Eric Truett, Wake Forest University

1998 - (De)Baiting the Bear: Policy Options Toward Russia

The negative will be unlikely to win topicality on the upcoming Russia topic unless it can provide a wealth of evidence describing the current nature of US foreign policy toward Russia. Almost every violation will depend upon being first able to describe status quo policy, and then to define substantially change in an acceptably limiting fashion. I recommend using layered topicality strategies, hedging against the difficulty of winning a violation of one word by presenting it in combination with other words that illuminates the overall meaning of the resolution. By a layered topicality strategy, I mean a situation where the negative can say "even if" to the Affirmative responses. Example 1: a negative topicality/ inherency argument that the Affirmative does not change foreign policy is bolstered by the addition of a substantially violation. The negative can say even if the Affirmative meets foreign policy and change, they don't meet the words to the extent that substantially requires. Example 2: a negative topicality argument that claims that a substantial Affirmative must change an essential component of our foreign policy is bolstered with the addition of a strict definition of change and contextual evidence describing our foreign policy toward Russia. The negative can say even if the Affirmative deals with major foreign policy issues, the plan does not do enough to label it a change in respect to our Russia policy.

This section will analyze all of the major words in the resolution, but will dedicate the majority of its space to discussing what I consider the critical words (substantially, change, foreign policy) because they typically form the basis for all of the other violations.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTThe most widely accepted definition is that the United States Government is the federal government located in Washington D.C. This term is unlikely to generate much controversy, but a few avenues for violations are available. First, some definitions indicate that the states acting in conjunction can constitute the United States Government. Affirmatives may choose to change the growing, independent foreign policy of state governments through a state compact or other means. Secondly, disputes may arise over the degree of topical involvement allowed by multilateral regimes, such as the IMF or the UN. It seems likely that as long as the Affirmative limits their FIAT to the United States Government they can topically go through a multilateral organization as a means of changing foreign policy. However, if the Affirmative uses FIAT power over the multilateral agency itself, the negative will have grounds for topicality objections.

SUBSTANTIALLYSubstantially appears constantly in debate topics in spite of its almost universal criticism as a "devil word", a word with no meaning, a word that cannot be defined. Substantially can mean "in the main"; it can be defined as "without material qualification"; it can be attached a percentage value which ranges from 2% to 90%. Some sources give up all together, stating merely that it is a term which must be defined in context. The difficulties in deriving an acceptable definition of substantially should not deter negative teams from pursuing the violation. While it is unlikely that the negative can win on the word substantially alone, substantially can be used as an additional violation to a change foreign policy violation. The Negative can argue that the Affirmative must change a main part of foreign policy toward Russia or that the Affirmative must change all parts of our foreign policy toward Russia. The Negative can also argue that in the context of our overall foreign policy, the Affirmative is an insubstantial change because the area it deals with is unimportant or the magnitude of the change is minute. HeIper definitions indicate that for an action to be "substantially justified" it must be "clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact." This opens up avenues for the negative to argue that presumption rests on their side in comparing interpretations of the word.

Three final points are important to keep in mind about substantially. First, a word can have a limiting function even if it cannot be clearly defined. The Supreme Court has been unable to agree upon a "bright line" definition of pornography, arguing that it knows it when it sees it. Even if a judge does not know what exactly substantially means, she can know what it is not. Second, realize that most topicality violations that involve substantial are won on superior debating skills, not on the innate strength of the violation. Finally, topicality has a symbiotic relationship with other arguments; it has strategic utility beyond its jurisdictional function. Not only can it be used to get larger disad links or to fix an Affirmative to a particular position, disadvantage answers can be used to prove that an Affirmative is not "substantial".

CHANGEThere are a plethora of expansive definitions that give the Affirmative sufficient leeway in proving they meet the word change. It can mean "adapt", "diverge", "fluctuate", "modify", "reform", or "vary". While the bulk of the definitions are favorable to Affirmative interpretations, all is not hopeless for the negative. On the identically worded China topic, teams were able to successfully win change (in addition to inherency) by reading evidence that the Affirmative plan was the status quo. The best negative definition is that change means to "render something essentially different" in contrast to alteration which is to "make different in some material respect, as in form or detail, without implying loss of identity." Negative teams should read this definition in combination with substantially and foreign policy in order to create a threshold of necessary change that a topical Affirmative must cross.

ITS
This word is a modifier that primarily indicates possession. In this year's resolution, it refers to US foreign policy toward Russia, and thus every violation involving "its" must also define the phrase it modifies in order to establish coherent meaning. An example vividly demonstrates the difficulty of using "its" in isolation. The negative may attempt to argue that "its" implies pre-existing policy, and thus the Affirmative cannot create a new foreign policy. The Affirmative can easily retort that foreign policy includes inaction, and thus it changes the pre-existing policy of not acting on their harm area.

FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA
The broadest definitions indicate that foreign policy comprises the sum total of interaction between two states. The Affirmative, as long as they are state-to-state interactions, can justify virtually any plan under this interpretation. Definitions of policy are equally supportive of this view, stating that policy is any course of action or inaction. Evidence indicates that our foreign policy includes or even makes as its central focus the following issues: economics and trade, human rights, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, promotion of democracy and economic reforms, and stabilization of Yeltsin's leadership. Foreign policy mechanisms include but are not limited to foreign aid, sanctions, and diplomacy. In sum, the Affirmative has a wide array of definitional and contextual support to defend a variety of potential cases.

The negative does have several avenues for constructing effective foreign policy violations. Foreign policy can be defined as defending America's vital interests, and then the negative can distinguish vital from non-vital interests. Foreign policy can also be defined as a set of overarching goals, and then the negative can explicate the goals of the status quo foreign policy and explain how the Affirmative does not change these goals. Several contextual pieces of evidence are provided not only describing current goals toward Russia, but also indicating potential alternatives to those goals, answering over limiting claims made by the Affirmative. Definitions of "policy" that distinguish it from "program" or "implementation" further this interpretation. Finally, foreign policy can be defined operationally by reading contextual evidence about specific US government policies. Governmental sources often provide a list of primary objectives in our foreign policy toward nations and then detail what mechanisms are utilized to achieve those objectives.

TOWARD
Definitions of "toward" suggest that the foreign policy must be "in the direction of" Russia. Whether this term is exclusive cannot be resolved by definition, but contextual evidence indicates that the foreign policy matrix cannot be reduced to a simple relationship between the US and Russia. Broad legislation not particularly aimed at a country, such as the Helms-Burton Act, can still constitute foreign policy toward that country. US policy in Central America during the 1980's was clearly part of our foreign policy toward the USSR, although the USSR was not directly involved. In spite of US protestations that NATO is not aimed at Russia, it can easily be construed as such.

RUSSIA
Russia is the shorthand name for The Russian Federation, which is a geographical entity that was the central state of the USSR. While Russia does not share as many territorial ambiguities as did the PRC, the independent status of surrounding states remains a priority of US foreign policy. Most violations of the word "Russia" will really center around what constitutes foreign policy toward Russia, and thus definitions of the country itself will have little utility. The Affirmative may utilize contextual evidence, such as that indicating the innate relationship between Ukraine and Russia, to bolster their claim that foreign policy toward FSU states is also foreign policy toward Russia.

As stated at the onset the best hope for the Negative is to utilize a combination of definitions to construct a layered violation. The savvy topicality debater will define as many of the terms in the resolution as is possible and consider in detail how to explain the meaning of these hard-to-define terms to a skeptical judge. Of particular use will be a detailed description of what constitutes the status quo foreign policy.