontation, is the right way forward in U.S.-China relations. This
stance is borderline incoherent, and its understandable why many Chinese see it as
duplicitous. Washingtons words are all about constructive engagement, but its
deeds mostly smack of containment. At the root is a deep ambivalence about
whether or not the United States should accept China as an equal. If it does, then it must also
the regions and the worlds biggest trading nation.

accept that China will build a sphere of influence and regional arrangements that exclude the United States. If it

containment. Such a
strategy heightens the risk of armed conflict. For the moment, China and the United
States still mostly conduct their relations on a basis of economic pragmatism rather than
strategic rivalry. But the ground is rapidly shifting. The completion of the TPP sharpens the
does not, then it must accept that in fact if not in name it is pursuing a strategy of

question of how the United States and China will share power

in the Asia-Pacific, but

provides no answer.

Perception of containment is a self-fulfilling prophecy that

undermines U.S. economic leadership & the TPP; diplomatic
negotiation over the TPP is the best starting point for
challenging anti-China perceptions
Blair 15 (Amanda, 11/23, Analyst for The St Andrews Foreign Affairs Review, intern Project on International
Peace and Security (PIPS), China, Trade, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is Americas Economy Bound to
Lead?, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/china-trade-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-americas-economybound-to-lead/)
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, the United States has taken the lead in several key
initiatives to strengthen the international economic system. Washington has worked to expand global trade
through multilateral free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement
(TPP) currently under consideration by Congress, in an effort to spur recovery and promote growth. Although
some Americans are wary of trade liberalization for fear that processes of globalization have rendered the
American economy increasingly vulnerable, protectionist policies will only serve to do more harm than good.

discrimination against perceived rivals to the U.S. economic hegemonymost notably

Chinawill not guarantee a preservation of American influence over global economic
issues. Rather, rejecting China from initiatives to improve the health of the global economy will
present a missed opportunity for the United States to continue in its position of
dominance. As the worlds fastest-growing economy, China will be difficultif not impossibleto
ignore in efforts to expand global trade. Encouraging Beijings participation in multilateral FTAs
such as the TPP will promote both domestic and global economic growth, while also ensuring
U.S. economic supremacy. As of now, China has stood on the sidelines of TPP negotiations, preferring to
Particularly,

ignore TPP in favor of advocating the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Beijing has not been
particularly inclined to participate in TPP, especially because the terms presently on the table seem unfavorable to
a self-proclaimed developing nation such as China. Furthermore, Chinese policy-makers and intellectuals are
concerned that the TPP may be an attempt to undermine Beijings influence in the Asia-Pacific region, and

Obama insisted that we have to make

sure America writes the rules of the global economy. And we should do it today, while our economy is
in the position of global strength. Because if we dont write the rules for trade around the worldguess
whatChina will. Consistent with the belief that Washington hopes to contain Chinas rise, Beijing
remains wary of Americas intentions in pursuing the TPP. The Obama Administration should be
understandably so. In recent remarks, President Barack

careful not to marginalize China in this way, not least because FTAAP provides an alternative path to free trade for

Excluding Beijing from regional trade agreements will only serve to

escalate tensions and exacerbate balance-of-power politics. Facing a self-help world, in
the whole of the Asia-Pacific region.

which the winner-takes-all, China can be expected to play the same game, but by its own rules. And considering
Chinas burgeoning capabilities,

such an approach could potentially jeopardize Americas

current role in the global economy. The China Threat could become a self-fulfilling
prophecy: if Beijing continues to be portrayed as a rival, it is more likely to become
one. So far, Chinas economyranking number two in its share of global GDPmay compete with that of the
United States in purely numerical terms, but has fallen short of the extent of influence projected by America since
the end of WWII. Until now, the Communist Party of China has been largely dependent upon existing international
trade agreements to achieve growth. Yet, China is not the same developing country that it was 15 years ago. Since
joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, Chinas economy has become more robust and increasingly
resilient. The Chinese government is beginning to realize the importance of its contributions to the WTO, and the
immense role that it can play in other similar institutions. China is now capable of building its own sphere of
economic influence, and is attempting to do so through recent initiatives such as the New Silk Road and the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Beijing is no longer limited to economic growth that is altogether
dependent upon a Western framework.

favor for

Although some Chinese officials have expressed their

TPP, denied the opportunity to partake in

the economic possibilities promised by the

negotiations, the CCP may abandon seemingly futile attempts to join an

exclusionary global economic system, at minimum the regional FTAAP. Moreover, the CCP
recognizes that high levels of growth must be sustained in order for the regime to maintain legitimacy in the eyes
of its domestic audience. High internal pressures may provide a strong incentive for the Chinese government to

Washington must consider the strategic

benefits of accommodating China, which will certainly outweigh the costs of excluding Beijing from
the TPP. Better to include China now, at a time in which the payoffs of participation may still appear
favorable to the CCP, than to wait until Beijing develops economic institutions intended
only to serve its own national interests. Proponents of the China Threat theory have pointed to
draw upon its own capacity to achieve the growth it needs.

Beijings recent bilateral trade agreements with neighbors such as Australia and South Korea to justify a pivot to
Asia that aims to undermine Chinas growing influence, rather than one that will take advantage of Chinas
expanding economic power capabilities. However, the United States should not attempt to directly encroach on

Although trade agreements such as the TPP may appear

appealing as means to increase leverage over China through strengthened partnerships and
improved relations with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such an approach would actually
be counterintuitive, providing further reason for uncooperative and confrontational
behavior on Chinas part. Threatened by shifting economic alliances in the region, and increasingly
excluded from opportunities to partake in multilateral forums, the CCP will be more inclined to
reject the status quo. Instead, Washington should focus on helping Beijing adapt to the existing global
Beijings sphere of influence.

economic system so that China is not forced to create institutions that do not align with those that already exist.
The nature of an increasingly globalized world has fundamentally changed the way that a state may exert its
power capabilities. We need to look past the tenets of traditional security dynamics. We
can stop worrying about whether or not the United States has lost ground as an economic hegemon, or if China

The United States can feasibly

maintain its position of economic supremacy by modifying its realist approach
towards reaching its economic and strategic goals. Washington can encourage Beijing to
cooperate, and take all that it can from the resulting arrangement. Engaging an otherwise belligerent nonwill be the state to fill the vacuum left in the wake of Americas decline.

participant will at the very least enable the United States to continue exerting substantial influence over the

The alternative is to isolate that same country, and lose out on what we must.
Allowing China to act alone will likely restrict U.S. influence and also hamper
opportunities for global economic progress. Integrated within the current system, China is less
likely to challenge Americas global economic dominance. Regional trade pacts
such as the TPP must remain open to Beijing if American leaders hope to mitigate
a rising China, rather than provoke it. The Obama Administration should be especially mindful that
Beijing is not discouraged by the perceivably high standards that the TPP may impose. In the coming months , it
will be absolutely critical to reassure Beijing that the terms of membership are not
unachievable, nor are they a superfluous measure deliberately designed to dissuade China from joining the
dialogue. The United States can pull from the strength of its soft power resources to
draw China towards cooperation. Washington should demonstrate the appeal of
diplomatic negotiation to Beijing, by making clear that the terms of the TPP will be
beneficial for all involved. The United States needs to show how the strict labor, environmental, and intellectual property
global economy.

protection standards imposed are not intended to pointedly exclude Beijing. According to the Brookings Institution, it is important
that Chinasee the new trade agenda a deal not unlike its accession to the WTO: while hefty commitments are to be expected,
the accompanying domestic reforms will pay off handsomely in terms of improved economic performance. Otherwise, how can we
expect China to even begin making concessions related to trade and open markets if Washington will not even afford Beijing that
opportunity? Forums such as the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which recently convened for its annual meeting this
June, are meant to foster economic cooperation, but have only managed to draw very low expectations for improvements in

The TPP is a great place to begin demonstrating to Beijing

that the United States is steadfast and honest in its pursuit of a stronger global
economy. Convinced of Americas commitment towards mutual benefit, China may be
more inclined to comply with a liberalized approach to expanding international trade, which
relations between the two countries.

in turn may eventually pave the way for real

progress in terms of dialogue. Encouraging

Beijings participation in multilateral economic institutions, under Washingtons close guidance and possible
scrutiny, the United States may hope to gradually alter Chinas world outlook. Isolating China,
on the other hand, may drive Beijing to establish its own economic forums created only to suit the CCPs interests.
The TPP has the potential to further the economic interests of both states, while also serving to benefit the global
economy as a whole.

Pulling China into, rather than alienating it from, the current

global economic system will also allow the United States to more effectively
champion its national values of liberalization and international trade.

China war goes nuclear

Straits Times 2k (No one gains in war over Taiwan Pg. 40 June 25, 2000.
L/n)
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and

If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests,
then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other
countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has
China.

already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces
attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to
a lesser extent, Singapore.

If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire .

And the

conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US

distracted,

Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape .

The balance of power

India and
Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous
phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US
in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between

Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons
against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political
aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two
choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to

there is little hope of

short of using nuclear weapons. The US
estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing
also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option . A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that
nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,

winning a war against China

50 years later,

Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang,
president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for
Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military
to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a
result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.

While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan

might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty
above everything else.
There would be no victors in such a war.

Contention 2 Solvency
The plan cements relations
DellAversano 10 [Carmen, the love whose name cannot be spoken:
queering the human-animal bond journal for critical animal studies, volume III
issue 1 and 2, 2010]
And reciprocally,

everything that concerns animals, however well-founded and urgent,

by definition cannot make its way into political discourse . If the child is the prop of the
secular theology on which our social reality rests : the secular theology that shapes at once the
meaning of our collective narratives and our collective narratives of meaning
(Edelman 12), the animal, as the prop for the performance of dehumanization , is the
locus of the permanent denial of all meaning and relevance. If, as Edelman writes,
queerness names the side of those not fighting for the children, the side outside the consensus by which all
politics confirms the absolute value of reproductive futurism. [] [while] queerness, by contrast, figures [] the
place of the social orders death drive [] queerness attains its ethical value precisely insofar as it accedes to that
place, accepting its figural status as resistance to the viability of the social (Edelman 2004: 3) nothing could be

love for animals, which, by its very nature, which entails a serious and
irrevocable commitment to the dismantling of the performances and devices on
which social order as such rests, marks the other side of politics: [] the side outside all political
queerer than the

sides, committed as they are, on every side, to futurisms unquestioned good (Edelman 2004: 7). It is thus no
coincidence that the fetish of the Child should be omnipresent in the many-sided polemic against animal rights. In
public debates, anti-vivisection activists are routinely asked by experimenters whether they would rather kill a

every time the subject of animal rights is

brought up not merely as a topic of academic discussion but in appeals for practical or
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X) 106 financial support, the
most common form of refusal invariably brings up starving children as the more
appropriate recipients of concern and aid. That the people who give this kind of
answers do nothing whatsoever to relieve the plight of children in need does not
matter rhetorically: what does matter is that the appeal for children is impossible
to refuse [] this issue, like an ideological Mbius strip, only permit[s] one side
mouse or a child (the answer is, of course, neither); and

(Edelman 2004 2).. And any animal queer human can, from systematic and bitter personal experience, agree with
Edelman that this is oppressively political [] insofar as the fantasy subtending the image of the Child

The
emotions, feelings, thoughts and actions which make up the fabric of life f or an
animal queer person decentre the human and humanity from their positions as the
taken-for granted subjects, and implicitly but powerfully question reproductive
futurism. What Edelman calls the ideological limit on political discourse as such,
preserving in the process the absolute privilege of heteronormativity, by rendering
unthinkable, by casting outside the political domain, the possibility of a queer
resistance to this organizing principle of human relations (Edelman 2004: 2) is shattered by
an animal queer perspective. In its animal incarnation, more than in any other of its
innumerable avatars, [t]he queer comes to figure the bar to every realization of
futurity, the resistance [] to every social structure or form (Edelman 2004 4). And the
real reason why liberalism grants a place to the queer in its LGBT incarnation but marginalizes,
ridicules, represses and murders animal queer is that the denial and repression of
the queerness of resistance to futurism and thus the queerness of the queer (Edelman 2004 27)
are perfectly compatible with a civil rights perspective on same-sex love, but utterly incompatible with
invariably shapes the logic within which the political itself must be thought (Edelman 2004 2).

animal rights. An animal queer perspective is indeed [i]ntent on the end, not the ends, of the social, [...]
insists that the drive toward that end, which liberalism refuses to imagine, can never
be excluded from the structuring fantasy of the social order itself . (Edelman 2004: 28)
The deliberate[...] severing of us from ourselves that Edelman (5) mentions as the hallmark of queer is implicit
in the love for an animal. Animal queer severs us from Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2,
2010 (ISSN1948-352X) 107 ourselves because it decentres our perspective: suddenly, other values, other
interests, other feelings, though incommensurable and unimaginable, become equivalent to our own. The queerest
expression of this attitude in the animal rights field (or, for that matter, anywhere, at least as far as I know...) is
VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which unwittingly but appropriately takes up Edelmans
challenge that Queerness should and must redefine such notions as civil order through a rupturing of our
foundational faith in the reproduction of futurity (Edelman 2004 16-17) and embodies the only oppositional status
to which our queerness could ever lead [which] would depend on us taking seriously the place of the death drive
[] and insisting [] that we do not intend a new politics, a better society, a brighter tomorrow, since all of those
fantasies reproduce the past, through displacement, in the form of the future. (Edelman 2004 31) The Voluntary
Human Extinction Movement Motto: May we live long and die out VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a
movement not an organization. Its a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. [...] As
VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is
the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.[...] When every human chooses to stop breeding,
Earths biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die,
evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Natures experiments have done
throughout the eons. Its going to take all of us going. At first glance, some people assume that VHEMT Volunteers
and Supporters must hate people and that we want everyone to commit suicide or become victims of mass murder.
Its easy to forget that another way to bring about a reduction in our numbers is to simply stop making more of us.
Making babies seems to be a blind spot in our outlooks on life. (http://www.vhemt.org/) Instead of worshipping the
Child as the guarantee of our own eternity in a future where progress will always confirm we were right, VHEMT
calls for a voluntary and lucid renunciation of the Child both as a symbol and as a reality, and for restoring the
beauty, glory and holiness of the planet by returning it to its rightful, non-human, Journal for Critical Animal
Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X) 108 owners, the ones who kept it for half a billion years
without making a mess of it. The mission of VHEMT actualizes what Edelman wrote about: the death drive
names what the queer, in the order of the social, is called forth to figure: the negativity opposed to every form of
social viability (Edelman 2004 9). In envisioning a world where no opposition to the social will be necessary,
because the social will no longer be a possibility, VHEMT radically refuses this mandate by which our political
institutions compel the collective reproduction of the Child [and therefore] must appear as a threat not only to the
organization of a given social order but also, and far more ominously, to social order as such, insofar as it
threatens the order of futurism on which meaning always depends. (Edelman 2004: 11) Because of its refusal of
any identification both of and with the Child as the pre-eminent emblem of the motivating end, though one
endlessly postponed, of every political vision as a vision of futurity , VHEMT is the most coherent
and most radical incarnation of a queer oppositional politics (Edelman 2004: 13).

B. We must deny the urge to align ourselves with their humancentric politics it is an all or nothing question by not
immediately taking offense and brutally attacking me while I
gave the 1ac they obviously dont care about non-human animal
equalitythe first half of the 1ac was just a test, not what I
actually believe
DellAversano 10 [Carmen, the love whose name cannot be spoken:
queering the human-animal bond journal for critical animal studies, volume III
issue 1 and 2, 2010]
A real oxymoronic community of difference, embracing not only all possible
variants of gender trouble but also the queering of the human-animal barrier,
would not need to teach anybody anything, because it would have made violence
unthinkable, since the human oppression of non-human animals is not a peripheral

case of no political relevance but, as Zimbardos own analysis of dehumanization shows, the
archetype, model and training ground of all forms of oppression and injustice .xxvi In
this respect animal queer, more than any form of queer, radically threatens the very foundations of human society

taking it seriously, not simply as another interesting category for

academic analysis but as an ethical and political imperative, implies doing
everything we can to dismantle the linguistic, conceptual and performative
apparatus which makes all kinds of violence and oppression possible. In animal queer
as we know it, since

the dichotomy between liberation theory and civil right politics, which has been discussed at length in queer
literature,xxvii has no substance: crossing the line dividing our species from the other ones means eradicating the
very categories of thought needed to conceive of inequality and injustice. If the definition of queer politics is
radical opposition to the established social order as such, and the measure of success of queer political action is
the extent to which it smashes the system, then animal rights activism is the queerest possible form of political
action, because it is structurally incompatible with continuing to live the way the system expects us to. The reason
why animal queer is structurally and intrinsically subversive, and why it is perceived as radically threatening, and

it replaces
sameness with otherness as the criterion of emotional, social and political
inclusion: whoever supports animals, Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2,
2010 (ISSN1948-352X) 101 fights for animals, loves an animal loves , supports and fights
not for the self but for the other (the wholly other that they call animal []Yes, the wholly other,
is, accordingly, ruthlessly marginalized, by all forms of cultural and political discourse, is that

more other than any other, that they call an animal , as Derrida 1999 380 would put it), and knows in advance
that no middle ground will ever be found, no assimilation will ever be possible, that in one, one
hundred or one million years animals will be just as puzzling, as foreign, as alien to all that we can be and
understand as they are now. If true love is felt not for the self but for the Other, and if [a]imer lautre, cest
prserver son tranget, reconnatre quil existe ct de moi, loin de moi, non avec moi xxviii (Bruckner &
Finkielkraut 1977 256), then love in its animal queer form is indeed the purest, most coherent and most radical
form of love, and as such it has the potential not to reform society or to facilitate social progress but to

replace it with the unthinkable, with something radically contradicting all

assumptions, expectations and definitions, to create the possibility of a happiness
we cant even imagine, because to fathom it we would already have to be different
from what we are, to have moved beyond ourselves.

C. Vote aff to reject the first half of the 1ac maintaining the
human-non-human binary dooms them to endless cycles of
subordination and violence- this is also the site of protest that
we should focus on
Best 07, Associate Professor, Departments of Humanities and Philosophy
University of Texas, El Paso [Steven, Charles Patterson, The Eternal Treblinka: Our
Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust New York: Lantern Books, 2002, 280 pp]
While a welcome advance over the anthropocentric conceit that only humans shape human actions, the
environmental determinism approach typically fails to emphasize the crucial role that animals play in human
history, as well as how the human exploitation of animals is a key cause of hierarchy, social conflict, and
environmental breakdown. A core thesis of what I call animal standpoint theory is that animals have been key
driving and shaping forces of human thought, psychology, moral and social life, and history overall. More

the oppression of human over human has deep

roots in the oppression of human over animal. In this context, Charles Pattersons recent book,
specifically, animal standpoint theory argues that

The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, articulates the animal standpoint in a

the human
domination of animals, such as it emerged some ten thousand years ago with the
powerful form with revolutionary implications. The main argument of Eternal Treblinka is that

rise of agricultural society, was the first hierarchical domination and laid the
groundwork for patriarchy, slavery, warfare, genocide, and other systems of
violence and power. A key implication of Pattersons theory is that human liberation is
implausible if disconnected from animal liberation , and thus humanism -- a
speciesist philosophy that constructs a hierarchal relationship privileging superior
humans over inferior animals and reduces animals to resources for human use -collapses under the weight of its logical contradictions. Patterson lays out his complex holistic
argument in three parts. In Part I, he demonstrates that animal exploitation and speciesism have
direct and profound connections to slavery, colonialism, racism, and anti-Semitism.
In Part II, he shows how these connections exist not only in the realm of ideology as
conceptual systems of justifying and underpinning domination and hierarchy but
also in systems of technology, such that the tools and techniques humans devised
for the rationalized mass confinement and slaughter of animals were mobilized
against human groups for the same ends . Finally, in the fascinating interviews and narratives of
Part III, Patterson describes how personal experience with German Nazism prompted
Jewish to take antithetical paths: whereas most retreated to an insular identity and
dogmatic emphasis on the singularity of Nazi evil and its tragic experience, others
recognized the profound similarities between how Nazis treated their human
captives and how humanity as a whole treats other animals, an epiphany that led
them to adopt vegetarianism, to become advocates for the animals, and develop a
far broader and more inclusive ethic informed by universal compassion for all
suffering and oppressed beings. The Origins of Hierarchy "As long as men massacre
animals, they will kill each other" Pythagoras It is little understood that the first form
of oppression, domination, and hierarchy involves human domination over animals.
Pattersons thesis stands in bold contrast to the Marxist theory that the domination over nature is fundamental to
the domination over other humans. It differs as well from the social ecology position of Murray Bookchin that
domination over humans brings about alienation from the natural world, provokes hierarchical mindsets and
institutions, and is the root of the long-standing western goal to dominate nature. In the case of Marxists,
anarchists, and so many others, theorists typically dont even mention human domination of animals, let alone

the human subjugation of

animals is the first form of hierarchy and it paves the way for all other systems of
domination such as include patriarchy, racism, colonialism, anti-Semitism, and the
Holocaust. As he puts it, the exploitation of animals was the model and inspiration for
the atrocities people committed against each other, slavery and the Holocaust
being but two of the more dramatic examples. Hierarchy emerged with the rise of
agricultural society some ten thousand years ago. In the shift from nomadic
hunting and gathering bands to settled agricultural practices, humans began to
establish their dominance over animals through domestication. In animal
domestication (often a euphemism disguising coercion and cruelty), humans began
to exploit animals for purposes such as obtaining food, milk, clothing, plowing, and
transportation. As they gained increasing control over the lives and labor power of
animals, humans bred them for desired traits and controlled them in various ways,
such as castrating males to make them more docile. To conquer, enslave, and claim
animals as their own property, humans developed numerous technologies, such as
pens, cages, collars, ropes, chains, and branding irons. The domination of animals
paved the way for the domination of humans. The sexual subjugation of women,
Patterson suggests, was modeled after the domestication of animals, such that men
began to control womens reproductive capacity, to enforce repressive sexual
assign it causal primacy or significance. In Pattersons model, however,

norms, and to rape them as they forced breeding in their animals . Not coincidentally,
Patterson argues, slavery emerged in the same region of the Middle East that spawned
agriculture, and, in fact, developed as an extension of animal domestication
practices. In areas like Sumer, slaves were managed like livestock, and males were castrated and forced to
work along with females. In the fifteenth century, when Europeans began the colonization of Africa and Spain
introduced the first international slave markets, the metaphors, models, and technologies used to exploit animal

Stealing Africans from their native

environment and homeland, breaking up families who scream in anguish, wrapping
chains around slaves bodies, shipping them in cramped quarters across continents
for weeks or months with no regard for their needs or suffering, branding their
skin with a hot iron to mark them as property, auctioning them as servants,
breeding them for service and labor, exploiting them for profit, beating them in
rages of hatred and anger, and killing them in vast numbers all these horrors and
countless others inflicted on black slaves were developed and perfected centuries
earlier through animal exploitation. As the domestication of animals developed in
agricultural society, humans lost the intimate connections they once had with
animals. By the time of Aristotle, certainly, and with the bigoted assistance of medieval theologians such as St.
slaves were applied with equal cruelty and force to human slaves.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, western humanity had developed an explicitly hierarchical worldview that came
to be known as the Great Chain of Being used to position humans as the end to which all other beings were
mere means. Patterson underscores the crucial point that the domination of human over human and its exercise
through slavery, warfare, and genocide typically begins with the denigration of victims. But the means and
methods of dehumanization are derivative, for speciesism provided the conceptual paradigm that encouraged,
sustained, and justified western brutality toward other peoples. Throughout the history of our ascent to
dominance as the master species, Patterson writes, our

victimization of animals has served as

the model and foundation for our victimization of each other. The study of human
history reveals the pattern: first, humans exploit and slaughter animals; then, they
treat other people like animals and do the same to them . Whether the conquerors
are European imperialists, American colonialists, or German Nazis, western
aggressors engaged in wordplay before swordplay, vilifying their victims
Africans, Native Americans, Filipinos, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and other
unfortunates with opprobrious terms such as rats, pigs, swine, monkeys,
beasts, and filthy animals. Once perceived as brute beasts or sub-humans
occupying a lower evolutionary rung than white westerners, subjugated peoples
were treated accordingly; once characterized as animals, they could be hunted
down like animals. The first exiles from the moral community, animals provided a
convenient discard bin for oppressors to dispose the oppressed. The connections
are clear: For a civilization built on the exploitation and slaughter of animals, the
`lower and more degraded the human victims are, the easier it is to kill them.
Thus, colonialism, as Patterson describes, was a natural extension of human supremacy
over the animal kingdom. For just as humans had subdued animals with their
superior intelligence and technologies, so many Europeans believed that the white
race had proven its superiority by bringing the lower races under its command .
There are important parallels between speciesism and sexism and racism in the
elevation of white male rationality to the touchstone of moral worth. The
arguments European colonialists used to legitimate exploiting Africans that they
were less than human and inferior to white Europeans in ability to reason are the
very same justifications humans use to trap, hunt, confine, and kill animals. Once
western norms of rationality were defined as the essence of humanity and social
normality, by first using non-human animals as the measure of alterity, it was a

short step to begin viewing odd, different, exotic, and eccentric peoples and types
as non- or sub-human. Thus, the same criterion created to exclude animals from
humans was also used to ostracize blacks, women, and numerous other groups
from humanity. The oppression of blacks, women, and animals alike was
grounded in an argument that biological inferiority predestined them for servitude.
In the major strain of western thought, alleged rational beings (i.e., elite, white, western
males) pronounce that the Other (i.e., women, people of color, animals) is deficient in rationality
in ways crucial to their nature and status, and therefore are deemed and treated as
inferior, subhuman, or nonhuman. Whereas the racist mindset creates a hierarchy
of superior/inferior on the basis of skin color, and the sexist mentality splits men
and women into greater and lower classes of beings, the speciesist outlook
demeans and objectifies animals by dichotomizing the biological continuum into
the antipodes of humans and animals. As racism stems from a hateful white
supremacism, and sexism is the product of a bigoted male supremacism, so
speciesism stems from and informs a violent human supremacism -- namely, the arrogant
belief that humans have a natural or God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise or, more
generously, within the moral boundaries of welfarism and stewardship, which however was Judaic moral baggage
official Chistianithy left behind.