YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → States & International Actors - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 9

States & International Actors - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 9 — Transcript

by Manchester Debating Union · 9,640 words · 1,418 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00okay great
0:01awesome hi everyone so welcome to this
0:04week's session where we're going to
0:05cover States and international actors um
0:08so this is uh the third part and final
0:11part of the actor analysis series that
0:13we're doing so in the first week we
0:15looked at the smallest possible actor
0:17which is the individual then we looked
0:18at you know something on a larger scale
0:20which is social movements and
0:21communities and now we're looking at the
0:23biggest possible actor you could
0:24possibly debate which are states and
0:27international bodies now what are common
0:30mistakes that people make when debating
0:31international relations um so I think
0:34there tends to be broadly three kinds of
0:38mistakes so number one is the MU mistake
0:40which is that you over rely on a lot of
0:43your Real World Knowledge instead of
0:45actually analyzing why people or like
0:48organizations or states are likely going
0:50to act in a specific way so this
0:51particular this particular mistake looks
0:53like you know citing all the previous
0:55incidents in which a state has done
0:57something like this and saying ah you
0:59know that's why it's going to do this
1:01again in the future or trying to build
1:03some sort of precedent using a lot of
1:05examples in the past um without actually
1:08analyzing what those examples mean um so
1:12that's a specific type of mistake where
1:13people over rely on Real World Knowledge
1:15second type of mistake that people do is
1:17that they underframe so this is almost
1:19the opposite uh this is almost the
1:22opposite mistake which is that they
1:23don't give any analysis whatsoever about
1:26what the actor's relevant interests are
1:28and its relevant political context so
1:30they almost debate it as if it is a
1:32blank slate uh and so because of that
1:35it's very difficult for me to assess
1:37competing claims so for example if I am
1:39a judge and there are two sides that
1:41says for example if something about like
1:43uh whether or not a state like China
1:46will retaliate if you slap sanctions on
1:48it or will it reform if one state if one
1:51you know debator if one site just says
1:53like ah they're going to reform where
1:54one the other one tries to say like no
1:56it's going to basically do the opposite
1:59without either side characterizing China
2:02itself and why it's likely going to
2:03pursue specific actions over others this
2:05is a problem of underf framing so it's
2:07very hard for the judge to assess
2:09competing or contradictory claims and
2:10see which one is more likely without
2:12characterizations and without framing
2:14the third type of mistake that people do
2:16um is they're not proving why a specific
2:19action is uniquely effective or it is
2:22the only mechanism to achieve certain
2:23impacts um so what do I mean by this um
2:27so loads and loads of intern relation
2:30debates will always have the same
2:32incentives to do certain things so for
2:34example it's about like whether or not
2:36you know a country will be able to
2:38achieve more visional influence it'll be
2:41about whether or not he wants to get
2:42more clout about whether or not he wants
2:44to increase its military security etc
2:46etc um but not there are millions of
2:48ways that a country can possibly achieve
2:51Regional influence um and it like so to
2:55portray what this mistake looks like in
2:58practice um there may be a motion about
3:00whether or not Saudi Arabia should
3:02intervene in Ethiopia and support a
3:05secessionist movement within Ethiopia or
3:07to try to destabilize the Ethiopia
3:09somehow and one of the teams May forward
3:12the argument ah this is a really good
3:14way for it to increase its Regional
3:16influence because it could like for
3:18example install a proxy government
3:20Ethiopia and cement its presence within
3:22North Africa so note that this is a
3:25decent argument but but it does not
3:28prove why it like this is like the the
3:32the most effective way for Saudi Arabia
3:34to to cement its Regional influence in
3:36North Africa um so therefore another
3:39opposition team could just come up and
3:40say hey yeah sure this we all we agree
3:43that this is one of the many ways that
3:45Saudi Arabia could increase its Regional
3:47influence but since it is not the most
3:49effective way it's not very clear why
3:51Saudi Arabia has any interest in doing
3:53this um over since it could pursue all
3:55these other Alternatives so this is
3:57another way that people often make
3:58mistakes in international relations and
4:00it's particularly a problem
4:01international relations because the
4:03incentives that states tend to go for
4:05tend to be very very similar so it's
4:07Cloud Regional influence military
4:08superiority and what you really need to
4:10prove there is that something is
4:12uniquely effective at achieving those
4:13incentives um cool so how do we not make
4:18those mistakes so what is IR actually
4:21about so of course just like any every
4:24actor debate team should identify the
4:26incentives of actors and limitations
4:29that or restrictions that limit how they
4:31can pursue those incentives um so for
4:33example um a state may have the
4:35incentive to increase its Regional
4:37influence or increase its material
4:39Prosperity by like doing lots of trade
4:41treaties with other countries um but it
4:43may be highly Limited in its ability to
4:45do that so for example it may be a very
4:47small state it may be very impoverished
4:49it may not have the resources to
4:50military project itself so by
4:53highlighting the incentives the state
4:55has as well as the restrictions that are
4:57imposed upon them by external
4:58circumstances like just material
5:00scarcity you can already build a really
5:03compelling picture about what a state is
5:05likely going to do or how it's likely
5:07going to act in a specific motion but
5:10note that you can actually take this a
5:12lot further in IR you can actually
5:14characterize national identity of states
5:16for example in in the in us and China so
5:19this looks like asking questions about
5:21how they perceive their role in the
5:22world what threats do they perceive to
5:24be the most prominent um and so these
5:27kinds of these kinds of more new
5:30questions will allow you to shape not
5:32only what incentives these countries are
5:34likely like like what incentives these
5:36countries likely have and as well as
5:38their capacities to act but also how
5:41they choose to pursue those incentives
5:42when given multiple options um and the
5:45extent to which they they project
5:46themselves on the international stage a
5:49really good example of this is Russia so
5:52um if you just going to look at the Bare
5:54Bones incentives and you know external
5:57limitations that Russia has I can
5:59highlight look you know Russia has the
6:01incentive to to kind of cement Regional
6:04influence in Eastern Europe and install
6:06lots of proxy governments um but then I
6:08look at the limitations and I say like
6:09well Russia's economy is the size of
6:12California it's incredibly impoverished
6:14um and also it does it its military is
6:17actually pretty poorly chained compared
6:19to for example its main rival of the US
6:22right and so because of this like this
6:24will allow me to infer that actually
6:26Russia should not be militarily
6:28projecting itself at all in the Eastern
6:30sphere of Europe but yet it does so why
6:32does it do that well the reason why it
6:34does that is because of its national
6:36identity or how it precedes its role in
6:38the in in the in the world what you'll
6:40realize about for example Russian
6:42international relations or foreign
6:43policy is that they feel entitled to a
6:46really large role in the geopol
6:48political sphere because they believe
6:50that they are heirs to a great heritage
6:53um from like for example things like the
6:54cold war things like being a center for
6:56culture and really important artistic
6:58achievements and scientific achievements
7:00and because of all that Heritage and
7:02past historical relevance they believe
7:04they deserve that geopolitical role and
7:06that's why they project themselves far
7:08far wider and far further than what
7:10their material resources actually allows
7:13them to do um and so through analyzing
7:16things like how States perceive
7:18themselves and what threats they
7:19perceive themselves to be under you can
7:21actually build even more compelling
7:23pictures and explain why countries
7:25sometimes do things that are slightly
7:27counterintuitive um cool so hope that
7:30makes sense I'm going to tell you how to
7:32do this right so how do you how do you
7:35how do you debate IR so of course you're
7:38like unlike most other things in debate
7:41where you kind of can just I guess like
7:43it it's good to know about stuff in any
7:45debate but in IR it's very very very
7:48important to know stuff um so your
7:50ability to debate IR to a very high
7:53level is really severely capped if you
7:55just don't know anything about the
7:57actors involved um and so like sure you
8:00can make like like you can get like
8:02pretty good scores if you know nothing
8:03and you're just a really good debater
8:05with a lot of the good foundational
8:07skills in debating for example you can
8:09highlight incentives they're likely
8:10going to have you can highlight things
8:12that show why they're likely going to
8:14act in a specific way um but we're
8:16talking about high LEL if we're talking
8:18about trying to break through the ad
8:20barrier in debating IR it's going to be
8:23severely limited if you just don't know
8:25anything about what's going on so I
8:27really recommend more so than in any
8:29other type of debate to read with
8:31intention of understanding the identity
8:33of a state so try to case File but case
8:35File with intention and this is a very
8:38common mistake that I see people make
8:40they don't know how to case File IR so
8:42note that case filing or effective case
8:45filing in debate is not necessarily
8:46knowing every single detail about a
8:48country's history but rather rather
8:50trying to understand what a country is
8:53um so what do I mean about this if I'm
8:55trying to learn about China I'm not
8:56necessarily going to try to understand
8:59the all the details of what happened in
9:01a Ching Dynasty all the way up to the
9:03modern era including Administration
9:04changes and stuff like that rather the
9:07kinds of questions I'm trying to
9:08understand are things like how do
9:10Chinese people feel about their own
9:11history what are the parts of that
9:13history that are integral to the
9:15formation of its modern national
9:16identity how do Chinese people interact
9:19with their state and what is that
9:20relationship built upon so for example
9:23when it when people choose to support
9:25their state or just like you know
9:27condemn it or etc etc or try to oppose
9:30it or kind of I guess resentful towards
9:34what that state does what kind of things
9:36are factor into that so for example lots
9:38of Chinese people support maybe their
9:40government because it has granted them
9:42economic prosperity in the past and
9:43that's a priority of that loads of
9:45Chinese citizens have but it's probably
9:46fading over time um so that's the kind
9:49of things that affect the relationship
9:51of a state with its people another
9:54question that I can kind of think about
9:56is what are the what what is China's
9:58ambition and what are they shaped by um
10:01and so for example like you can see that
10:03China's ambition of course is to cement
10:05itself as a huge geopolitical Powerhouse
10:07but what you'll notice is that a lot of
10:09the time doesn't really project itself
10:11militarily rather a lot of its most
10:13ambitious projects are economic nature
10:16so you can say that its Ambitions are
10:17actually shaped by kind of being the
10:20centerpiece of the global economy where
10:22everything is manufactured where things
10:25pass through like to have a finger in
10:27every economic pie and because of that
10:29to be so so important and significant in
10:32the global economy that it becomes a
10:34huge geopolitical Powerhouse so
10:37understanding things like that um will
10:38really help you try to understand what a
10:41state is of course you should also like
10:43casea relevant current affairs so this
10:45looks like the one belt one road project
10:47the South China Sea dispute Japanese
10:48Chinese relations because like debates
10:51will probably be about these things um
10:53so I would say if you're ever trying to
10:57Cas all a country don't case file its
11:00history case File who it is you know
11:02like if you're trying to get to know a
11:04person I don't want to know about you
11:05know that 16th birthday and exactly what
11:08happened in their 16th birthday rather I
11:10want to understand who they are what
11:11they believe to be most significant
11:13about them and therefore how how they're
11:15likely going to act in the future um so
11:18try to think about countries almost as
11:20people when you're trying to understande
11:22fall them so case with that kind of
11:24intention
11:27cool so whatp types of ir motions are
11:30there there are broadly three kinds of
11:33ir motions number one it would be the
11:35kind of you know International
11:36organizations attempting to increase the
11:38efficacy of control over the membership
11:40in one way of another so it's always
11:41just like ah NATO should expel its
11:44members that don't meet the
11:45organization's defense spending targets
11:47or it's a EU uh like punishing Eastern
11:50European states that have low human
11:52rights standards or it's you know who
11:55having a lot more power to for example
11:57intervene in the medical affairs of its
11:59member states like these are all just
12:01International or the same type of motion
12:03where it's about whether or not an
12:05international organization should pursue
12:06a specific action in order to more
12:09effectively number one meet its goals
12:11number two cement control over its
12:13membership so loads of international
12:15organizations always face a crisis in
12:17membership so like loads of member
12:19states always want to leave so a lot of
12:21motions would be about how to solve that
12:23particular problem of you know
12:25rebuilding confidence in the
12:27international organization on the second
12:29type of motion you encounter is a state
12:31proactively or reactively intervening in
12:34another state to secure some interest so
12:36this is a motion that recently came out
12:38this house at Saudi Arabia would provide
12:40funding and support to to De people's
12:43Liberation Front and encourage their
12:45aggression against the Ethiopian federal
12:46government so this is a form of foreign
12:48intervention or meddling in another
12:50State's Foreign Affairs um in order to
12:53gain something uh so loads of these
12:55types of motions will be about you know
12:58there is an incent to do something and
13:00here is an action about how to achieve
13:03that goal is this a good will this
13:05actually achieve the goal or will it
13:06further damage the situation so it can
13:09be proactive for example here Saudi
13:11Arabia is not actually threatened by
13:12Ethiopia in any specific way at least to
13:14my knowledge um but this is just you
13:16know it can do this to cement more
13:18Regional influence in Northern Africa
13:20should it take this opportunity so
13:21that's proactive um SEC the SEC like you
13:24know it can also be reactive so for
13:26example whether or not uh Japan should
13:28re militarize um so that's reactive to a
13:31lot of for example growing external
13:33threats um in the Asia Pacific you know
13:35like the South China Sea dispute uh
13:38growing military skirmishes stuff like
13:40that so it can be reactive to to Global
13:43Trends as well um so yeah so that's the
13:46another kind of motion uh that you're
13:48likely going to debate and the third
13:49type of international relations motion
13:51is just like it's honestly just economic
13:54social justice or politics debates with
13:56a hint of ir so like I won't be
13:58discussing these motions too much
14:00because typically the analysis that
14:02you'll be giving is like economics type
14:04Mo type analysis or be social justice
14:07type analysis but with a a little spice
14:09of ir uh so these are really good
14:11examples this also introduce a system of
14:13tradable quars for Asylum Seekers um you
14:16just need to know broadly the power
14:18dynamics within the EU that's it that's
14:20all you need to know um and then the
14:22rest of it is just like politics policy
14:24motion um the the the second one is
14:26pretty similar as well this how supports
14:28bricks countries creating alternatives
14:30to the current International Economic
14:32Institutions for example the IMF in
14:34World de um so again this is like an
14:36really economics heavy type motion with
14:39just a pinch of ir inside of it um and
14:42so I won't be discussing these too much
14:44because like hopefully by just going
14:48through this you know these slides you
14:50should already instinctively know how to
14:51debate these types of motions uh but
14:53also these motions to succeed both of
14:55them you just need to do like economics
14:57analysis and not particularly IR
14:59analysis great so how do you do mostly
15:02these two types of motions so first how
15:04do you debate things like International
15:06organizations doing something um so the
15:09Crux this is the Crux of all
15:10International organizations debates EU
15:12NATO un Etc these are the questions that
15:15you need to ask when you are faced with
15:17that kind of motion number one if it's
15:20something like if you're debating from
15:21like the stance of the international
15:23organization or you're trying to achieve
15:24its goals what is the main problem that
15:27threatens this organization survival so
15:29loads of organizations are faced with
15:31different threats that threaten the
15:32survival so you know like in the like in
15:36the IMF or World Bank it's policies that
15:38have flopped in the past so for example
15:40the IMF and World Bank have done some
15:42pretty devastating things to developing
15:44countries uh in order to force them to
15:46develop so these look like you know
15:48Liber liberalizing their markets opening
15:50them up to International competition and
15:53it it just working out terribly um and
15:55so because of this Lads of countries
15:56that are developing have huge amounts of
15:58dis trust towards the IMF and World Bank
16:01and so that's something that reth
16:02threatens its efficacy um you know it
16:04can also just be about you know it maybe
16:06has a reputation of being you know over
16:08elst disconnected but also a tyrannical
16:11ruler so like this is this type of
16:13sentiment that people felt during brexit
16:15that you know the EU was kind of this
16:17disconnected body but it had like like
16:20supposedly a lot of power over National
16:22policies um so yeah so loads of
16:26different organizations face different
16:28external threats and that's a question
16:30that you should ask yourself in prep
16:31time what is this International
16:32Organization facing um and so that
16:35should like that's the appropriate
16:37framing that is going to build build the
16:38foundation of your case how do we
16:40address this most Salient kind of
16:42external threat that organization is
16:44facing then you can start to consider
16:46other things so like consider what like
16:48if it's something about doing a specific
16:49action consider the what the action is
16:52going to like who the action is actually
16:54going to affect so consider the
16:55diversity of member States involved in
16:57that organization so and how do they all
17:00individually interact with the
17:01organization's goals so if you have like
17:04loads of different types of countries
17:05within the same organization for example
17:07if we take the EU as an example um
17:10probably more prosperous Rich Western
17:13European States would be very different
17:15from less prosperous Eastern European
17:17States and they and these two blocks
17:20interact with the eu's goals really
17:21differently and they proceive the EU
17:23super differently as well so try to
17:26understand whenever an action is being
17:27enforced segregate the member states of
17:30that international organization and try
17:32to understand how each block interacts
17:35with that with that organization's
17:37actions um and then s and then also
17:40consider um most likely in many debates
17:43you're going to have to trade these
17:45blocks off so you're going to have to
17:47probably like if it's something like um
17:49the EU punishing um Eastern European
17:53States for having poor human rights
17:55standards um it's very likely that
17:58you're going to to have to trade off
17:59Eastern European states with Rich
18:01European States because probably a main
18:04Crux of the debate will be about whether
18:06or not uh this is going to rebuild the
18:08confidence that Western European states
18:10have in the European project um versus
18:14like pissing potentially pissing off
18:15Eastern European States so it's very
18:17possible that you're likely going to
18:18have to trade them off do you prefer
18:20keeping these rich European states in
18:23the EU and potentially losing the the
18:25poor Eastern European ones so while
18:27you're considering the University of
18:29member states try to kind of
18:31preemptively weigh them in your head so
18:33which member states are the most
18:34important for example who provides
18:36funding controls its agenda setting Etc
18:39um and and by asking all of these types
18:42of questions you can build a really
18:43compelling picture of the status core
18:45and characterize the different member
18:46states which are the building blocks so
18:48really strong argument cool so we're
18:50going to do a little bit of an exercise
18:53now so this is a motion as you can see
18:57uh it says this house believes that it
18:59is in the interest of the EU to impose
19:01punitive measures on the UK in the
19:03brexit in the brexit negotiations so
19:06what we're going to do is we're going to
19:07split you up into two different breakout
19:08rooms one will be prepping government's
19:11side the other one will be prepping
19:12opposition's side um there'll be people
19:14leading the discussion in both breakout
19:16rooms um and then we'll reconvene here
19:19and hear what people have to say so cool
19:23shall we put you all into the breakout
19:25rooms
19:32I think that may be everyone oh cool so
19:35would let's start with breakout room one
19:37so uh would the leader of breakout room
19:40one like to summarize what you guys came
19:41up presumably just on balance of numbers
19:43of States you primarily care about
19:45citizens of the EU uh rather than
19:47citizens I guess of the UK I guess you
19:50could also make a duties argument there
19:52uh but most of the stuff we then talk
19:53about largely affects the outcomes for
19:55the EU uh two broad
19:59categories of things we discussed the
20:01firstly on Trends towards kind of
20:03separatist movements both within the
20:05east of Europe but also to some degree
20:06within Western States um I think the
20:09broad claim that we were making here is
20:12that either uh the image of the EU being
20:17inefficient in terms of dealing with
20:18separatist movements and therefore
20:19making it easy for them to separate is
20:21something that encourages separatist
20:23parties especially if the tradeoff for
20:26them is that the UK is able to cause to
20:29the EU and get preferential treatment
20:31and this is something that those
20:32countries especially Eastern European
20:33ones who are historically worse off in
20:35terms of negotiations with the EU deal
20:37is being doing kind of unfairly to them
20:39especially given a tendency in these
20:41countries towards kind of politicians
20:43blaming the EU in order to tapping to
20:45political support and why that might
20:47this might therefore be something that
20:49they tap into further leading to both
20:51increased amounts of kind of separatism
20:53I guess but also these parties tend to
20:55be fairly rightwing fairly problematic
20:58in various ways ways and you get all of
20:59the kind of problematic um effects of
21:01that similar things happen in the in the
21:04West for example in France with uh
21:06politicians like Marine Leen um I won't
21:09spend ages describing that I think the
21:10analysis is fairly similar um a second
21:13broad category of impacts here is that
21:15there are a set of economic interests
21:17for the EU for its citizens um that I
21:20think we reach via various actors who
21:23affect the incentives of kind of uh the
21:27larger Western Europe an economies um
21:30the first is that there's a series of
21:31markets that they have an interest to
21:33connecting to in the UK because they
21:34drive the econ economic success that
21:36country and therefore also the
21:37decision-making apparatus via kind of
21:39Elections and so on um broadly two
21:42mechanisms by which uh you connect to
21:44this firstly just punitive measures
21:46against the UK mean you're that you're
21:47better able to reach out competition and
21:49therefore better able to benefit these
21:51markets as a whole um obviously it's an
21:54analysis motion but on kind of balance
21:55of number of citizens affected I guess
21:57this is fine secondly though creating
21:59pressure on the UK government especially
22:01when that's a government that is
22:02currently facing a population that's not
22:04particularly happy with the brexit
22:06negotiations and the way they're going
22:08and it's basing some degree of revolt on
22:09that uh if the UK is to start to feel
22:12the effects of punitive measures I think
22:13the result of this we say is the
22:15pressure on the UK government is
22:16probably to give in on things like
22:18Fisheries in the North Sea or so on and
22:20actually to give into kind of more
22:22Cooperative economic interests a second
22:24broad strand of here of things here is
22:27kind of part of these economies is made
22:29up by the investment of multi uh
22:31multinational corporations or private
22:32investors and for these people um it is
22:35a worrying Trend that the EU is unable
22:37to control the UK in negotiations
22:39because it implies a lack of stability
22:40which means they can't guarantee their
22:42investments will be profitable and as a
22:44result they would much rather punitive
22:45measures be imposed in order to drive
22:47investment uh and therefore reach the
22:49kind of corresponding economic benefits
22:53okay cool that was really good uh
22:54breakout room
22:57two uh yeah uh I think we broadly
22:59identified like similar eras of EU
23:01interests like heing about how uh
23:04populism and anti-eu sentiment has been
23:06growing in recent years and how to deal
23:07with that and then secondly like
23:09thinking about which are the more
23:10important States like for example um so
23:13also like European States being more
23:15important than those of the UK um like
23:18Ireland Germany but also like bigger
23:20European States through trade being
23:21important so what we talked about like
23:23in terms of opposition um arguments or
23:26things is like firstly uh we came to the
23:29conclusion that it's likely that it's
23:30going to show EU in a bad light in terms
23:34of having less respect for like the
23:36notion of sovereignity or when you
23:37already have countries that there have
23:39lots of anti-eu like sentiment and when
23:42one country is trying to leave and now
23:44you're like baring them or like not
23:46allowing them to effectively leave then
23:48this is showing that you don't respect
23:49their sovereignity and decision to leave
23:51and can like fear further fuel like um
23:54antiu mindset secondly how it's going to
23:58be like disruptive for the brexit
24:01negotiations themselves if you have
24:02these measures um in different ways so
24:04like one likely outcome is that it's
24:06going to make it longer because the
24:08because the countries like like UK is
24:10likely to be outraged by this and like
24:12having a longer process is firstly bad
24:14because um many member states would
24:16probably feel like the institutions
24:18aren't functioning as efficiently as
24:20they could they're focusing on the wrong
24:22things and uh it is necessary or like
24:25you would need it to be more efficient
24:26for them to have more support fa in the
24:28you so tying back to the anti-u
24:30sentiment but secondly having the
24:32process drag out is harmful for uh
24:35countries that have close ties to the UK
24:37so most importantly probably Ireland
24:39which is also a EU member state so a
24:40high priority of the EU but also
24:42countries like uh Germany and France and
24:45France has its own like issues of
24:47populism and you'd want to avoid that um
24:49and lastly um punitive measures if they
24:52if that because it's a time sensitive
24:54issue there are deadlines you need to
24:55adhere to if that isn't reached as
24:57likely to the outcome is that a hard
24:58deal or hard brexit which is also again
25:00harmful in terms of like economic in
25:03interests um specifically Ireland um so
25:05those are the like main things we talked
25:07about awesome great so I think people
25:11really did hit upon like the key CES in
25:13this debate so of course it is um
25:16everyone knows that they heavily had to
25:18characterize what the problem was in the
25:20EU that currently fac them which is
25:22separation as a populist movement that
25:23want to leave the EU and how to best
25:25prevent that and that's kind of the
25:27second Str of argument ation about like
25:29what are the eu's actual material
25:31interests in terms of economic trade
25:32deals preserving the stability of the
25:35market continuing access into the
25:37British Market etc etc so um there's
25:40kind of like these two blocks of clash
25:42and the ability for teams to therefore
25:44do very well in the debate is to F
25:46either like ra between these clashes so
25:48which is more important between them the
25:50material resources that EU is able to
25:52guarantee to its members or kind of like
25:54stopping SE separationist within the EU
25:57and of course as you can see we already
25:58have contradictory claims so from
26:00proposition or from what we just heard
26:02from government is that you know the
26:04right now separationism is caused by
26:06this optic like the Optics of
26:08inefficiency or inefficacy that the EU
26:10currently has that's too soft that does
26:12it can't enforce its own rules that the
26:14UK can basically get away with uh
26:16slandering the EU saying lots of
26:19terrible things about it and just
26:20leaving with like and just acting with
26:22impunity basically and the way that we
26:24re bolster confidence within the EU is
26:27to have it actually ality and punish the
26:30UK for what it has done um and of course
26:32we get a counter characterization of the
26:34argument in opposition which is to say
26:36like actually separationism is caused by
26:38this idea that the EU is like this
26:40tyrannical Sovereign um that kind of
26:42like undermines the national sovereignty
26:44of each like each state you know like in
26:47the EU like Charter it is actually legal
26:49for states to leave so if you are seen
26:52to be punishing people for exercising
26:54what is in their legal right to do so
26:56you are seen as tyrannical and the
26:57backlash against is much more severe so
26:59when you have these competing
27:00characterizations about you know what is
27:02actually causing separationism it's very
27:05good for you to forecast and preempt
27:06that that's going to likely be the case
27:08and try to build up a lot of analytical
27:11reasons as to why it is your
27:13characterization that is correct and
27:15therefore why this specific motion
27:17solves that problem that you just
27:19characterized um so cool so um as you
27:23can see like just like by discussing a
27:24lot of these um arguments in this motion
27:26you could already preempt a lot of the
27:28kind of kind of clashes and understand
27:31that a lot of what makes or breaks these
27:33clashes is how you characterize these
27:36problems and how you characterize like
27:38States within the EU actually feeling
27:40about the problem cool so hopefully that
27:43that was significant or just like
27:46enriching to all of you great so now
27:50that we've discussed how to debate
27:52International organizations now let's
27:55let's learn how to debate like the
27:56second type of motions so um States
27:59proactively or reactively intervening in
28:01the Affairs of another state in order to
28:03achieve um some sort of incentive either
28:06it is like defending itself or it is you
28:08know securing some material interest or
28:11achieving domestic uh popularity or
28:13legitimacy um so I'm going to go through
28:17different kinds of states that you're
28:18likely going to encounter and what they
28:20tend to be motivated by and therefore
28:21how do they best secure their interest
28:23uh within their within that specific
28:26frame of the motion cool so first type
28:29of actor that I want to talk about is
28:31theocracies so note that so this may
28:34look like a lot of religiously based um
28:36governments or governments where
28:38religious rhetoric plays a very heavy
28:40part so this is lots of places in the
28:42Middle East it also looks like places
28:43like Malaysia Etc so not that
28:45theocracies extract a lot of that
28:47legitimacy from a religious mandate this
28:49means that they believe or like um that
28:52legitim is legitimacy is sourced from a
28:55lot of State actions um that cement
28:58their place as a proxy for religious
29:01scripture so the power comes from people
29:03being devoted to them as a proxy of that
29:05religion or people being afraid of
29:08religious consequences so for example
29:10like you know being afraid of the
29:11afterlife and consequences there like
29:14that are to do with disobeying a state
29:17or proxy of the religion being expelled
29:19from a religious community if you ever
29:20speak out against that state or things
29:22like even religious law law in terms of
29:24like maybe Shara courts or something
29:26like that um and so theocracies are
29:29heavily heavily based on this idea that
29:31they have a religious mandate and they
29:32are to some extent the voice of that
29:34religion remember that religion is very
29:37very fluid um and Most states subscribe
29:40to a highly specific interpretation of
29:43that religion in order to justify its
29:45structure note that there is like never
29:48an argument that says like for example
29:50um Christianity says this hence hence
29:53this is that the state is going to do XY
29:55Z no no no note that relig religion is
29:58highly fluid and people have very very
30:00very different and evolving
30:01interpretations of what that religion
30:03means um States tend to like choose what
30:07kind of interpretation they are likely
30:09going to propose in order to justify how
30:11it structure so if you play take a place
30:14like for example Saudi Arabia which its
30:16government is highly male-dominated it's
30:18quite socially conservative compared to
30:19for example the Western World um it's AB
30:22like the state's ability to continue
30:24perpetuating itself as it is structured
30:26now um is determined by their
30:29interpretation of that religion so that
30:31is why they are likely going to propose
30:34a kind of religious interpretation that
30:36says actually the Quran or whatever
30:39religious scripture says that you know
30:42like State should be male dominated or
30:44we should be socially conservative um
30:46and so they tend to construct that
30:48religion such that they justify their
30:50own structure um so it's so like you
30:54know its ability to successfully
30:55perpetuate itself is based on loads of
30:57things and it's ability to successfully
30:59construct that religious interpretation
31:00this looks like having a religiously
31:03recognized leader that proposes that
31:04narrative or that interpretation of that
31:06religion so having like someone like
31:08maybe like who is seen as the this like
31:10fullon proxy of God for example like it
31:13could look like the ayatolla or the pope
31:15um and having that leader you know
31:17support or promote that narrative or
31:19that interpretation of that religion it
31:21could look like its ability to enforce
31:23religious scripture in converting people
31:25so a lot of its religious mandate maybe
31:26comes from you know it enforcing
31:30religious Norms or converting people
31:32overseas it could look like protecting
31:34religious rights and freedoms or setting
31:35up religious institutions within that
31:37state so for example if a lot of your
31:39legitimacy comes from um a religious
31:42mandate your interest is to keep that
31:44country highly religious and keep the
31:46structure of that country highly
31:47religious so it looks like you know
31:48maybe setting up lots of religious
31:50institutions like sural courts it looks
31:52like you know promote like promoting
31:54religious right promoting religious
31:56rights and freedoms that even maybe
31:57foring them on people within your state
31:59um it could also just be something like
32:01having religious sites located within
32:03your state that show you as the like
32:06like the um proxy or the appropriate
32:09representation of that religion so for
32:12example Saudi Arabia the reason why it
32:14is so so so influential in the Middle
32:16East one of the reasons is because Mecca
32:18is is located within Saudi Arabia and it
32:21is a very very important religious site
32:23for many Muslim people because it says
32:25that they have to travel to Mecca to uh
32:28as a pilgrimage in order to kind of be
32:30devotional to Islam and so because of
32:32that it is seen as highly significant
32:35just from the fact that it has Mecca
32:37located within its borders and so if a
32:39debate is about you know territorial
32:41disputes or about you know trying to
32:43undermine the legitimacy of a state
32:45through reclaiming these religious sites
32:47um it's that could be one of the aspects
32:51that you that you explore the final
32:53point that I want to make about how
32:55religious states extract that religious
32:57mandate is that that often loads of
32:59people like even if states have the
33:02incentive to perpetuate or to subscribe
33:05to a highly specific interpretation of
33:07that religion and enforce it from the
33:08top down sometimes it's not always
33:10successful and people may be over time
33:12liberalized or subscribe to a different
33:14form of that religion um so the ability
33:17for states to appropriately continue
33:19surviving and not be completely
33:21dismounted or ejected um could also just
33:23look like reforming religious Norms to
33:25adapt to current social po political
33:27demands so what you're seeing in lots of
33:29for example religiously conservative
33:31countries is that as more and more young
33:34people interact with global media um
33:37they become a little bit more liberal
33:39and a little bit more globally minded
33:41and because of that maybe social
33:42conservativism just isn't as popular
33:44with them anymore or they become more
33:46and more retaliatory towards attempts to
33:48enforce this highly conservative
33:50religious scripture and so loads of
33:52countries actually feel compelled to
33:54adjust and reform religious Norms in
33:56order to adapt to that uh so cool so
33:59like when you're analyzing theocracies
34:01note that this is how they extract the
34:03legitimacy how they extract that power
34:05and Regional clout even with like with
34:08within people like with people within
34:10their state as well as other countries
34:13that subscribe to that same religion so
34:15if you're looking at places like the
34:16Middle East being seen as a you know
34:19religious power it's very important in
34:22for example geopolitics within that
34:23region great
34:28now semi like now I want to talk about
34:30like authoritarian regimes SL
34:33semi-authoritarian regimes so this could
34:35look like you know places like China
34:37like Russia where you know there are
34:39electoral mechanisms so there are things
34:41like elections but they like people seem
34:44to say that they're mostly symbolic and
34:46they're mostly nonfunctional um but
34:48these are states where public pressure
34:50still acts as a highly destabilizing
34:52force uh due to protests opposition
34:54movements maybe secession um and so note
34:57that it's not a complete dictatorship in
34:59the sense that you can just like crack
35:00down on people pretty successfully with
35:02military power there is still a really
35:04really big motivation to satisfy people
35:07on the ground and to stop that kind of
35:09on the ground resentment of the state
35:11because public pressure is still a
35:13highly destaing Force even in
35:14semi-authoritarian regimes it just can't
35:16be expressed to things like elections so
35:19in these regimes uh the party empow must
35:22justify itself somehow in order to quell
35:24kind of discontentment on the ground it
35:26has to kind of say that its mandate is
35:28sourced from somewhere so before we see
35:30that a state's mandate is sourced from
35:32religion these are other places where
35:34the mandates can also be sourced from
35:35economic like guaranteeing people
35:37economic growth and prosperity um
35:39protecting national identity fighting
35:41internal external threats or Heritage in
35:43Dynasty so a good example um for each of
35:47these is like for example China and the
35:49CCP tends to justify its existence and
35:51its continued domination over Chinese
35:54politics by saying hey we have the party
35:56that guaranteed your economic growth
35:57that pulled China out of like complete
36:01poverty within just a few decades and
36:03made it a huge economic Powerhouse and
36:04uplifted millions of people um and so
36:07that's one way it can justify therefore
36:10you know we should continue being the
36:12main party in power because we can
36:13continue guaranteeing you that economic
36:15growth and prosperity um and then the
36:18example of the next one is like
36:19protecting national identity a really
36:21good example is places like Russia where
36:23they say we are the like the way that
36:26they say or like justify themselves is
36:28that you know you have to protect this
36:30Russian identity um that has been
36:32undermined by the West for a long time
36:34you know we've been humiliated by things
36:36like the cold war we've lost our way and
36:38what we need to do is Reb bolster this
36:40idea of Russian identity protect Russian
36:42minorities over the borders um and kind
36:45of have pride in this traditionalist
36:47idea of what it means to be Russian um
36:49and so it could justify Itself by being
36:51kind of the Safeguard for that national
36:53identity um and I bet you can you guys
36:55can find similar examples for the next
36:58two sources of mandates like fighting
37:00internal external threats or you know
37:02just maybe like the party in power is
37:03just has been the party in power for a
37:05very long time and so there this notion
37:07of Heritage or Dynasty there um like
37:10examples like the BJP um in India which
37:13was kind of associated with the
37:14postcolonial independence movement cool
37:17so remember like remember the semi
37:20authoritarian States like theocracies
37:21are structured in a specific way so
37:24maybe they have only one party in power
37:27Maybe there's a strong military presence
37:29and the narrative that it uses to
37:30justify itself must also justify how
37:33it's structured so it doesn't just
37:34randomly pick like one of these three or
37:37one of these four narratives to justify
37:39itself or to try to sell itself to
37:41people or rather it tends to tailor its
37:44narrative based on what why the state is
37:47structured in such a way to quell local
37:49discontentment so for example China has
37:52a one- party system and the way it
37:54justifies that one party system um is by
37:57using its track record of providing
37:59economic Prosperity so it says you know
38:01one party system more able to do that
38:03long-term economic planning and pass
38:05those ambitious economic projects which
38:08have been the reason why we've been able
38:09to lift ourselves out of poverty um and
38:12so it continues justifying why the CCP
38:15is so dominant using a specific
38:17narrative and it's chosen this narrative
38:19quite like not coincidentally but quite
38:21intentionally in order to justify itself
38:23in order to quell what local people are
38:26discontent about so for example loads of
38:28young Chinese people are very discontent
38:30that there is only one party and that
38:32this one party chooses to to suppress
38:34lots of civil liberties and the way that
38:36it fights back is responsive to a lot of
38:38this kind of discontentment you know we
38:40can't have civil liberties because
38:41they're destabilizing um they not might
38:44not be good for economic Prosperity um
38:46and there must we can't have a
38:47multi-party system because it'll be much
38:49harder to do long-term economic planning
38:52so note that the narratives that states
38:56use is resp responsive to local
38:58discontentment or public pressure on the
39:00ground as well as the structure that the
39:03state itself is is is functioning in
39:06hope that makes sense if it's confusing
39:08please please ask me
39:10questions actually like I should
39:12probably check the chat in case there
39:14are questions nope there aren't
39:15questions if you have any questions
39:16please type them in the chat great next
39:19type of State you're likely going to
39:20interact with is a dictatorship so
39:23dictatorships have power that is highly
39:24centralized to a central core party or
39:27or a s even a single individual and
39:30there's very very little tolerance for
39:32political pluralism or or kind of just
39:34like open discourse and freedom of
39:36speech that criticizes the party in
39:38power or the individual in power so
39:40dictatorships tend to highly rely on
39:43strong military support and propaganda
39:45to stabilize themselves of course
39:46dictatorships are not the most
39:48prosperous or lovely places to live in
39:51and so the local discontentment with the
39:53dictatorship is probably all-time high
39:56um the way that it quills this local
39:58discontentment is not through a
39:59narrative way like semi-authoritarian
40:01regimes but through things like just
40:03cracking down with military might so
40:06maintaining a strong military support is
40:09probably pretty expensive and so funding
40:12in where these dictatorships get that
40:13funding is incredibly integral because
40:15that's the thing that allows them to buy
40:17over Military Support um as well as you
40:21know just allows them to put military
40:22figures within key parts of the
40:24government so this means that dict since
40:27dictatorships typically are not like
40:29economic powerhouses that can fund
40:31themselves um they tend to highly rely
40:34upon allies for that funding for the for
40:36the military um so this means that their
40:38allies can exert huge huge amounts of
40:41influence so what we see for example
40:42with the China North Korea um with with
40:45China and North Korea relations Is that
40:46China had a lot a lot of Leverage
40:49against North Korea simply because it
40:51was such a huge source of that funding
40:53um that North Korea highly relied upon
40:55in order to stabilize their own
40:57government so dictatorships can fold
41:00when a significant fraction of that
41:02military turns against them so there is
41:05there may be like a coup within the the
41:07military or there's a significant
41:09faction of it that no longer obey the
41:11government uh and so or it can just be a
41:14foreign intervention that cuts of
41:15military and economic Supply so this
41:17looks like um Ally suddenly not
41:19providing them economic support or it
41:21can just be simple foreign intervention
41:24that invades that country and ejects the
41:26dictator in power so popular protests
41:29unlike in semi-authoritarian regimes are
41:32very unlikely going to be successful
41:34unless they have that military might and
41:36can pose a significant military threat
41:38or they have some faction in the
41:40military that is with them or no longer
41:43supports the government and no longer
41:45kind of cracks down on people so note
41:47that popular protests are unlikely going
41:49to be successful on their own unless the
41:51previous things I talked talked about
41:53were men um so you know foreign
41:55intervention allies no longer supporting
41:57them
41:58uh you know the US helping you invade or
42:00fight this dictatorship um or just the
42:02military turning against them so this is
42:05a really really good way to debate
42:07things like this house would militarily
42:09intervene in places like you know in the
42:11Middle East or in loads of other
42:12conflicts in the
42:17world so and the last one is democracies
42:20uh so Mo lots of states are actually
42:23democracies surprise surprise but like
42:25know that democracies especially full
42:27ones like very like ones that like the
42:29UK or ones like the I guess not the us
42:32anymore but like lots of places in
42:33Western Europe are highly impacted by
42:35Sentiments of citizens in our elections
42:37so local sentiment is one of the biggest
42:40determinants in foreign policy and I
42:42think this is actually one of the
42:44poorest debated topics or the poorest
42:48debated systems in debate because I
42:50think people take for granted how
42:52democracies work so note that lots of
42:54governments and democracies are always
42:56going to be po to some extent what form
42:59of populism is successful is highly
43:01dependent on the context of the state um
43:03so all all states will all Democratic
43:06states would do something that is
43:08popular with their people but what is
43:10popular with that with their people is
43:12dependent on the people themselves and
43:14how they feel uh and how that feelings
43:16have changed over time for example um in
43:20the early 2000s highly interventionist
43:23US policy was very very popular with
43:25American people because you know it kind
43:26of into this idea that we know we're the
43:28global policemen we have a duty towards
43:31protecting you know rights and freedoms
43:34and you know it's our responsibility
43:36because America is exceptional both in
43:38its power over the world as well as you
43:41know in the ideals that it proposes um
43:43and so because of that has like the duty
43:45to reform the world such that it's a
43:46better place so highly interventionist
43:48policy was very very popular with loads
43:50of people um now after the pretty
43:53terrible things like the Iraq War the
43:55war and Terror
43:57like highly interventionist US policy is
43:59just no longer really that popular it
44:01seems like populists place a lot more
44:04emphasis on this kind of Americans first
44:06perspective that the US should only
44:08intervene when it directly benefits
44:10American citizens so it's a lot more
44:11withdrawn and a lot more introvert
44:14introverted and inward facing uh policy
44:16now and so as you can see governments
44:19will always do stuff that is popular
44:20with their people but what is popular
44:22with that people is very very dependent
44:24on the sociopolitical context of that
44:26time so what a kind social political
44:27contexts are we talking about first kind
44:29of context is whether or not um people
44:33perceive their role to be introverted or
44:36extroverted do they perceive themselves
44:38to be a trend Setter or a trend follower
44:40really good example of a country that
44:42just concedes that it's likely going to
44:44be a trend follower is Singapore so
44:47Singapore being a very very small state
44:50um people believe that they have not a
44:53lot of impact in global politics and
44:56hence what they're likely going to do or
44:58what their role is is to just kind of
45:00like influence Norms in a very soft kind
45:02of way to be like a like a mediator for
45:05conflicts and just therefore to be a lot
45:07more inward facing and just focus on
45:09what it can guarantee which is
45:11singaporeans first um and so whether
45:14like so whether or not countries feel
45:16introverted or extroverted is a huge
45:19part in how popular and action or motion
45:21is likely going to be with people and
45:23how effective it is so if it looks like
45:25something like the US should intervene
45:27somewhere or the US should broker a deal
45:29between Iran or something like that um
45:31you can say things like military
45:33intervention sure the the motion allows
45:36you to say that you'll do the
45:37intervention but not that you it' be
45:39very good um so it could look like if
45:42it's not popular people on the ground
45:43you could just pull out way too early
45:45and cause a lot more damage because
45:47you've pulled out of that military
45:48intervention um so yeah so analyzing
45:52local sentiments on the ground it's very
45:53very good analyzing how effective a
45:56emotion mechanism is like you're going
45:58to be another type of uh social
46:00political context is important to know
46:02is US versus them so who are we and who
46:05do we owe loyalties to or and who is to
46:08blame for a lot of problems so I keep
46:10using the US example but of course this
46:11is just really true for lots of other
46:13countries is that there is always this
46:15idea that you know there is a body of
46:18people that constitutes a community that
46:21we belong to um and these are people who
46:23we owe loyalties to um and then there is
46:26the other f
46:27who caus all the terrible problems that
46:29we we currently face so um in outright
46:33American conservative politics you know
46:35like who we owe loyalty to of course the
46:38American people but also like even the
46:40West the idea this this constructive
46:43idea of like the Western European block
46:45that forwards freedom of speech and all
46:47the civil liberties ideas um and so
46:50these are people we owe Liberties to and
46:52we have to protect um versus you know
46:54the outside Invaders which are just like
46:56ref refes or just like China etc etc and
46:59these are the people who undermine
47:01everything that we as a community stand
47:03for um so a really interesting way to
47:06understand democracies is who who do
47:09these countries consider to be in their
47:11ingroup and who do they consider to be
47:13in that outg group um and so because of
47:15that it really affects how popular a
47:18policy is likely going to be and how
47:20well it's likely going to be carried out
47:22third social political context just
47:24foreign intervention how willing are we
47:25to sacrifice resources and people um Not
47:28only was America like Not only was
47:32America unwilling to as interventionist
47:35simply because it's it's doesn't see its
47:38role as a global polican anymore and
47:40those kind of that disillusionment but
47:41furthermore the wars are really
47:43expensive was is it like really costly
47:45in terms of the lives that you have to
47:46sacrifice um the resources you have to
47:48spend on it Etc so just like you can
47:51just say like how willing is that
47:53country to actually sacrifice these
47:54things uh in order to protect
47:57either people who are maybe in the outg
47:59group or maybe ideals that no longer
48:01believes in um so if it's something like
48:03human rights how willing are people to
48:06protect the ideal of Human Rights and
48:08how strongly do they feel about that um
48:10such that they are willing to sacrifice
48:12quite a big bulk of resources and people
48:15and you can do a lot of interesting
48:16analysis about you know are these
48:18resources and people that you're
48:19sacrificing actually going to be that
48:21large with you know the Advent of drone
48:23technology Etc um will this affect how
48:26willing people are to sacrifice those
48:29small amounts of resources in order to
48:31protect something that they care about
48:33Etc um and the final thing is
48:35international organizations so you know
48:38when you're analyzing how democracies
48:40interact with organizations like the IMF
48:42the un uh the EU it's about whether or
48:45not they feel a shared sense of identity
48:47with other states within that
48:49organization um so you can say that
48:51loads the reasons why loads and loads of
48:53for example developing states are no
48:54longer feel like devoted to places like
48:58the UN is because they no longer feel
49:00that the global project is one that is
49:02possible that it is possible to for This
49:04Global Vision where everyone just you
49:07know everyone is kind of in this like
49:09Kumbaya together rather it feels like it
49:12is just impossible for countries that
49:14have no power that are relatively
49:16oppressed to ever cooperate with richer
49:18States because richer States just screw
49:19them over so historically you can say
49:21that the identity that these
49:25organizations push forward has just been
49:27eroded over time or it's been maybe even
49:29bolstered over time and so you can
49:31analyze how do the individual member
49:33states feel about that organization do
49:35they feel like they can still share an
49:37identity share a shared project with
49:39other states um and does do they still
49:42believe that the international
49:43organization materially benefits them um
49:46so this is really good when analyzing
49:48how States interact with the policies
49:50that International organizations forward
49:52so even if it's something like the who
49:54like the World Health Organization
49:55telling states to to do lockdown sooner
49:58or to sanitize do states listen to that
50:01advice and whether or not they listen to
50:03that advice is highly dependent upon
50:05whether or not they have a good
50:05relationship with that International
50:07Organization uh cool so I think that's
50:09the end of the presentation if there are
50:12any questions whatsoever this is the
50:14time to ask
50:16them if not begin oh okay cool regarding
50:22democracy's critical circumstances I
50:24have a question in accordance with the
50:26global democracy can it be inferred that
50:29the more capable countries are legally
50:32allowed to intervene in
50:34smaller
50:36countries uh yeah so like there is like
50:40so there is a a right to protect that is
50:44enshrined in international law so um
50:47actually it is a duty to protect in like
50:49lots of international law like the
50:50United Nations I don't know if it's a
50:52law but rather a norm but there is kind
50:54of this idea that it is okay to
50:56intervene in States as long as you are
50:58there to protect them um and but this
51:00must be like substantially proven that
51:02you have a that you are actually
51:04protecting them um and what your actions
51:06are are not
51:10detrimental so I hope that answers the
51:12question uh okay cool so yeah there like
51:15it is okay for larger states to
51:16intervene in small state it is legal for
51:18them to do so that is legal precedent
51:19for doing it
51:22great so I have the presentation that
51:25says what rooms you guys are supposed to
51:28be in let me just get that up

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of States & International Actors - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 9 by Manchester Debating Union, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,640 words across 1,418 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.