Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7


A. Interpretation Removing sanctions is a form of appeasement Stern 6 (Martin, University of Maryland Graduate, Debunking detente, 11/27/06, http://www.diamondbackonline.com/article_56223e797009-56a3-8afe-5d08bfff6e08.html)

Appeasement is defined as "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Giving Iran international legitimacy and removing sanctions would have maintained peace with a potential enemy without changing the undemocratic practices of the enemy. If this isn't appeasement, I don't know how better to define the word.

Engagement and appeasement are distinct Resnick 1 (Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS,
Defining Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-91147d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=m th&AN=4437301)
Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas both policies are positive sanctions--insofar as they add to the power and prestige of the target state--engagement does so in a less direct and less militarized fashion than appeasement. In addition, engagement

differs from appeasement by establishing an increasingly interdependent relationship between the sender and the target state. At any juncture, the sender state can, in theory, abrogate such a relationship at some (ideally prohibitive) cost to the target state.(n34) Appeasement, on the other hand, does not involve the establishment of contacts or interdependence between the appeaser and the appeased. Territory and/or a sphere of influence are merely transferred by one party to the other either unconditionally or in exchange for certain concessions on the part of the target state.

B. Violation they remove restrictions thats appeasement C. Voting issue 1. Limits infinite amount of restrictions the aff can remove explodes neg research burden 2. Ground Lose spending links based off of increases in funding

CIR will passgrowing momentum but its fragile Cap Times 7/3
Congress should get serious about immigration reform [http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/congress-should-get-serious-aboutimmigration-reform/article_5dae2cf5-93b4-5aff-af20-862a40a41d7f.html] //mtc

Prominent Republicans, including the partys 2008 presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and a potential 2016 nominee, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, voted for reform. If the pattern of strong Democratic support for reform combined with significant Republican backing continues in the House, the legislation will pass and it will be signed by the president. Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is on board, saying: Our nation has always been built on the concept of inclusion and openness, and I am pleased that the U.S. Senate
today passed bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This bill takes important steps to ensure we can keep families together, have a road map to citizenship for new American immigrants, and that all workers are treated fairly. The time is now to act on a new, common-sense immigration process, and I urge the House to move on this matter as soon as possible. Congressman Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, and Congresswoman Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, should

be yes votes. The same goes for Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, who along with Rubio has been an outspoken backer of reform.

Any liberal policy towards Cuba drains PCcongress will retaliate and take the rest of Obamas agenda hostage LeoGrande 12public affairs professor @ American University
William, Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? [http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf] December 18 //mtc The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political

considerations played a major role in Obama's Cuba policy during the first term, albeit not as preeminent a consideration as
they were during the Clinton years. In 2009, Obama's new foreign policy team got off to a bad start when they promised Senator Menendez that they would consult him before changing Cuba policy. That was the price he extracted for providing Senate Democrats with the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster on a must-pass omnibus appropriations bill to keep the government operating. For the next four years, administration officials worked more closely with Menendez, who opposed the sort of major redirection of policy Obama had promised, than they did with senators like John Kerry (D-Mass.), chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, whose views were more in line with the president's stated policy goals. At the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Arturo

Valenzuela favored initiatives to improve relations with Cuba, but he was stymied by

indifference or resistance elsewhere in the bureaucracy. Secretary Hillary Clinton, having staked out a tough
position Cuba during the Democratic primary campaign, was not inclined to be the driver for a new policy. At the NSC, Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Dan Restrepo, who advised Obama on Latin America policy during the 2008 campaign, did his best to avoid the Cuba issue because it was so fraught with political danger. When the president finally approved the

resumption of people-to-people travel to Cuba, which Valenzuela had been pushing, the White House political team delayed the announcement for several months at the behest of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Any easing of the travel regulations, she warned, would hurt Democrats' prospects in the upcoming mid-term elections.43 The White House shelved the new regulations until January 2011, and then announced them late Friday
before a holiday weekend. Then, just a year later, the administration surrendered to Senator Rubio's demand that it limit the licensing of travel providers in exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuela's replacement.44 With Obama in his final term and Vice-President Joe Biden unlikely to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 (unlike the situation Clinton and Gore faced in their second term), politics will presumably play a less central role in deciding Cuba policy over the next four years. There will still be

the temptation, however, to sacrifice Cuba policy to mollify congressional conservatives, both

Democrat and Republican, who are willing to hold other Obama initiatives hostage to extract concessions on Cuba . And since Obama has given in to such hostage-taking
previously, the hostage-takers have a strong incentive to try the same tactic again. The only way to break
this cycle would be for the president to stand up to them and refuse to give in, as he did when they attempted to rollback his 2009 relaxation of restrictions on CubanAmerican travel and remittances. Much will depend on who makes up Obama's new foreign policy team, especially at the Department of State. John Kerry has been a strong advocate of a more open policy toward Cuba, and worked behind the scenes with the State Department and USAID to clean up the "democracy promotion" program targeting Cuba, as a way to win the release of Alan Gross. A new secretary is likely to bring new assistant secretaries, providing an opportunity to revitalize the

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which has been thoroughly cowed by congressional hardliners. But even with new players in place, does Cuba rise to the level of importance that would justify a major new initiative and the

bruising battle with conservatives on the Hill? Major policy changes that require a significant expenditure of political capital rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers to take

PC key to CIRObama renewing his push AFP 6/12

Agence Press France, US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle [http://articles.economictimes.in diatimes.com/2013-0612/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigration-bill-democratic-senator-chuck-schumer] WASHINGTON: Bolstered

by support from President Barack Obama, a landmark immigration bill passed a pair of crucial test votes on Tuesday in the US Senate, kicking off weeks of debate on the comprehensive reform.
After months of initial wrangling and more than 100 new amendments offered to the underlying legislation, the Senate -- in an act of broad bipartisanship -- voted 84-15 to move to debate passage of what would be the most important immigration reform in nearly 30 years. "This overwhelming vote, a majority of both parties, starts this bill off on just the right foot," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the Gang of Eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- who crafted the measure, which now comes to 1,076 pages. Republican Jeff Flake, also an author of the bill, told AFP the votes marked "a good start (but) we have a long way to go," citing potential roadblocks over border security issues and acknowledging what may be an uphill climb to pass similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes to pass the bill by early July. The legislation provides a 13-year pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million people living illegally in the United States, tightens border security, and aims to collect back taxes from undocumented workers. It also would revise visa programs for high-tech employees and agriculture workers, require firms to use an e-verify program that prevents illegal hires and compel those receiving provisional legal status to learn English. Obama insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The

made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are president has gently pushed the bill from behind the

scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama waded into the

fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election
campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans
-- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama

also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious about it,
if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a

frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very helpful" to the process. But he stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely
at whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the party's political future by alienating millions of voters.

Immigration reform expands skilled laborspurs relations and economic growth in China and India. LA Times 12
[Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerlyawaited-by-source-countries.html] 11/9

" C omprehensive i mmigration r eform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not," he said.

US-Indian relations avert South Asian nuclear war. Schaffer 2 [Spring 2002, TeresitaDirector of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security, Washington
Quarterly, Lexis]

Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future

nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.

China DA
A. Uniqueness: China influence is up and US engagement is down recent trips pale in comparison to policy. Martinez 13 (Guillermo I., Columnist, America losing influence throughout Latin
America May 23, 2013, The Sun Sentinel, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-0523/news/fl-gmcol-oped0523-20130523_1_drug-cartels-latin-america-pri)-mikee Once upon a time, as many fairy tales start, the United States was the prevailing force in Latin America . It had a coherent policy for its southern neighbors, and its opinions mattered to those who governed in the region. Despite President Barack Obama's recent trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, and Vice President Joe Biden's upcoming trip to the region, that is no more . The days when John F. Kennedy created the Alliance for Progress and was a
hero to the young throughout the western hemisphere have been gone for more than half a century. The time when Jimmy Carter pledged to back only those governments that respected human rights and encouraged that caudillos be ousted is also a historical footnote. True, the world has changed. The attacks of September 11, 2001 made everyone look to the East; to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Iran, Syria and other countries in the Middle East. Israel is still crucial to American foreign policy, more so now that militants are willing to die to kill Americans and Israelis. Latin America also changed when the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chvez was elected. The rising price of oil gave Chvez riches beyond belief and he began sharing it with similar-minded leaders in Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Argentina; just to name a few. Colombia once depended greatly on the Plan Colombia assistance from the United States to fight the FARC guerrillas and the drug lords that governed much of the country. The emphasis on the Plan Colombia since Juan Manuel Santos took office has decreased. Santos also believes in negotiations with the FARC and closer ties to those who govern in Venezuela. Mexico counted on American intelligence assistance and money to fight the drug cartels until Obama's visit to Enrique Pea Nieto, recently elected president. The communique at the end of the meeting talked about new economic cooperation between the two nations and how together they would fight the drug cartels. Not highlighted was the Mexican-imposed position that the United States agents would no longer be welcome in their country and that the cooperation would be respectful of their sovereign rights. Pea Nieto, the candidate of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) wanted a different approach to the war on drugs; one that would mitigate the violence that had killed thousands of Mexicans in the last decade. Finally, China has helped change the equation. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, for several years the United States was the only super power. When American presidents spoke, the world listened. Now

China offers both a challenge to the United States, as a second super power, and has become an alternative economic trading partner for countries throughout the world. Still, it is inconceivable that American media and officials pay so little attention to the region. Maybe those around President Obama have not told him that Iran has close ties with
Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela. Certainly the administration must know Cuba and Venezuela are so close that many critics of President Nicols Maduro are now saying Cubans are helping to keep him in power. They talk, only part in jest, that there is a new country in the region called Cubazuela the alliance between Cuba's Ral Castro and Maduro's supporters is so close. It is true all have heard the main culprit of the drug trade in the world is American and European consumption. Yet the United States has waged war on the producers and importers, and not on the consumers at home.

Seldom has Latin America been

further from American influence. Many of the leftists' presidents in the region consider the United States their enemy. Others maintain cordial, or even friendly relations with Washington, but are quick to negotiate economic deals with China. The task is not easy, granted. Yet it would help if the United States and the Obama Administration articulated a policy for its neighbors in Latin America. They should not be
a second thought in America foreign policy. The region deserves better. So does the United States. This country needs to improve those ties or continue to lose status as a premier world power. This is no fairy tale.

B. Link: Engagement is zero-sum Chinas power depends on Americas neglect. Kreps 13 (Sarah E. Kreps & Gustavo A. Flores-Macas are Assistant Professors of
Government at Cornell University, No Strings Attached? Evaluating Chinas Trade Relations Abroad, May 17, 2013, http://thediplomat.com/china-power/no-strings-attached-evaluatingchinas-trade-relations-abroad/)-mikee

To be sure, China

may not have a purposeful plan to bring their trade partners into alignment on foreign policy questions. Even if unintentional, however, this gravitational effect has a sound economic basis. Developing countries in Africa and Latin America
are comparatively much more dependent on China than China is on these countries. In a ten year period, for example, Sudans t rade with China rose from 1 to 10% of its Gross Domestic Product. That pattern is even starker in a country like Angola, for which trade with China represented 25% of its GDP in 2006. While China certainly needs access to the resources

in these countries, the individual countries are far less important to China than China is to these countries. The asymmetry in needs gives China a bargaining

advantage that translates into foreign policy outcomes even if not by explicit design. Whether by design or not, the convergence with Chinas foreign policy goals is important on at least two levels. First, developing countries in Africa and Latin America may be lulled by the prospect of partnering with a country such as China that does not have an explicit political agenda, as did the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold
War, but this appears to be an illusion. Whether this reaches the level of new colonialism as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to it remains to be seen, but the economic asymmetries that undergird the relationship make that prospect more likely. A second set of implications deals with the United States. During the same period in which Chinas

trade with Africa and Latin America and foreign policy convergence have increased, the United States and China have actually diverged in their overall UNGA voting behavior. This suggests something of a zero sum dynamic in which Chinas growing trade relations make it easier to attract allies in international forums while US influence is diminishing. Taken together, these trends call for greater engagement on behalf of the United States in the developing world. Since the September 2001 attacks, Washington has dealt with Africa and Latin America through benign neglect and shifted its attention elsewhere. If foreign policy alignment does follow from tighter commercial relations, the US ought to reinvigorate its trade and diplomatic agenda as an important means of projecting influence abroad.

C. Impact: 1. Continued engagement key to growth & CCP stability. Farnsworth 12 (Eric Farnsworth is vice-president of the Council of the Americas in
Washington DC and from 1995 to 1998 was senior adviser to the White House special envoy for the Americas. Memo to Washington: China's Growing Presence in Latin America, Americas Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Winter, 2012, http://www.americasquarterly.org/Farnsworth)-mikee What is China doing in the Americas? Its a good questionand an increasingly important one for
policymakers in Washington. According to one U.S. analyst, its about goodwill, good business and strategic position.1 Perh aps. But the jury is still out, mostly because Chinas interest in the Western Hemisphere is barely a decade old. For many years, beyond attempts to wean Latin American and Caribbean nations away from support for Taiwan and efforts to build Third World solidarity, Chinas footprint in the Americas was light. That has now changed. Since then-President Jiang Zemins 13-day

trip to Latin America in April 2001 and the subsequent visits of President Hu Jintao in 2004 and 2011, Chinese engagement with the region has exploded. Today, China is the top trade partner of Brazil and Chile, and the
second trade partner of Argentina and Peru. By late 2010, Chinese enterprises had invested almost $44 billion in the region, according to Chinas National Development and Reform Commission, almost a quarter of which was invested in 2010 alone. Top investment targets included Brazil, but also Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Innovative financing by Chinese entities was often behind the dealsand in some cases, such as Ecuador and Venezuela, investments took the form of loans secured by guaranteed future deliveries of oil. That is a marked change from 2003, the year before Hus first visit, when China invested just $1 billion in all of Latin America. By now the outlines of the story are well known. As

part of the dash for economic growth that the Chinese Communist Party believes will help to maintain its legitimacyan average annual rate of 9.8 percent from 1979 to 2009, including an 8.7 percent growth rate in 2009 when much of the rest of the world faced economic collapseBeijing is on a global quest to lock in the natural resources that fuel its growth. From Southeast Asia

to Africa to Latin America and beyond, China

is scouring the globe to invest in primary commodities. By the end of 2011, more than $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provided an impressive war chest from which to purchase the global assets that Chinas leaders believe they need to support economic growthand thus political stabilityfor the medium to longer term. As China faces its own near-term leadership transition, efforts to purchase domestic political stability with foreign trade and investment are likely to intensify. At the same time, Latin American nations that have been the primary trade and investment partners with China have also gained handsomely, at least in the short term, in the sectors that produce primary goods. Longer term questions abound regarding
the balance and terms of trade, the nature of the investments that China is making, and the values that are being promoted or undermined by such investments.2 Additionally, nations that are not supplying significant amounts of commodities to China, including Mexico and Central America, view China more as an aggressive competitor than as an economic partner. The costs and benefits of trade with China are unequally distributed across the Americas.

2. CCP instability leads to nuclear war. Rexing, 5 (San, Staff Epoch Times, The CCPs Last Ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear
War, 8-5, http://english.epochtimes.com/ news/5-8-5/30975.html)
What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A

cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity. If you dont believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches. 1) We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in
which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for

the sake of our Party and state and our nations future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! 2) In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! Wed rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isnt there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that since the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of
bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished. 3) It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, wed have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Partys

life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate