Explanation - Arms Sales Card File

By: Jaya Nayar

Here is a link to the file being discussed in this article.

Types of Affs

There are many different types of affs you can make based off this file, using our cards as a starting point for research.

1. You can write a more critical aff to end all arms sales. This aff would be justified using the method of feminist foreign policy (eventually we will be releasing a card file that provides a defense of feminist foreign policy). The main “solvency” of this aff (if you want to think of it this way) would be generated by saying that representations can’t be separated from the plan itself, so the debate should be a question of which orientation the judge thinks is better: an outlook of feminist foreign policy, or whatever the neg defends. This can be a good aff vs post-modern K teams that critique policy-making generally (like Baudrillard or psychoanalysis), because there are many articles saying a radical stance and feminist foreign policy can make genuine change, even if other forms of policy-making can’t.

2. If you don’t want to defend ending all arms sales, you can still read a single country aff with feminist foreign policy framing. The example given in this file is Saudi Arabia, but these affs would claim that ending arms sales to X nation is consistent with feminist foreign policy. From there, you can make the same claims about “ethical orientation” as referenced above. This aff would be better with a policy judge in the back (obviously the other one is more critical), and might be better against policy teams because it sets a greater limit on neg arguments, so there are less hyper-specific PICs to deal with.  

The main difference between these affs is that with the “end all arms sales” aff there’s a stronger claim to solvency, and you can make spillover-esque claims that say ending arms sales will end the military industrial complex, which could end the United States as we know it. The country specific aff, however, is better if your biggest concern on this topic is PICs, and you don’t feel confident defending a K of PICs.

The rest of this article will be going through some of the cards in the file and offering tips on how to use them while constructing an aff.

1ac - end arms sales

Under “Feminist Fopo:” The Vucetic card makes the claim that arms sales are fundamentally at odds with a feminist foreign policy because they promote militarization. Another important aspect of this card is that it responds a prominent answer to feminist foreign policy: that it still allows for militarization as proven by Sweden and Canada (both claim to endorse this praxis yet take actions abroad that are inconsistent with feminism). This card says that neither Sweden nor Canada are true examples of the type of orientation the aff endorses since they’re only feminist on face, but don’t truly practice feminism as proven by their continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia (the aff would end these sales, truly aligning itself with fem IR).

Under “Intervention = arms sales:” The True card makes the same claim that arms sales are incompatible with a feminist foreign policy. However, the important part of this card is that it provides a good answer to counterplans. The strength of the “end all arms sales” aff is you can claim to end the military industrial complex / win that an orientation of feminist foreign policy is better than what the neg has to offer. This card says that our central goal needs to be breaking down gendered structures, but if any part of the arms trade remains, then the demands of the aff will be watered down such that the counterplan can’t solve our feminist orientation/collapsing of the military industrial complex.

Under “Exporting US values:” The Connell card says that, first, masculinization of weapons is cultural and gets embodied through the arms trade. This is a reason that we need an overall culture change, and can’t leave any part of the arms trade in tact because that would leave this culture of hyper-masculinity in tact as well. Second, it acknowledges that arms sold by the US to other countries get used to repress marginalized bodies, and ending arms sales would end our support of these practices.

Under “AT: PICs:” The Claesson card makes a similar claim to True in that it shows how any PIC would water down our criticism, and therefore be unable to solve the aff. This card uses Sweden to prove its point by showing how their continued trade of arms makes their nation not feminist, but pragmatist. Any instance of arms sales would spiral out of control because it’s a question of what framing we endorse: in a world where the judge votes for feminist foreign policy, a process of demilitarization would occur. But, in the neg’s world of a PIC that says, “Arms are sometimes justified,” that allows policy-makers to justify tons of other policies (outside of arms sales) that cause the same militarization we critique. As such, the PIC solves none of the aff, and only allows for a more insidious form of militarization since we will be lulled into believing the US is a feminist nation, while the military only grows in its power.

Under “AT: Regulation CP:” The Stavrianakis card is meant to answer any counterplan that claims arms aren’t the issue, rather the usage of them is, so we should just regulate them. This card says that regulation derails an agenda of demilitarization by compromising: it puts a secondary interest, like trade, above the overall goal of ending violence. This is especially true when a disad is paired with the counterplan, since that would directly link them to the idea of putting X interest (whatever the impact of the disad is) above demilitarization. This card also has an answer to the question “why don’t you just fiat away the whole military if you are so invested in demilitarization?” The answer provided by the card is that we need some type of starting point, but regulation/continuation of arms sales is the wrong one. Instead, we should align ourselves with abolitionism, which the aff is an example of since we don’t compromise on arms sales and end all of them.

1ac - Saudi Arabia

This article is already pretty long so I won’t bother going super in depth through these cards since they are pretty self-explanatory.

The first card says women in Yemen are calling for the end of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, so it can be used to prove why the aff aligns itself with women abroad and ends material suffering.

The second card says that the US military claims arms sales help women in the Middle East because when we sell our arms, we impose our “democratic” values onto those nations. However, in reality, these claims only allow us to avoid actually lobbying for women’s rights abroad, while the military doesn’t create any tangible change for women.

Finally, the third card says that ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia will force the regime to end its unacceptable treatment of women and its involvement the war in Yemen because they value US arms to such a large extent, and cannot maintain their current level of involvement in Yemen without US assistance.