Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

1NC

Politics DA
Theres bipartisan support for a bill now maintaining bipartisanship is key to
passage
Rosenberg, 7/18/13 President and Founder of NDN, a leading progressive think tank and advocacy organization (Simon,
Immigration Reform Is Very Much Alive. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-rosenberg/immigration-reform-is-
ver_b_3617406.html)
Contrary to recent news accounts, we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than at
any point since John McCain and Ted Kennedy introduced their bill in 2005. Consider: The Senate passed a bill
with 68 votes, the most any immigrant reform bill has received since this process began. The last time an immigration bill
passed the Senate it was in 2006, and it received just 62 votes. The House, whose last major vote on immigration reform was
in 2005 and called for the deportation of the 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S., has already passed five
immigration and border related bills out of committee. Last week Speaker John Boehner said he
believed the House needed to do something on immigration reform this Congress, and next week Republicans
are having a public hearing on the DREAM Act. While much has been written about the need Republicans have to
support immigration reform to get back in the game with Latino voters, I think an equally compelling reason why the House is
already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill is the pressure they feel
to meet the very high bar set by the Senate "Gang of Eight" framework. Their framework will give the country a
better legal immigration system, one more based on bringing growth producing skilled labor. It will close some of the holes in our
interior enforcement system, build on the significant gains made in border security in recent years and make the border region even
safer. It will make needed investments in 47 ports of entry with Mexico, facilitating more trade and tourism, creating more jobs on
both sides of the border. It creates an arduous but achievable path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already
in the country. And remarkably, it will grow the economy, create jobs and lower the deficit by a $1 trillion over 20 years. In a time
where Americans have so little faith in their government to meet the emerging challenges of our time, the Gang of Eight
framework is a bit of a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy, broad bi-partisan
support, a deep and diverse political coalition backing it. It just is very hard for the House
Republicans to walk away from all that too. And they haven't. I n the last few mont hs the House Republi cans have passed bill s relating t o bor der security, i nterior enforcement and changes in the l egal immigration sy stem. They are talki ng about the DREAMAct a nd a "pat h to legalization." The Bor der Caucus is floati ng smart proposals to i nvest i n our ports of entry, something t hat co uld hel p bring bor der state Republi cans along. Some House Republi cans have even sai d they ex pect a bill with citizenshi p to eventually pass and be sig ned i nto law. The characterizati on of the House Republi cans as standi ng in the way
of immigration reform is only half right. They are, as t he Founders intended, movi ng this i ssue through their chamber at thei r own pace. Thi s is to be expected, frankly. Unlike the Senate the House hasn't really debat ed the i ssue since 2005, and ther e are many new members partic ularly in the Republ ican Conference. There j ust isn't a l ot of instit utional knowledg e about the i ssue. Institutional bl uster, perhaps, but not a lot of knowl edge or understandi ng. So they need time. Another reason the House Republi cans need time to work thr oug h the issue i s the House chamber's uni que hist ory with immigration reform. Just a few months after Senator s McCain and Kennedy introduced t heir thoughtful bill in 2005, t he House v oted to arr est and deport the 11 million unauthorized immigrants i n the U.S. In 2006 when t he Senate passed McCai n-Kennedy, the House refused to even consider it. The default position for many in the Ho use GOP -- t hat the soluti on to t he 11 milli on is for them to all leave the country -- was in the platform of the
Republi can Party in 2012, and carri ed by it s nomi nee. Whil e there have been immigration ref ormers like Bush and McCain i n the GOP over the past decade, much of the Republican Party has str ongly held views that what the unaut horized immigrant population di d by j umping t he immigrant line was wrong, and that as a matter of policy, t he nati on cannot rewar d bad behavior . Getting t hose who hol d t hi s position to change i s not, and was never goi ng to be, easy. If dozens of Republi cans are to sig n on to a bill t hat has provi si ons they have sai d they will never support and deeply oppose, that too will requir e time. As someone who has worked on immigr ation reform si nce t he summer of 2005, I don't t hink the immigration bill i s dead -- it is very much alive. You can see the outli nes of an eventual deal. The House wil l likely accept much of the Senate enfor cement framework, dropping the expensive and reckless border surge but adding to t he interi or enfor cement provi sions. Dems might have to accept more Wlow skilled vi sas to get
the House to g o along with the Senate vi sion for the new skills -based l egal immigration sy stem. Adopti ng some of Senator Corny n's savvy pr oposal s on bor der infrastr uct ure investment coul d hel p bri ng him back to the table, and entice mor e bor der and growt h oriented GOPers to sign on. This of cour se leaves us wit h the 11 million, and l egalizati on and citi zenshi p. My own read of the sit uation is the House Leader shi p knows it must do somethi ng here, t hat leaving t he 11 million or even a large potion of the 11 milli on i n limbo just won't fly. As we saw in t he Senate process the GOP was wi lling to trade and deal on citizenshi p. Wit h the House GOP talking about DREAMers, Ag workers and legalization the el ements of an event ual deal are on the on tabl e. The Washingt on Post's Greg Sargent reported yester day that the bi -partisan "gang" in the House has worked out a pat h to citizenshi p, adopting a new trigger pr ocess, recasti ng the early stages of the path, and making it l onger. S o it is possi ble to for House Republi cans to craft a
citizenshi p pat h that the presi dent and the Dems can support if all the parties can sit down and work it all out. Reports of the death of immigration reformare prematur e. The Senate Bill may be dead i n the House, but immigration reform isn't. What the House comes up with will be different t han the Senate, but that' s why we have conference committees. I don't thi nk the differences between the two chamber s are as great as many beli eve; the Senate bill provided an extra ordinary fra mework to build fr om; a nd the House needs time to work thr ough it in their own way. Of course it is possible that the House conservatives bl ock any progr ess on immigration ref orm this year, but I thi nk their arg uments wil l weaken over time, not strengt hen. Why? Simply, they j ust aren't very good, and t he politics of recent years has made t hem jarringly obsolete. Bei ng on t he si de of fixing the br oken immigration system, creating j obs and reduci ng the deficit is just better politics than once agai n doing nothi ng about a very challenge facing t he country -
- even if it means citizenship for the 11 million. Something will pass t he House this year. Whether it is good, and ca n become somet hing sig ned by the president will depend to a great degree on how well our leaders work together to bring this tough process to concl usion. But a deal is out there to be made. I hope the tri bes of Washington can sei ze this moment and give America a far better immigration system t han we have today.
Changing Cuban policies is unpopular with Republicans and Democrats
Larison 4/3 (Daniel, senior editor at TAC, Foreign Policy Opportunities for the GOP, The American Conservative,
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/foreign-policy-opportunities-for-the-gop/, 04/03/13)
This is a good idea, but one that I doubt Republican hawks would be willing to contemplate. Pushing for normalized
relations with Cuba would be a much-needed demonstration that Republican foreign policy
thinking isnt completely inflexible, and it would show that Republicans dont want to hang on to failed policies
indefinitely. It would be a relatively painless change to make politically, and it might even work to the GOPs benefit in a Cuban-
American community that is no longer as reliably supportive of the party as it once was. The main reason that it isnt
likely to happen is that pro-embargo, anti-engagement attitudes are so entrenched among
most national Republican leaders that any significant change on Cuba policy in favor of
normalized relations would be seen as a betrayal of principle. Hawks and democratists would
both throw a fit, and accuse anyone who proposed this as a friend of Castro. This is completely the
wrong way to look at it, but it is unfortunately the way that party leaders steeped in moralizing rhetoric tend to view these things.
Bipartisanship key to agreements
Rubin 7/19 Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post reporter, 7/19/13, Bipartisanship abounds,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/07/19/bipartisanship-abounds/, MKB
This doesnt mean right and left agree on everything, or even most things. There are sharp philosophical divides on taxes, energy,
the budget and more. But bipartisanship can properly be seen as the ability to work together when
interests coincide or are reconcilable. Considering we have a divisive president, GOP control of the House, and a Democratic
majority in the Senate, there has been more agreement than you might think. A few points on bipartisanship are worth noting.
First: The Supreme Court, by essentially sending gay marriage back to the states, eliminated a hot-button issue on which there has
been much heat and little light. Sometimes sending issues out of D.C., in this case to state capitals, can promote deal-making.
Second: Bipartisanship is not an unalloyed benefit, or even a good unto itself. We can have rotten bipartisan agreement from the
conservative perspective (e.g. slash the defense budget in sequestration) or from the liberal vantage point (e.g. slash domestic
spending in sequestration). And finally: When President Obama is scarce, bipartisanship increases. When he
has been front and center (the grand bargain, gun control), nothing gets done. But when left to their
own devices, Congress manages to hash out agreement here and there, as they did on immigration
reform and student loans in the Senate. This is partially because the president insists on demeaning his
opponents, but it is also true that Senate Democrats are generally more moderate than the president. This makes deal-
making easier than when the president is involved. (We saw in the budget negotiations of 2011 that Obama
became paralyzed by his base and frittered away a tentative deal with the House speaker.) Bipartisanship is too often what
one side demands of the other when it wont agree to go along. But in fact it is one aspect of our political system that is working
better than most people think.
Immigration reform increases H1B visas substantially
Sterling Wong, studied economics and politics at Sarah Lawrence College and the University of Oxford, Jun 12, 2013, Expanding
the H1B Foreign Work Visa Quota Would Help Small Businesses Most, http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/politics-and-
regulation/articles/Expanding-the-H1B-Foreign-Work-Visa/6/12/2013/id/50294
Besides the most important issue of illegal immigration, another key provision of the bill is the expansion in the
number of H1B temporary work visas for workers with college degrees or in skilled
occupations from the current cap of 65,000 a year to 110,000. As is true of illegal immigration, the issue of legal
work immigration is contentious, with many voices supporting the plan to expand the number of H1B visas granted each year, and many others
opposing it. Those who argue in favor of expansion typically say the US has a shortage of American graduates with
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) degrees. Foreign workers on H1B visas are thus required to
fill a shortfall in STEM job positions.
H1B visas key to science diplomacy
Thomas R. Pickering and Peter Agre, writers for the Baltimore sun, February 09, 2010, More opportunities needed for U.S.
researchers to work with foreign counterparts, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-09/news/bal-
op.northkorea0209_1_science-and-technology-north-korea-scientists-and-engineers
In particular, the U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas
being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers. Their
contributions are critical to improving human welfare as well as our economy. Foreign
scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill ambassadors
for America globally -- an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers
often enter national politics. More broadly, we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S.
and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions to common challenges. Climate
change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and
wildlife, national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw
on science and technology.
Science diplomacy key to communication necessary to check proliferation
Micah D. Lowenthal is the director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility Safety Program in the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research
Council of the National Academies., January 19, 2011, NIteD StAteS INStItUte of PeACe SPeCIAL RePoRt, Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security,
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf
We have to remember that science is the foundation for the development of all weapons of mass destruction, and scientists also
create the basis for monitoring and verification technologies for reducing arsenals. International
science cooperation can create a basis for trust and confidence, and the climate of confidence is the key
element needed to eliminate nuclear weapons. So we have to deal with nuclear proliferation and nuclear
disarmament. Evgeniy Avrorin A sense of responsibility motivates many of the scientists engaged in science diplomacy
who are working to increase security by building greater mutual confidence. Diplomats, military leaders,
politicians, religious leaders, NGO experts, and others all have valuable capabilities they can bring to bear on these challenges. At their best,
scientists acknowledge other points of view and evaluate ideas based on the ideas merits, not
on who proposes them. This is fundamental to science. Avrorin said that in experiments we understand that the results are
unpredictable, there are various opinions, and the results must be tested. Scientists and science diplomacy have this to offer, an
important and valuable perspective that can temper the mix of competing positions on such important issues. The key ingredients for
success in science diplomacy include the following: Being Open to New Possibilities I was not convinced that the Cold War really was over. But just
one year later, one year after Reykjavik, I did become convinced that the Cold War was over. I was attending a meeting of American and Russian
scientists . . . the fifth in a series of meetings weve held since 1981. Some of you, in fact, were at that meeting. William Perry Secretary Perry
described his early 1980s belief that nuclear weapons were a necessary danger, required to maintain an
uneasy peace in the Cold War. He noted that in years of meetings between U.S. and Soviet experts, the Soviets had followed a tight
script dictated by the Kremlin, and the Kremlins position was bellicose and uncompromising. The first indication that Secretary Perry
got that the Cold War might be coming to an end and that 4 nuclear weapons might not be necessary in the future
occurred during a U.S.-Soviet science diplomacy meeting around 1987. For the first time, he witnessed
disagreements among the Soviet participants, more in fact than between the U.S. and Russian delegations. He could see that glasnost was real,
meaningful dialogue was possible, and the Cold War was winding down. Having a Vision and Exercising Leadership If youre constantly mired in
what is and you never look at what ought to be, youre never going to really get anywhere. former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz3 A few
years after Secretary Perrys observation of new openness in Russia, that same openness was exhibited in dramatic fashion in an
exercise that would have been hard to reconcile with the common understanding of the Cold War rivalry, which was beginning to fall apart. The
Soviet Union arranged for the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an NGO in the United States, to carry
out a set of measurements of the radiation from a real warhead on a Soviet Navy ship in 1989. (The experiments are described in the next section.)
Roald Sagdeev said that the importance of this experiment was displaying that the Gorbachev government was ready to provide such a
transparency, plus Glasnost extended to gamma rays and neutrons even from nuclear weapons. Thomas Cochran of the United States and Evgeny
Velikhov, a Soviet Academy member and scientific adviser to General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, conceived this experiment, known as the
Black Sea Experiment as a next step after the U.S.-USSR Test Ban Verification Projecta joint
Soviet Academy-NRDC effort using seismic monitors to measure chemical explosions adjacent to U.S. and Soviet test sites. Dr. Cochran credits Dr.
Velikhov, a bold scientist and a risk taker who had Gorbachevs ear, and Gorbachev, himself, for having the vision and exercising the leadership to
make the Black Sea Experiment a reality. Dr. Velikhov and Dr. Cochran knew the value of conducting the experiment as a demonstration of what Dr.
Sagdeev, Frank von Hippel, and others had calculated in studies. The demonstration provided a publicly known technical reference point for political
debate over nuclear reductions and verification. The fact that this was a joint effort, too, helped illustrate that cooperation and joint understanding
were possible.
Proliferation snowballs and puts everyone on hair trigger every small crisis
will go nuclear.
Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, serves on the U.S.
congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and
Terrorism, 9 (Henry, Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd, Policy Review June & July,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)
At a minimum, such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed
during the Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or
another of the two superpowers strong alliance systems the U.S.-led free world and the
Russian-Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small,
nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now
have one superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations
unilaterally with conventional arms alone, associated with a relatively weak alliance system (
nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk). nato is increasingly
integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia
(Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of an increasing number of
nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with
independent nuclear powers by making them strategic partners (e.g., India and Russia), nato
nuclear allies (France and the uk), non-nato allies (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic
stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran
or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In
this world, every nuclear power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia,
China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties with
one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as
being as important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities
(see Figure 3). There are limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak
alliance system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming analogous to
the international system that failed to contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike
1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere
on the globe. But in a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready
states, this may not matter as much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or
two states or groups that might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state
could check U.S. influence or ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing.
No amount of military science or tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or
neutralize such threatening or unstable nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our
intelligence services be relied upon to keep up to date on what each of these governments
would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends
with the others noted above and one could easily create the perfect nuclear storm: Small
differences between nuclear competitors that would put all actors on edge; an overhang
of nuclear materials that could be called upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing
nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new nuclear actors developing weapons
options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear rivalries between states
could easily be much more intense than before. Certainly each nuclear states military
would place an even higher premium than before on being able to weaponize its military
and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have forces that can
get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced military
states will also be even more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses
and long-range, precision guidance munitions, and to develop a variety of preventative and
preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations between states could become
far less stable. Relatively small developments e.g., Russian support for sympathetic near-
abroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently
in Mumbai; new Indian flanking activities in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments
or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in the Middle
East or South West Asia, etc. could easily prompt nuclear weapons deployments with
strategic consequences (arms races, strategic miscues, and even nuclear war). As
Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to
violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.23 In short, we may soon see
a future that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics, would ever want.
H.R. 1103. CP
Text: The United States federal government should pass H.R. 1103.
CP solves better prefer comparative evidence
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and, Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Darrell E. Issa, Representative in Congress from the State
of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 3/3/2010, DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK IMPLICATIONS OF HAVANA CLUB AND SECTION 211 OF THE
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1999,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-69_55221.PDF //BW
Section 211 was challenged in the WTO by the European Union. The WTO appellate body
resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United States on all points except one. The
appellate body made a narrow finding that because Section 211, on its face, does not apply to
U.S. nationals as well as Cuban nationals it is inconsistent with the national treatment and
most favored nation principles under the TRIPS Agreement , as Mr. Goodlatte asserted. The
appellate body fully supported the equitable principles embodied in Section 211, specifically
that the United States need not recognize uncompensated confiscation or protect stolen
intellectual property rights . Instead, Congress need only broaden its application of Section
211 to include U.S. nationals. This amounts to no more than a minor technical fix. H.R. 1103,
originally introduced this session by my friend and Florida colleague, former Representative
Robert Wexler and for which I substituted in as the bills first sponsor last week, provides this
narrow technical fix. It clarifies that these well-founded principles of equity in Section 211
apply to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban trademarks regardless of nationality.
H.R. 1103 will bring Section 211 into compliance with the WTO ruling. It will protect the
original owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks. It will apply to all people, regardless of
nationality. And most importantly, it will clarify that trademarks and trade names confiscated
by the Cuban government will not be recognized in the United States when the assertion is
being made by someone, like the joint venture between the Cuban government and Pernod
Ricard, who knew or had reason to know that the mark was confiscated. Some believe the time
has come to fully repeal Section 211. Repeal is not the answer. Repeal would put intellectual
property at much greater risk . Whether we are talking about pirated movies, music, computer
software, pharmaceuticals, or yes, even rum, we must never forget that our intellectual
property laws are our engines for innovation and prosperity. That is why our founding fathers
insisted upon including intellectual property rights in our Constitution, because they knew
America could never become the world leader in technology we are today without it. I believe
that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property
from individuals or companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt,
adequate, and effective compensation. It is hard to understand how anyone could think
otherwise. Foreign confiscatory measures have never been given effect on properties
situated in the United States and they must never be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
the balance of my time. Mr. C ONYERS. Thank you very much. We welcome our witnesses, John
Veroneau, of Covington & Burling; Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade
Council Mr. ISSA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was shaking yes when you asked. Mr.
CONYERS. Oh, I am sorry. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. ISSA. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have my entire opening statement put in the record*
Mr. CONYERS. Without objection. Mr. ISSA [continuing]. And briefly, I look forward to working
with the gentlelady from Florida, having worked with the gentleman from Florida previously.
Former Member Wexler and I felt that this was the narrowest fix, not necessarily a fix for all the
problems of Cuban theft in the 1960s, and we did so for a reason. This is one of the few
successful programs that has existed throughout the past. As you can imagine, Mr. Chairman,
the assets seized in the 1960 uprising in fact have all depreciated. They are gone. Tangible assets
have become worth little or nothing in Cuba. Even the land, without investments in
infrastructure, are worth very littlethe factories. The Coca-Cola factory would be of no value
to Coca-Cola today. And yet, the intellectual property that was not abandoned, but stolen , is
in fact the one place in which the pressure for the Cuban government to find a reasonable way
to unravel what in fact no longer exists in Russia, no longer exists anywhere in the former Soviet
Union, and even does not exist in China todayCuba remains virtually isolated as a country
that does not respect the property which it seized at gunpoint which still has significant value
to the now descendants of those it was taken from.
Cuba wont retaliate CP is legal under international law and sends a stronger
IPR message than the plan
BRUCE A. Lehman, former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 3/3/2010, DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADEMARK IMPLICATIONS OF HAVANA CLUB AND SECTION 211 OF THE OMNIBUS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1999, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-
69_55221.PDF //BW
So in my oral statement I would like to just address some of the most important points. First,
proponents of the repeal of Section 211 assert that it violates existing U.S. treaty
commitments, particularly the 1929 Inter-American Convention for Trademark Protection. In
fact, both the Paris Convention and the Inter-American treaty give signatory states a great deal
of discretion to refuse to recognize trademarks when they find those trademarks either
contrary to morality or public order or unfair competition. And I think the United States is
very much within its rights to make that finding here as it has in Section 211. Opponents of
Section 211 also argue that it exposes large U.S. multinational companiesI think you will hear
that latersuch as those represented by my colleague here from the Chamber of Commerce, to
potential retaliation by the communist government of Cuba, and that it will disadvantage them
in a method similar to the embargo of South Africa during the apartheid period. Well, Mr.
Chairman, I think if there was ever a reasonable request of U.S. corporate citizens to forego for a
short period of time the freedom to exploit a foreign market it was apartheid South Africa.
However, the situation in apartheid South Africa was quite different from that of Cuba. While
Cuba admirably does not condone state-sponsored racism, it is not a market economy. In
apartheid South Africa loss of a trademark might have been given an opening to a competitor
that wasnt encumbered by the embargo, but that competitor would not have enjoyed the
monopoly right to substitute its products for those of the embargoed trademark owner. In
contrast, trademark law is almost meaningless in Cuba since no one can sell anything, whether
identified by a particular trademark or not , without the permission of the Cuban state. And
this permission is often granted by a monopoly concession . Indeed that is the case here. The
Cuban state has given a monopoly concession for international distribution to one company,
Pernod Ricard, which because of its joint venture virtually has a lock on the international
market for the sale of rum labeled as Havana Club by Cuba. Opponents of Section 211 argue
that it would create zombie Cuban trademarks that would haunt the use of these trademarks in
the future. Mr. Chairman, I think that is just not correct. That is based on a reading of a Second
Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, which, by the way, affirmed the dismissal of a trademark
suit against Bacardi and its use of Havana Club . Opponents of Section 211 argue that it only
benefits one company. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that in fact the current situation in Cuba, the
monopoly concession granted to one company, benefits one company, and that is largely what
this issue is all about here today and why U.S. policy under Section 211 needs to be maintained.
Finally, opponents of Section 211 argue that it abrogates U.S. leadership in intellectual
property matters. I think the exact opposite is the case. The very essence of U.S. intellectual
property policy under Administrations of both parties has been that the use of intellectual
property rights without permission of the rights-holder is contrary to the national interest .
Any act of Congress that would repeal legislation based on this principle would send a very
strong message to the world that U.S. opposition to confiscation of patents, trademarks, and
copyrights is country-specific. We would be broadcasting to the world the message made clear
in statements to this Committee today that if you interfere with the nationalization of
companies and the confiscation of their trademarks the U.S. can be held hostage by the threat
that others will meet the same fate if a single agrieved party complains.
T
Interpretation: Substantial means considerable
Words & Phrases, 7
WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET,2007, Vol. 40B, 07, 95.
The term substantially in the ADA means considerable or to a large degree. Heiko v.
Colombo Savings Bank.

Violation- They remove a tiny barrier

Standards
A) Predictability There are practically an unlimited amount of miniscule affs, they
kill predictable limits
B) GroundTiny affs allow them to spike out of our offense, making it impossible to
win links
C) Voter for fairness and education

Neoliberalism K
Economic engagement is a tool utilized to facilitate economic integration in Latin
America it is a policy based on a paternalistic conception of development that
culminates in the mass privatization of public goods and social inequality.
Jacobs, assistant professor of political science at West Virginia U, 2004
(Jamie, "Neoliberalism and Neopanamericanism: The View from Latin America," Latin American Politics &
Society 46:4, Project MUSE)
The advance of neoliberalism suffers no shortage of critics, both from its supporters who seek a greater balance in the interests of North and South, and from its opponents who
see it as lacking any real choice for developing states. The spread of neoliberalism is viewed by its strongest critics as part of the continuing
expression of Western power through the mechanisms of globalization, often directly linked to the hegemonic
power of the United States. Gary Prevost and Carlos Oliva Campos have assembled a collection of articles that pushes this debate in a somewhat new
direction. This compilation addresses the question from a different perspective, focusing not on the neoliberal process as globalization but on neoliberalism as the new guise of
panamericanism, which emphasizes a distinctly political overtone in the discussion. The edited volume argues that neoliberalism reanimates a system
of relations in the hemisphere that reinforces the most negative aspects of the last century's U.S.-
dominated panamericanism. The assembled authors offer a critical view that places neoliberalism
squarely in the realm of U.S. hegemonic exploitation of interamerican relations. This volume, furthermore, articulates a
detailed vision of the potential failures of this approach in terms of culture, politics, security, and economics for both North and South. Oliva and Prevost present a view from
Latin America that differs from that of other works that emphasize globalization as a general or global process. This volume focuses on the implementation of free market
capitalism in the Americas as a continuation of the U.S. history of hegemonic control of the hemisphere. While Oliva and Prevost and the other authors featured in this volume
point to the changes that have altered global relations since the end of the Cold Waramong them an altered balance of power, shifting U.S. strategy, and evolving
interamerican relationsthey all view the U.S. foreign policy of neoliberalism and economic integration essentially as
old wine in new bottles. As such, old enemies (communism) are replaced by new (drugs and terrorism),
but the fear of Northern domination of and intervention in Latin America remains . Specifically, Oliva and Prevost
identify the process through which "economics had taken center stage in interamerican affairs." They [End Page 149] suggest that the Washington
Consensusdiminishing the state's role in the economy, privatizing to reduce public deficits, and
shifting more fully to external marketswas instead a recipe for weakened governments susceptible to
hemispheric domination by the United States (xi). The book is divided into two main sections that emphasize hemispheric and regional issues,
respectively. The first section links more effectively to the overall theme of the volume in its chapters on interamerican relations, culture, governance, trade, and security. In the
first of these chapters, Oliva traces the evolution of U.S. influence in Latin America and concludes that, like the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in the past, the
prospect of hemispheric economic integration will be marked by a dominant view privileging U.S.
security, conceptualized in transnational, hemispheric terms, that is both asymmetrical and not truly integrated among all members. In this context, Oliva identifies the
free trade area of the Americas (FTAA) as "an economic project suited to a hemispheric context that is politically favorable to the United States" (20). The chapters in this section
are strongest when they focus on the political aspects of neoliberalism and the possible unintended negative consequences that could arise from the neoliberal program. Carlos
Alzugaray Treto draws on the history of political philosophy, traced to Polanyi, identifying ways that social inequality has the potential to
undermine the stable governance that is so crucial a part of the neoliberal plan. He goes on to point out how this
potential for instability could also generate a new period of U.S. interventionism in Latin America. Treto also
analyzes how the "liberal peace" could be undermined by the "right of humanitarian intervention" in the Americas if the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia served as a model for
U.S. involvement in the hemisphere. Hector Luis Saint-Pierre raises the issue of "democratic neoauthoritarianism," responsible for "restricting citizenship to the exercise of
voting, limiting its voice to electoral polls of public opinion, restraining human rights to consumer's rights, [and] shutting down spaces to the citizens' participation" (116). While
these critiques are leveled from a structuralist viewpoint, they often highlight concerns expressed from other theoretical perspectives and subfields (such as the literature on
citizenship and participation in the context of economic integration). These chapters also emphasize the way inattention to economic, social, and political crisis
could damage attempts at integration and the overall success of the neoliberal paradigm in the Americas. In
general, the section on hemispheric issues offers a suspicious view of the U.S. role in promoting integration, arguing that in reality, integration offers a
deepening of historical asymmetries of power, the potential to create new justifications for hegemonic
intervention, and the further weakening of state sovereignty in the South.
The impact is extinction neoliberalism reduces existence itself to property to
be exchanged, producing a drive to a single way of knowing and being that
causes massive structural violence and environmental destruction
Lander 2,
(Edgardo, Prof. of Sociology and Latin American studies at the Venezuelan Central University in
Caracas, Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the Natural Order of Global Capital,
Nepantla: Views from South, 3.2, muse)
Just as resources formerly considered to be commons, or of communal use, were privately
appropriated through the enclosure and private appropriation of fields, rivers, lakes, and forests, leading
to the expulsion of European peasants from their land and their forced conversion into factory workers during
the Industrial Revolution, through biopiracy, legalized by the agreements protecting intellectual
property, the ancestral collective knowledge of peoples in all parts of the world is being
expropriated and converted into private property, for whose use its own creators must pay. This
represents the dispossession or private appropriation of intellectual commons (Shiva 1997, 10). The
potentialbut also realimpact of these ways of defining and imposing the defense of so-called intellectual property
are multiple, yet another expression of the tendency, in the current process of globalization, to
concentrate power in Northern businesses and countries, to the detriment of the poor
majorities in the South. At stake are matters as critical as the survival of life-forms and choices that
do not completely fit within the universal logic of the market , as well as rural nutritional self-
sufficiency and access to food and health services for the planets underprivileged majorities.
As a consequence of the establishment of patents on varieties of life-forms, and the
appropriation/expropriation of rural/communal knowledge, by transnational seed and
agrochemical companies, the patterns of rural production are changing ever more quickly, on a
global scale. Peasants become less and less autonomous, and they depend more and more on
expensive consumables they must purchase from transnational companies (Gaia Foundation and GRAIN 1998). These
companies have also developed a terminator technology deliberately designed so that
harvested seeds cannot germinate, forcing peasants to buy new seeds for each planting cycle (Ho and
Traavik n.d.; Raghavan n.d.). All of this has had a profound impact, as much on the living conditions of millions of people
as on genetic diversity on the planet Earth. The freedom of commerce that the interests of these
transnational companies increasingly impose on peasants throughout the world is leading to a reduction in the
genetic variety of many staple food crops. This reduction in genetic diversity , associated with a
engineering view of agriculture and based on an extreme, industrial type of control over each phase of the productive processwith
genetically modified seeds and the intensive use of agrochemicals drastically reduces the auto-adaptive and
regenerative ability of ecological systems . And nevertheless, the conservation of biodiversity
requires the existence of diverse communities with diverse agricultural and medical systems
that utilize diverse species in situ. Economic decentralization and diversification are necessary
conditions for biodiversity conservation . (Shiva 1997, 88) Agricultural biodiversity has been conserved only when
farmers have total control over their seeds. Monopoly rights regimens for seeds, either in the form of breeders rights or patents,
will have the same impact on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources as the alienation of rights of local communities has had
on the erosion of tree cover and grasslands in Ethiopia, India and other biodiversity-rich regions. (99)12 As much as for
preserving genetic diversity an indispensable condition of life as for the survival of rural
and indigenous peoples and cultures all over the planeta plurality of ways of knowing must
coexist, democratically . Current colonial trends toward an intensified, totalitarian
monoculture of Eurocentric knowledge only lead to destruction and death.
The alternative the judge should vote negative to reject neoliberal knowledge
production and endorse globalization from below
Refusing neoliberalisms hegemonic control over knowledge production is
essential within the space of this debate the alternative aligns the ballot with
Latin American resistance movements
Choi, Murphy, and Caro 4
Jung Min, John W, Manuel J, Professor of Sociology SDSU, Professor of Sociology University of
Miami, Professor of Sociology Barry University, Globalization with a Human Face, pg. 6-9
Many critics have begun to wonder why hamburgers and jeans can be globalized, but the spread of themes such as peace or justice
is thought by many politicians to be impossible to generalize. What many persons are calling for, especially in
the Third World, is an alternative approach to globalization. Along with justice, they want to globalize
resistance to current historical trends. They want to call a halt, for example, to the economic hardships and rape of the environment
that have accompanied the rise of neoliberalism. This new strategy is referred to in many circles as
"globalization from below." The point is that current policies have been driven from above from
the capitalist centers around the worldand reflect the economic and cultural interests of these powerful
classes. Most other persons, accordingly, are viewed as simply a cheap source of labor or a
possible market for cheap goods. And because of this role in the world capitalist system, their opportunities are
severely restricted. Even if they conform to the cultural mandates of the market, the likelihood of
economic advancement is not very great. This sort of mobility is simply not a part of the role persons play on the
economic periphery. What actually occurs, indeed, is that the system of controls, which are found in the
economic centers, are reproduced on the periphery, but with more immediate devastation. The
imposition of consumerism and materialism, for example, undermine the local economy and community supports, thereby
increasing strife and reinforcing local elites and their ties to foreign investors. The old oligarchies are thus strengthened, while local
institutions become more dependent on outside intervention. The resulting hierarchy, accordingly, is more powerful than ever
before. As might be imagined, globalization from below has a very different agenda. Different values guide
economic development, in short, while new ways of organizing society are sought. Instead of profit, for example, the general
improvement of a community may be of prime importance. Likewise, emphasis may be placed on strengthening civil society, and
thus ,advancing democracy, rather than identifying markets and potential investors. In general, globalization from below
is driven by local concerns and the masses of persons who have little influence in corporate boardrooms. These are
the people--the majority of the world's inhabitants--who are ignored unless their labor is suddenly
profitable. At the core of this new globalization is often the call for a postcapitalist logic. Novel ways of looking at, for example,
production and consumption are regularly a part of this project, in addition to new definitions of work and personal and group
identity. Central to this scenario is that persons can remake themselves entirely, and nothing is exempt from revision. What
proponents of globalization from below have done, in effect, is to seize control of their history and invent a new future. They have
decided that history can be made, rather than merely experienced, and that there is no inherent telos to this process. The past is
nothing, therefore, other than a point of departure of a new course of action. In the truest sense of the term, these
activists are utopian thinkers. They are not enamored by reality and are convinced that new social arrangements, which
have never existed and may be very difficult to create, are possible. As many students chanted during the 1960s, they are
demanding the impossible and do not want to settle for more pragmatic substitutes. They are simply asking that persons strive to
fulfill their dreams. But these demands are not based on fantasy. Instead, proponents of globalization from below
are trying to emphasize an idea advanced by Marx: that is, nothing that humans imagine is foreign to them. Consequently, utopian
ideals or practices are simply inventions that have not , yet been realized. Through effort and determination, and the absence
foreign subversion, an economic system that is founded on justice might eventually be enacted. Merely because this vision
has not been actualized, does not necessarily signal that such an aim contravenes human
nature or is hopelessly flawed. The problem may simply be that persons have been unwilling
or unable to purge themselves of certain biases or predispositions, and thus have never
embarked on the creation of a new reality. Those who champion globalization from below, however, are not
politically naive. They understand that powerful interests that benefit from injustice and inequality have intervened in the past to
undermine various utopian projects. The proper dream is important, but so is the ability to implement this vision. These new
utopians are thus trying to convince the public to restrain those who want to destroy these projects. What they are saying, in short,
is that justice should be given the opportunity to thrive. THE RESTORATION OF COMMUNITY Various critics are saying that only the
restoration of a strong sense of community can guarantee the success of globalization. What is meant by community, however, is in
dispute. After all, even neoliberals lament the current loss of community that has ensued in the world economy. From their
perspective, a community of effective traders would strengthen everyone's position at the marketplace. Advocates of
globalization from below, as might be expected, have something very different in mind. They are not calling for
the general assimilation of persons to a cosmopolitan ideal, which is thought to instill civility
and enforce rationality. Persons who want to join the world market, as was noted earlier, are
thought to need a good dose of these traits. Nonetheless, there is a high price for entry into
this communitycultural or personal uniqueness must be sacrificed to promote effective
economic discourse. Such reductionism, however, is simply unacceptable in a large part of the
globe that is beginning to appreciate local customs and the resulting diversity. What these
new activists want, therefore, is a community predicated on human solidarity. This sort of
community, as Emmanuel Levinas describes, is focused on ethics rather than metaphysics." His point
is that establishing order does not require the internalization of a single ideal by all persons,
but simply their mutual recognition. The recognition of others as different, but connected to a
common fate, is a powerful and unifying principle. Persons are basically united through the
recognition and appreciation of their uniqueness. As should be noted, this image is encompassing but not
abstract. Uniformity, in other words, is replaced by the juxtaposition of diversity as the cement that binds a community together.
Like a montage, a community based on human solidarity is engendered at the boundaries of its various and diverse elements. The
genius of this rendition of community is that no one is by nature an outsider, and thus deserving of special treatment. Many of the
problems that exist today, in fact, result from persons sitting idly while their neighbors are singled out as different and discriminated
against or exploited. When persons view themselves to be fundamentally united, on the other hand, such mistreatment is unlikely,
because community members protect and encourage one another. Indeed, this sort of obligation is neither selective nor optional
among those who belong to a true community. Basically the idea is that if no one is an outsider, there are no
persons or groups to exploit. Such a community, moreover, does not require extraordinary
actions on the part of its members to end racism, sexism, or economic exploitation. All that is
required is persons refuse to turn away and say nothing when such discrimination is
witnessed. By refusing to go along with these practices, any system that survives because of
discrimination or exploitation will eventually grind to a halt. Clearly, there is an implicit
threat behind current trends of globalization. Because globalization as it is currently defined is
inevitable, anyone who expects to be treated as rational and civilized must accept some
temporary pain. Old cultural ways will simply have to be abandoned, and a transition to the
new economic realities. Those who cannot tolerate the mistreatment of fellow community
members any longer appear to be a part of this change, however, they are obligated to bare
witness to these abuses. And by refusing to be complicit these actions, business as usual
cannot continue . A globalization of can be mounted, therefore, that might be able to create a
more humane world. In the face of mounting darknessincreasing economic hardship and
degradationwhy not seriously entertain the possibility that social life can be organized in
less alienating ways? With little left to why not pursue alternative visions?
WTO Cred
WTO credibility has already been tanked
A. Ag subsidies
Tolgay 12Journalist for The Yale Undergraduate Law Review (Tolgay, Sera. "Balancing Free Trade and
Protectionism: Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO."Yale. N.p., 22 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 July 2013.
<http://yulr.org/balancing-free-trade-and-protectionism-agricultural-subsidies-in-the-wto/>.) JO
The World Trade Organizations (WTO) chief mission is to develop a non-discriminatory, transparent
and competitive trade regime, while also providing greater flexibility for developing countries.[i] This goal
has been the hardest to attain in the agricultural sector, as agricultural reform continues to be the
biggest loophole in the WTOs framework and the focus of the Doha Round, the current trade-negotiation round of
the WTO. Agricultural trade, which accounts for 9.6% of global merchandise trade, is one of the most
heavily distorted sectors due to insufficient policy reforms and continual reliance on domestic
support programs.[ii] Those employed in the agricultural sector in developing countries are especially vulnerable
as the traditional agriculture sector employs over 50% of the population and accounts for 33% of the GDP.[iii] The
WTOs Agreement on Agriculture aims to reduce distortions in agricultural trade, in particular by
eliminating export subsidies. However, the current Doha Round is at an impasse because a pushing
for a new agreement has proven to be intractable, as current subsidy programs in agriculture continue to impede the
development of a non-discriminatory, transparent and competitive trade regime. Following a request by the
United States, in 1947 the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) granted special status to agriculture,
permitting the use of quantitative import controls, domestic subsidies and export subsidies, all of which served to
stabilize prices for domestic producers.[iv] Despite these measures, exports became artificially competitive;
agricultural trade was highly distorted. The Cairns Group, an interest group of nineteen countries supporting
liberalization in agricultural trade, was in opposition of these trade-distorting support programs.[v] From 1986 to
1994, the Uruguay Round reformed the agricultural provisions of the GATT with the Agreement
on Agriculture, which entered into force on 1 January 1995.[vi] This was the first step towards a less
distorted agricultural sector and fairer competition on the international stage.[vii] However, non-compliance
with the Agreements terms has continually slowed down reforms, giving rise to new jurisprudence
in the WTO Dispute Settlement System, starting with Brazils complaint in 2003, the United States
Subsidies on Upland Cotton dispute. U.S. Upland Cotton has been the first successful legal challenge to highly trade-
distorting agricultural subsidies. In WTO history, prior to U.S. Upland Cotton, it was somewhat of anomaly for a
developing country to obtain any concessions from dominant member states like the U.S. or the EU. As a general
statement,

B. Solar subsidies
UPI 13 (United Press International, India challenges United States on solar industry subsidies,
April 22, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/04/22/India-challenges-
United-States-on-solar-industry-subsidies/UPI-48251366658343/) afj
NEW DELHI, April 22 (UPI) -- India has filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization's
dispute settlement body, saying that the United States is offering subsidy programs in the
solar industry for local content requirements. The action, reported by India's Business Standard
newspaper, follows a complaint launched by the United States in February with the WTO
regarding India's National Solar Mission, specifically India's photovoltaic domestic content
requirements policy, which the United States says is discriminatory against U.S. solar
manufacturers. PV Tech reports that the India's domestic content requirement applies only to
crystalline silicon-based modules and thin film is exempt. However, this has resulted in
companies importing thin-film technologies to the detriment of its domestic module
manufacturers. India's complaint says the U.S. practice of subsidy programs in the solar sector
occurs at both federal and state levels and makes the entry of Indian companies difficult and
also breaches global trading rules, the Standard reports. Such subsidy programs violate the
WTO's Trade Related Investment Measures agreement, the complaint says. Ajay Goel, chief
executive of Tata Power Solar, India's largest solar power company said the United States
offers a number of incentives to domestic companies to protect them from foreign
competitors.
C. LNG Ban
Palmer 13 (Doug, journalist @ Reuters, US ban on LNG exports would violate WTO rules
experts, January 31, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/usa-trade-lng-
idUSL1N0AZMTU20130131?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563
) afj
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. government decision to subsidize steel, chemical and
other manufacturers by restricting exports of liquefied natural gas would violate global trade
rules and damage U.S. credibility after years of pressing other countries like China to drop
restrictions on natural resource exports, experts said. "It would be hypocritical and contrary to
WTO rules for the United States to impose restraints on the export of LNG while permitting
unfettered domestic consumption of natural gas," said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the
Peterson Institute for International Economics, who recently wrote about the issue for the think
tank. The U.S. Department of Energy is considering more than a dozen applications to export
LNG as a result of breakthroughs in drilling technology that have dramatically increased U.S.
oil and gas production. That has triggered a fierce debate within the business community, with
industrial users like Dow Chemical and Nucor that have benefited from lower natural gas prices
arguing against more exports. Other business groups like the National Foreign Trade Council and
the Emergency Committee for American Trade are pushing for a liberal export policy, fearing
U.S. restrictions could come back to haunt American firms. Environmental groups also worry
that the new drilling techniques could contaminate water supplies and lead to more
greenhouse gas emissions that are blamed for climate change. Hufbauer said he expected the
Energy Department to decide in favor of more LNG exports but proceed slowly with approval of
individual projects to monitor the environmental impact. Price concerns raised by domestic
natural gas users are unlikely to carry the day because "it is so contrary to what the United
States has been arguing against other countries. I think there would be strong forces in the U.S.
government pushing back against that," Hufbauer said. FREE TRADE EXCEPTION The United
States generally does not restrict exports to give domestic companies a price advantage, or
subsidy, and typically objects when other countries impose export bans. In the case of LNG, the
issue is before the Energy Department because a 1938 law requires it to decide whether natural
gas exports are in the U.S. public interest. Congress amended the law in 1992 to allow natural
gas exports to countries that have a free trade agreement with the United States. That list has
grown to 20 including Canada, South Korea and Australia. As recently as 2007, the United States
was making plans to expand imports of natural gas, so the issue of U.S. export restrictions was
not a serious concern. But Jim Bacchus, a former WTO appellate judge now in private practice
at Greenberg Traurig, an international law firm, said he felt certain U.S. export curbs would be
found in violation of the WTO if challenged by another country. "One of the biggest recent
WTO cases was one that the U.S. brought against China's quantitative restrictions on exports
of raw materials. The United States won that case on the basis of Article XI of the GATT,"
Bacchus said. 'BLUNT TRADE MEASURES' In that dispute, the United States argued that China's
restrictions on exports of raw materials used to make steel and other industrial products gave
Chinese producers an unfair advantage by depressing domestic prices for those goods. "These
export restraints are blunt trade measures that are, by China's own admission ... inconsistent
with WTO rules," U.S. trade lawyers said in oral arguments in that case. The United States is
making the same point in a case that it has brought with the European Union
and Japan against Chinese restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals used in a variety of
high-technology products. "The export restrictions can increase supplies in China's domestic
market, driving down the prices that Chinese producers would otherwise pay for these same
inputs," USTR said in an October 2012 legal brief. "Not only does this dynamic create
tremendous advantages for Chinese producers vis--vis non-Chinese producers, but it also
places strong pressure on non-Chinese producers to move their operations, technologies and
jobs to China," USTR said. Still, the U.S. Trade Representative's office on Wednesday declined to
say whether a Department of Energy decision to curb additional LNG exports would violate WTO
rules. "Generally, the office would not comment on whether a U.S. export measure that has yet
to be decided might or might not raise concerns under trade rules," a USTR spokeswoman said.
But in international venues like the Group of 20 leading economies and the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the United States has been a driving force in crafting
language urging countries not to curb exports. Reflecting concern that a new round of
protectionism could damage the fragile global economy, APEC leaders in October again pledged
to refrain "from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing
new export restrictions, or implementing WTO-inconsistent measures in all areas, including
those that stimulate exports."

D. Online gambling
Levick 12Writer for Forbes (Levick, Richard. "Obama's Case against China: The U.S. Has a WTO Credibility
Gap."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 July 2013.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2012/09/18/obamas-case-against-china-the-u-s-has-a-wto-credibility-
gap/>.) JO
The first reason for the Chinese to balk is fairly obvious. President Obama is announcing the initiative amid the heat of
the election and hes doing so in battleground Ohio. Its a fair guess the Chinese will try to derail his initiatives by
highlighting the blatantly ulterior motives at play. The second reason is even more important because it
potentially compromises any case the U.S. might bring before the WTO. It involves an ongoing
dispute, dating back to the early part of this century, between the government of Antigua and Barbuda
(Antigua) and the government of the United States. At issue is the total prohibition by the U.S. of
cross-border gambling services provided via the Internet. Antigua has challenged that prohibition. It
seems a relatively narrow issue but theres a catch: the WTO ruled on the matter and came heavily
down on the side of Antigua, which is the smallest WTO member to have ever opposed, much less prevailed
against, the organizations largest member in such a proceeding. So far, however, the U.S. has simply not
complied with the ruling. We have neither lifted the restrictions nor satisfied a damages
penalty that continues to mount annually. It is levied each year the U.S. fails to pay up in full. Typically, the
United States takes a pretty high-minded approach to compliance with global regimens of all sorts, from WTO rulings
to anti-corruption initiatives. We have aggressively sought a leadership role and more or less achieved it. Caesars
wife must now be beyond reproach. The consequences of hypocrisy are unacceptable, while only one instance of
non-compliance is needed to expose such hypocrisy. Never mind a blatantly political instance like the
current Obama case over auto and supply subsidies. Imagine youre the Peoples Bank of China, which has taken a
number of steps since 2001 that discriminate against foreign suppliers of electronic payment systems. On September
1, a WTO Panel Report found in favor of a case brought by the U.S. This decision makes it clear that China should
honor its WTO commitments to play by the rules and stop discriminating against American financial services
providers, said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. But why should it play by the rules? We dont, at least not in this
case. A compromised WTO is only one consequence of our non-compliance. Equally portentous, the
WTO could itself approve violations of U.S. intellectual property as fair retaliation for unfair trade
practices. In 2010, for example, the U.S. settled a dispute with Brazil over American subsidies to cotton
growers, one day before Brazil was to begin sanctions with WTO authorization totaling $830
million. The sanctions included tariffs on such items as autos, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, electronics,
textiles, and wheat. Brazil would also have been the first country to infringe American intellectual
property rights with the WTOs blessings. Brazilian farmers would have no longer been charged fees for
seeds developed by American biotech companies. American pharmaceutical patents would have been directly
violated prior to expiration. The prospective costs to U.S. businesses were estimated at $239 million. The United
States blinked then and it better blink now in its dispute with Antigua, or risk providing its global competitors with a
powerful excuse for why they too can ignore the rules or simply stonewall when called to task for doing so.

Trades inevitable
Chicago tribune 8 (August 9, After Doha, http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/09/opinion/chi-
0809edit2aug09)

Even people involved daily in ongoing international trade arent reacting much differently.
Theyre buying and selling goods across borders and oceans, dealing with the logistical complications of
high oil prices, currency fluctuations, the price of labor, unit cost, quality control and the like.
This doesnt mean that a successful completion of the Doha talks wouldnt have mattered. Its a big deal that for the
first time in half a century, global trade talks have failed. The Doha talksseven years in
negotiationwould have slashed farm subsidies and further opened markets for manufactured goods and services.
But with or without Doha, countries will continue to trade aggressively. The benefits
and opportunities are just too great. International trade expanded from 40 percent of
the world economy in 1990 to more than 55 percent by 2004, according to the World Bank. The
fastest growing countriesamong them China, Vietnam, Irelandwere those that expanded their
trade. Countries left behind, including much of sub-Saharan Africa, traded the least. Even with the current
slowdown in the international economy, the WTO predicts that trade will still grow 4.5
percent this year. (That will be down from 8.5 percent in 2006 and 5.5 percent last year.)


No impact to trade
a.) History disproves interdependence
May 5Professor Emeritus (Research) in the Stanford University School of Engineering and a senior fellow with the
Institute for International Studies at Stanford University (Michael, The U.S.-China Strategic Relationship, September
2005, http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Sep/maySep05.asp,)

However important and beneficial this interdependence may be from an economic point of view, it is not likely to be a
significant factor for strategic stability. Famously, economists before World War I sounded clear
warnings that Europe had become economically interdependent to an extent that war
there would ruin Europe. The war was fought nevertheless, Europe was duly ruined, and the ensuing
political consequences haunted Europe to the end of World War II. Other cases exist. Modern war has been an economic
disaster. Economic realities, including economic interdependence, play little role in whether a country
goes to war or not. Economic myths certainly do and they usually affect strategic stability quite negatively. This is
another reason why domestic perceptions matter: they determine which myths are believed.
b.) Studies linking trade to peace are analytically weak
Goldstone 07 - PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science and a member of the Security Studies Program
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a non-resident research fellow at the Center for Peace and Security
Studies, Georgetown University (P.R., AlterNet, September 25, http://www.alternet.org/audits/62848/?page=entire)

The analytic literature on the Commercial Peace is much less robust than scholarship
on the Democratic Peace, the latter positing the improbability of war between democracies. The
Commercial Peace literature displays less consistency and theoretical rigor, with
precise causes largely untested. Statistical analyses of trade relationships generally find that trade is
conducive to peace; however, numerous case studies find that international trade either
played no part in particular leaders' decisions about war or prompted them to
escalate rather than become dependent on others.

Increased trade turns disease
Sciencedaily 11 (Sciencedaly.com, cites study done by researchers at the UK research councils Rural Economy
and Land use programme, June 9, Is Free Global Trade Too Great a Threat to Food Supplies, Natural Heritage and
Health?, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110609083226.htm)//JM
Researchers from the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use Programme say that we face a future
of uncertainty, and possible new threats to our food supplies, natural heritage, and even
human health, from animal and plant pathogens. Human behaviour, travel and trade
exacerbates the problem and we may need to reconsider our approach to free trade. We face a
future of uncertainty, and possible new threats to our food supplies, natural heritage, and even human health, from
animal and plant pathogens, according to researchers from the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use
Programme. In a special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, the academics take a fresh look at
infectious diseases of animals and plants, from an interdisciplinary perspective. They conclude that increasing
global trade may put us at greater risk from pathogens in the future, as more exotic diseases
enter the country. This process is already happening, particularly in plant disease. Climate change is driving shifts
in cropping patterns across the world and they may take pests and diseases with them. We are also seeing
completely new pathogens evolve, while existing ones develop the ability to infect new hosts.
During the 20th century the number of new fungal, bacterial and viral diseases in plants appearing in Europe rose
from less than five per decade to over 20. But these problems are exacerbated by human behaviour, and
understanding this could be key to helping policymakers deal with risk and uncertainty. In many cases the spread of
disease is caused by increased trade, transport and travel. Trends in the international horticultural industry
have been towards fewer, larger producers, supplying vast numbers of retailers. Thus, disease which begins in
one location may be spread far and wide. Changes in the livestock trade have similar effects at national
level. Reduction in income per animal, and the introduction of mechanisation, means that fewer farmers manage
more animals per farm, and animals are moved around more frequently. They may be born in one location but sold
on and reared elsewhere. Government policy and the classification of diseases may even increase the risks. Farmers
restocking to combat one disease may, unwittingly, introduce another. Understanding the biological dimensions of
animal and plant disease is important, but it is equally important to understand the role played by human beings in
spreading disease. Whether the threat is from a tree disease such as Sudden Oak Death that could devastate familiar
landscapes, or from zoonotic diseases such as E coli or Lyme disease that affect human health, it can only be
addressed effectively if an understanding of human behaviour is part of the strategy, and people are given the
information they need to reduce risks. Director of the Relu Programme, Professor Philip Lowe said: "We live in a
global economy: we have seen in the recent E. coli outbreak in Germany, how the complexity of
the food chain can increase risk and uncertainty. "Ultimately we may have to take a more precautionary
approach to the movement of animal and plants, and recognise that free trade could, in some cases, pose
unacceptable risks."

IPR


Food security is a question of distribution, not production
Schuman 11 (Michael, Was Malthus right?, Time Business, July 15, http://business.time.com/2011/07/15/was-malthus-
right/#ixzz21Tarnbmz) afj
The reason weve avoided a Malthusian nightmare over the past two centuries is that weve been able to outsmart nature. Malthus
misjudged mans ability to develop the necessary technologies to use the land, water and other limited resources of our planet more
efficiently. Food production has more or less kept up with population growth. Yes, hundreds of millions are
malnourished, but thats not because the planet cant produce enough for everyone. Its
because the food we do produce either gets wasted, or doesnt get to the people who need it. The
problem of hunger is made by man, not Mother Nature. So are the roots of our current food crisis. As demand for food
has continually increased, not just due to population growth, but also to expanding wealth, the
productivity of our farms has waned. Annual yield growth has fallen precipitously from the gains we
achieved during the 1950s and 1960s. .Youd think just the opposite would be true in a world in which technology is advancing by
the second, it would make sense to think the same is happening in agriculture. But the reality is that weve taken our hand off the
plough policymakers simply havent devoted the funds to agriculture that are needed to make our farms more productive. We
havent been investing enough in R&D to achieve important technologically breakthroughs or
in rural infrastructure (irrigation systems, roads, storage facilities) to help farmers grow more food and get it to the
consumer more easily. Nor have we been utilizing the technology that is already out there to improve yields. Were seriously paying
for the neglect of the worlds farms. Reserves of grain have been on the decline (relative to demand) which means our food safety
net has shrunk. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, we consumed more grain than we produced in the 2010/11
marketing season. Even if prices come off their current high, food is still expected to cost significantly more over the next decade
than the previous one. And as our population continues to expand, while our land and water
resources do not, the strain on food markets is only going to get worse. Yes, this all sounds scary. Im
not predicting a Malthusian crisis, or widespread food shortages and famines. But making sure we have enough food
and not just enough, but at levels where prices come down to the point where poor people
can afford proper diets is really one of the biggest issues facing the global community.

Quarantines check disease
Pharma Investments, Ventures & Law Weekly 05 SARS; Quarantine is cost saving and effective in
containing emerging infections Lexis
Quarantine is cost saving and effective in containing emerging infections. "Over time, quarantine has become a
classic public health intervention and has been used repeatedly when newly emerging infectious
diseases have threatened to spread throughout a population. "Here, we weigh the economic costs and
benefits associated with implementing widespread quarantine in Toronto during the SARS
outbreaks of 2003," scientists writing in the Journal of Infection report. "We compared the costs of two outbreak
scenarios: in Scenario A, SARS is able to transmit itself throughout a population without any significant public health
interventions. In Scenario B, quarantine is implemented early on in an attempt to contain the virus. "By evaluating
these situations, we can investigate whether or not the use of quarantine is justified by being either cost-saving, life
saving, or both," wrote A.G. Gupta and colleagues at the

Corporate farming is unsustainable and will cause extinction
Fowler and Mooney 90 Senior Officer at UN Food and Agriculture Organization; and Staff Member at
Rural
Advancement Fund International
[Cary and Pat, Shattering: food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity, p. ix]
While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the biggest single environmental catastrophe
in human history is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the possibility of nuclear
war, an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over the world.
Loss of genetic diversity in agriculturesilent, rapid, inexorableis leading to a rendezvous with
extinctionto the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To simplify the environment as we have
done in agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world
together. In reducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the future and render
our own survival more precarious.

Their Trewavas 2k card is powertaggedAll it says is that volcanoes might
eventually explode, and well need good agriculture to survive. It says nothing
about extinction, and has absolutely no timeframe
Diseases burn out no spread
Morse, 04 (Stephen, PhD, director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness, at the Mailman
School of Public Health of Columbia University, May 2004, Emerging and Reemerging Infectious
Diseases: A Global Problem, http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/morse.html,
Hensel)
Morse: A pandemic is a very big epidemic. It requires a number of things. There are many infections that get introduced from
time to time in the human population and, like Ebola, burn themselves out because they kill too quickly or
they dont have a way to get from person to person. They are a terrible tragedy, but also, in a sense, it is a lucky
thing that they dont have an efficient means of transmission. In some cases, we may inadvertently create
pathways to allow transmission of infections that may be poorly transmissible, for example, spreading HIV through needle sharing,
the blood supply, and, of course, initially through the commercial sex trade. The disease is not easily transmitted, but we provided,
without realizing it, means for it to spread. It is now pandemic in spite of its relatively inefficient transmission. We also get
complacent and do not take steps to prevent its spread.


The media exaggerates the risk disease wont cause extinction
Lind, 11 (Michael, Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America
Foundation, March/April 2011, So Long, Chicken Little, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/so_long_chicken_little?page=0,5, Hensel)
There's nothing like a good plague to get journalists and pundits in a frenzy. Although the threat of
global pandemics is real, it's all too often exaggerated. In the last few years, the world has experienced
two such pandemics, the avian flu (H5N1) and swine flu (H1N1). Both fell far short of the apocalyptic vision of
a new Black Death cutting huge swaths of mortality with its remorseless scythe. Out of a global population of more than 6
billion people, 8,768 are estimated to have died from swine flu, 306 from avian flu. And yet it was not just the BBC
ominously informing us that "the deadly swine flu cannot be contained." Like warnings about the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, the good done by mobilizing people to address the problem must be
weighed against the danger of apocalypse fatigue on the part of a public subjected to endless
Chicken Little scares.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi