Advantage CPs - Michigan7 2016

Advantage CPs 7-wk Juniors
CPPRW
Democracy Community of
Democracies
1NC Democracy
Text: The United States Federal Government should
transform the Community of Democracies to
Only accept countries designated as free in
Freedom Houses annual Freedom in the World
survey
Designate less free nations as observers of the
Community of Democracies
CP solves democracy reforms key
Holmes 10 distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Kim R.,
Smart Multilateralism and the United Nations,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/smart-multilateralism-
when-and-when-not-to-rely-on-the-united-nations)//AC
Washington should also undertake a new campaign to transform the

Community of Democracies , a Clinton-era initiative ostensibly dedicated to promoting
democracy. Regrettably, it has accepted a number of members and observer
states that are not true democracies, such as Egypt and Russia. Having such
countries at the table confuses the true meaning of democracy , makes speaking and
acting with one voice difficult, and gives political cover to those clamping down on freedom. Membership in the
Community of Democracies should be a high honor and privilege. Only

countries designated as free in Freedom Houses annual Freedom in the
World survey or a similar independent evaluation deserve seats at its ministerial
meetings . Less-free nations could be observers if they are making positive
improvements toward freedom and not backsliding. Members should strive to more
closely coordinate activities that advance democracy, such as organizing
election monitors and promoting freedom of the press, the rule of law,
property rights, and economic freedom. Such a revamped Community of
Democracies could contribute to and reinforce the efforts of the U.N.
Democracy Fund to give democracy promotion and democratic values a more
central role in the U.N.s work.
1NC Terrorism/Civil War
CP solves terrorism, civil war, and human rights
Time for a New International Game Plan,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/01/time-for-a-new-
international-game-plan)//AC
Thepromotion of representative democracy is vital for three of the most
important challenges of the 21st Century: securing human rights, preventing
international and civil wars, and fighting terrorism . Unfortunately, the United Nations
has had only limited success in promoting democracy . There are two reasons: some
national governments fear that their own legitimacy could be undermined if democracy were to become a universal norm,
and the United States has politicized the promotion of democracy by linking it to controversial aspects of its foreign policy
there already exists an international organization
such as the intervention in Iraq. Fortunately,
that has great potential to further democracy, namely the Community of
Democracies. To realize its potential, the Community of Democracies itself
needs reform . It needs an elected Council to replace the self-appointed group of ten nations that has provided
leadership so far; it needs to obtain the institutional resources to be an active
promoter of democracy; and it needs to restrict its membership to countries
that adhere to democratic practices. The Convening Group of the Community of Democracies should
help the Community to meet its full potential by supporting an elected Council of the Community, the institutionalization
of the organization, and high standards for membership. Nongovernmental organizations and individual democracies
should lobby for reform of the Community of Democracies, and should support the Communitys Democratic Caucus at the
UN.
Econ 1 IP Theft
1NC
deny the use of American banking systems to foreign
companies that repeatedly benefit from the
misappropriation of American intellectual property.
Economic sanctions will deter foreign companies from

profiting off of stolen IP
Blair et al. 13 (Dennis C. Blair, former U.S. Director of National Intelligence and
White House Fellow at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jon M. Huntsman
Jr., the former US Ambassador to China and former Governor of Utah, Craig R. Barrett,
leading advocate for improving education in the United States and around the world, he was
Chairman of the United Nations Global Alliance for Information and Communication
Technologies and Development, Slade Gorton, former US Senator and a member of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the CEO of DRS
Technologies, Inc., and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deborah Wince-Smith, the
President and CEO of the Council on Competitiveness, Michael K. Young, the President of the
University of Washington. Also a tenured Professor of Law, -- The Commission on the Theft of
American Intellectual Property - The IP Commission Report, May 2013,
http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf)//IZYP
Recommendation: Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the

recommendation of the secretary of commerce, to deny the use of the
American banking system to foreign companies that repeatedly benefit from
the misappropriation of American intellectual property. 5 Foreign companies
that sell goods or services in the American market , or do business in dollar
denominated markets, such as the international oil market, must use
American banks to clear their transactions . Chapter 1 discusses how
companies may illegally make use of the IP of American companies as part
of their supply chains, and chapters 6 and 7 discuss misappropriation of IP
through trademark and copyright infringement. Companies that repeatedly
misappropriate the intellectual property of an American company either as
incorporated within their product or as part of the business process
(machine tools, business software, etc.) that created the good or service
should forfeit the privilege of using the American banking system .
International banks are the gateway to the American economy. Banking
restrictions have proved to be an extremely effective tool in controlling
financial operations related to other illegal international activities , such as
terrorism, money laundering, and drug smuggling. Making compliance with
IP laws a prerequisite for entry into the U.S. market, and utilizing the
financial system as the gatekeeper of that process , creates an enforcement
tool without geographical boundaries. Companies that make use of stolen
American IP anywhere in the world would suddenly face the real prospect
of severe restrictions on their ability to access the U.S. banking system. The
same Commerce-led interagency team established in the recommendations
above would have the expertise, experience, and charter to determine which
foreign companies should be subject to this sanction. When the interagency
team observes repeated confirmed instances of IP theft by a foreign
company, it would forward the name of that company to the secretary of the
treasury for financial sanctions for a period of time. The Commission does
not prescribe specific lengths of time for the sanction to be imposed, nor
procedures for a foreign company to be removed from the sanctions. These
procedures should be at the discretion of the interagency team, based on its
experience. The Commission is fairly certain that, unlike in the cases of
terrorist financing that supports ideologically driven mayhem or inherently
illegal activities such as drug-smuggling or money-laundering, using
American financial institutions to sanction market-sensitive enterprises that
steal IP would have enormous deterrent value. The number of companies
that are stealing IP would likely dwindle rapidly. Chinese or other foreign companies
may resort to tactics such as the use of reverse mergers and the creation of shell companies and
subsidiaries to protect parent companies from these financial sanctions. The interagency team would
thus need to establish procedures to ensure that the penalties affect the parent company. This
recommendation would add one more set of administrative requirements and open one more potential
basis for suits to the already heavy burdens placed on American international banks. On the other hand,
it establishes no new processes or mechanisms to the existing requirements for understanding their
customers, which ensure that U.S. banks are not being used for other forms of illegal activity. Foreign
companies and governments may consider bringing action against the United States in the WTO for these
procedures, but the Commission believes that this is a risk worth taking.
Protected IP spurs innovation and economic growth

Chinese piracy destroys the economy
Casey 12 Senator PA, former Pennsylvania Auditor General and
Treasurer (Bob, Report by The US Congress Joint Economic Committee
Chairmans Staff, The Impact of Intellectual Property Theft on the Economy,
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/aa0183d4-8ad9-488f-9e38-
7150a3bb62be/intellectual-property-theft-and-the-economy.pdf) //IZYP
Innovation drives economic growth and job creation. Protection of

intellectual property ( IP), through patents, trademarks and copyrights, is
critical to ensuring that firms pursue innovation . Counterfeiting and piracy
erode the returns on innovation and slow economic growth because of the
negative impacts on companies, consumers and governments. While the
problem is worldwide, China accounts for the vast majority of pirated goods
seized at the U.S. border . IP-intensive industries accounted for nearly 20
percent of all jobs in 2010 and contributed over a third of GDP .1 IP-
intensive industries have higher wages with a better-educated workforce
and contribute more to trade. Additionally, workers in IP-intensive industries
generate sales per employee twice as large as their counterparts in non-IP-
intensive industries.2 IP infringement harms companies through lost
revenue, the costs of IP protection, damage to brand, and decreased
incentives to innovate because of potential theft.3 Consumers are harmed
when they purchase counterfeit goods of lower quality, some of which, such
as counterfeit medicines, may pose health or safety risks . Governments lose
tax revenue and bear enforcement costs. Decreased incentives to innovate
resulting from IP infringement reduce economic growth, weaken the
nations competitiveness, and decrease job creation.
Econ 2 - Multi-plank
1NC
Implement state of the art vulnerability-mitigation
measures for companies against cyberattacks
Greatly expand the number of green cards available
to foreign students who earn science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics degrees in American
universities and who have a job offer in their field
upon graduation
Deny the use of American banking system to foreign
companies that repeatedly benefit from the
misappropriation of American intellectual property
Creating comprehensive vulnerability-mitigation measures
is key to preventing cyberattacks
Encourage adherence to best-in-class vulnerability-mitigation measures by

companies and governments in the face of an evolving cybersecurity
environment. Despite their limited utility against skilled and persistent
targeted hackers, computer security systems still need to maintain not only
the most up-to-date vulnerability-mitigation measures, such as firewalls,
password-protection systems, and other passive measures. They should also
install active systems that monitor activity on the network, detect anomalous
behavior, and trigger intrusion alarms that initiate both network and
physical actions immediately. This is a full-time effort. Organizations need
network operators standing watch who are prepared to take actions based
on the indications provided by their systems, and who keep a man in the
loop to ensure that machine responses cannot be manipulated.
Organizations need to have systemssoftware, hardware, and staffto take
real-time action to shut down free movement around the house, lock inside
doors, and immobilize attackers once the alarms indicate that an intrusion
has started. Some government agencies and a few corporations have
comprehensive security systems like this, but most do not. Finally, emphasis
should be given to developing cutting-edge technologies that will promote a
healthier Internet ecosystem. Examples of such technologies come in many
forms. For one, since a large number of the successful targeted attacks are
still arriving in the form of email campaigns containing links or files
exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in common software packages, systems
that are capable of rapidly analyzing the behavior of unknown files and links
are an important element. So too is technology that allows for the isolation
of computing environments so that damage is limited to a quarantined area
and cannot infect the rest of the network. Last, systems providing advanced,
real-time network analysis would also be a necessary element of this
ecosystem.
2NC - Solvency
Foreign grad students are the primary couriers of
intellectual property to other countries providing green
cards incentivizes them to stay
Greatly expand the number of green cards available to foreign students who
earn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate
degrees in American universities. Chapter 1 highlights the issue of highly
skilled foreign students who are unable to stay in the United States after
graduation due to U.S. government limitations on visas. According to a
recent Brookings Institution study, in 2010 more than 96,000 foreign
students were in the United States pursuing graduate degrees in STEM
fields. However, a mere 19,000 stayed after graduation to work in the
United States. Many American high-tech companies have publicly advocated
increasing the number of visas available for these scientists and engineers in
order to help them fill open jobs. However, the loss of these valuable
workers has other damaging effects. Many of the 77,000 graduates who
return home every year have knowledge of American intellectual property,
gained in the course of their studies or in internships during their time in
the United States. This intellectual property is of great benefit to foreign
companies, enabling them to more quickly and effectively compete with
American companies, both in overseas markets and even in the American
market. Several proposals to reform U.S. immigration procedures would
make earning a green card for graduate students in STEM fields an easier
process after graduation and with a job offer in hand. The Brookings study
estimated that numerous metropolitan areas, especially in the Midwest,
would see dramatic benefits if a much larger percentage of foreign students
were permitted to stay.13 The Commission supports such initiatives on
immigration reform. Sending qualified and talented scientists and engineers
home almost ensures that their American educations will benefit other
nations economic development and will represent missed opportunities for
the American economy. To be sure, some of the foreign students who would
remain in the United States under the terms of this arrangement would be
subject to pressure or inducements from home countries and companies to
commit IP theft while working for a U.S. company. There have been multiple
cases of the FBI prosecuting green card holders. Nonetheless, if the full
range of this reports recommendations were adopted to deal with IP theft
systemically, the Commission judges that this risk is far outweighed by the
potential benefits of such a program.
Economic sanctions will deter foreign companies from

profiting off of stolen IP
University of Washington. Also a tenured Professor of Law, -- The Commission on the Theft
of American Intellectual Property - The IP Commission Report, May 2013,
Recommendation: Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the

recommendation of the secretary of commerce, to deny the use of the
American banking system to foreign companies that repeatedly benefit from
the misappropriation of American intellectual property. 5 Foreign companies
that sell goods or services in the American market , or do business in dollar
denominated markets, such as the international oil market, must use
American banks to clear their transactions . Chapter 1 discusses how
companies may illegally make use of the IP of American companies as part
of their supply chains, and chapters 6 and 7 discuss misappropriation of IP
through trademark and copyright infringement. Companies that repeatedly
misappropriate the intellectual property of an American company either as
incorporated within their product or as part of the business process
(machine tools, business software, etc.) that created the good or service
should forfeit the privilege of using the American banking system.
International banks are the gateway to the American economy. Banking
restrictions have proved to be an extremely effective tool in controlling
financial operations related to other illegal international activities , such as
terrorism, money laundering, and drug smuggling. Making compliance with
IP laws a prerequisite for entry into the U.S. market, and utilizing the
financial system as the gatekeeper of that process , creates an enforcement
tool without geographical boundaries. Companies that make use of stolen
American IP anywhere in the world would suddenly face the real prospect
of severe restrictions on their ability to access the U.S. banking system. The
same Commerce-led interagency team established in the recommendations
above would have the expertise, experience, and charter to determine which
foreign companies should be subject to this sanction. When the interagency
team observes repeated confirmed instances of IP theft by a foreign
company, it would forward the name of that company to the secretary of the
treasury for financial sanctions for a period of time. The Commission does
not prescribe specific lengths of time for the sanction to be imposed, nor
procedures for a foreign company to be removed from the sanctions. These
procedures should be at the discretion of the interagency team, based on its
experience. The Commission is fairly certain that, unlike in the cases of
terrorist financing that supports ideologically driven mayhem or inherently
illegal activities such as drug-smuggling or money-laundering, using
American financial institutions to sanction market-sensitive enterprises that
steal IP would have enormous deterrent value. The number of companies
that are stealing IP would likely dwindle rapidly. Chinese or other foreign companies
may resort to tactics such as the use of reverse mergers and the creation of shell companies and
subsidiaries to protect parent companies from these financial sanctions. The interagency team would
thus need to establish procedures to ensure that the penalties affect the parent company. This
recommendation would add one more set of administrative requirements and open one more potential
basis for suits to the already heavy burdens placed on American international banks. On the other hand,
it establishes no new processes or mechanisms to the existing requirements for understanding their
customers, which ensure that U.S. banks are not being used for other forms of illegal activity. Foreign
companies and governments may consider bringing action against the United States in the WTO for these
procedures, but the Commission believes that this is a risk worth taking.
2NC Trade
Stolen trade secrets undermine US business destroys
competition with China
Abbott 14 (Alden Abbott, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center
for Legal and Judicial Studies and the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel
Senior Legal Fellow Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies,
6/25/16, Strengthening Property Rights and the U.S. Economy Through
Federal Trade Secret Protection,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/strengthening-property-
rights-and-the-us-economy-through-federal-trade-secret-
protection#_ftn4)//IZYP
U.S. trade secret theft is a growing problem that stems not just from security
breaches by firms employees and business partners, but also from
expanding electronic espionage by rival firms and foreign governments.
Trade secret misappropriation imposes huge costs on the American
economy. In 2012, the National Security Agency estimated that U.S.
businesses lose $334 billion per year due to trade secret thefts and cyber
breaches.[4] If anything, this figure understates the problem because it
does not include the significant costs that businesses absorb to protect their
secrets. Moreover, the burden of trade secret theft will likely rise as China
and other nations increasingly target U.S. business assets, [5] as
underscored by the recent U.S. Justice Department indictment of Chinese
officers.[6] The scale of business losses from individual thefts is huge. For
example, Motorola spent over $400 million in developing iDEN military
telecommunications technology, which was stolen on behalf of a company
that developed products for the Chinese military.[7] This is not just a big-
business problem. The loss of trade secrets is particularly significant for
small-sized and medium-sized enterprises, which rely more heavily on such
secrets than they do on other forms of IP to protect their information assets.
[8]
AT Not Significant
Experts agree that IP theft has a major effect on the
economy unreported thefts magnify this effect
After reviewing the extant literature and hearing testimony from a wide
range of experts, the IP Commission assesses that when the estimated value
of lost sales, stock assets, investments, and other dimensions are added in,
the total annual losses due to stolen IP are in the hundreds of billions of
dollars. Technet, a national coalition of CEOs in the high-tech field,
estimates that more than six million jobs and more than a third of the
United States $15-trillion economy rely on innovation. 1 A U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office study estimates that IP-intensive industries directly
accounted for 27.1 million American jobs in 2010, or 18.8% of all
employment in the economy. An annual loss of hundreds of billions of
dollars of stolen IPthe very lifeblood of Americas innovation economyis
indeed extraordinary, especially to a still-recovering U.S. economy. If the
cost is so high and the implications for the U.S. economy so great, why is the
IP Commission not able to more precisely measure the loss? The reasons are
many.2 First, loss is necessarily measured in different ways across different
sectors and different types of IP theft. For instance, the value of
unauthorized software is somewhat easier to measure, in part by counting
the number of computers seeking to update software. Similarly, good
statistics are kept on the value of seized counterfeit goods entering the
United States. On the other hand, some losses are not ever aggregated.
Trade-secret losses, for instance, by definition are not included in a total, in
part because the value of the loss of an individual companys IP may only
become known well after the fact, such as during the trial of a suspected
thief or if the company ultimately goes out of business. A second factor is
that companies are highly disincentivized to report their losses for two
reasons. First, when a company divulges that it has been a victim of IP theft,
there can be certain reputational effects that may affect market confidence
in corporate leadership and the value of a companys stock. Second,
identifying IP theft almost necessarily requires identifying the source of the
theft. If the origin of the theft is in a strategically important market for a
company, then a certain level of theft may be written off as merely a cost of
doing business in an otherwise profitable market. A third factor centers on
the surveys that are often used to measure loss, either by counting the
losses reported by survey respondents or by estimating loss from reported
statistics. Both approaches are problematic for essentially the same reason.
Because IP theft varies widely across sectors and between companieseven
within the same sector, companies have widely varying success in protecting
their IPunless every single company is polled and accurately reports its
losses, neither aggregating nor estimating has much of a chance of being
useful.3 What is indisputable is that the scale and scope of the loss is
enormous. In a year of research, testimony, and interviews, the IP
Commission has not heard one expert suggest the problem is not
breathtaking in scale . Even more important than the scale and scope of the
loss is an overwhelming assessment by experts that current legal and
regulatory approaches to mitigating the loss are staggeringly ineffective.
Below are summaries of a range of highly knowledgeable efforts, which help
bound the scale and scope of the problem.
Innovation drives global economic growth IP theft

undermines market competition
On an unprecedented level, a critical driver of this worldwide economic

growth is in trouble. Trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and trademarks are
being stolen, especially from American but also from European, Japanese,
and other nations companies and organizations. The effects are twofold.
The first is the loss of revenue and reward for those who made the
inventions or who have purchased licenses to provide goods and services
based on them. In addition, there is the loss of jobs, which is in the millions.
Companies injured by the theft of intellectual property (IP) cut back on
payrolls. Payrolls are also hit by lost export and licensing markets and
unfair competition both in the American market and in markets around the
world. The losses are more acute for companies whose innovation cycles are
ever shorter. IP theft prior to or soon after a products release can eliminate
all or vast portions of what a company could earn. The second, and more
fundamental, effect is that IP theft is undermining both the means and the
incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, which will slow the development of
new inventions and new industries that can further expand the world
economy and continue to raise the prosperity of all. This effect has received
some attention in the cases of a few industries, but it affects others as well.
Unless current trends are reversed, there is a risk of the relative stagnation
of innovation, with adverse consequences for both developed and
developing countries. Because IP theft is not a new phenomenon, it is
important to understand why it is an urgent issue now. Compared with prior
eras, todays economic world is far more interconnected and operates at a
far higher speed, with product cycles measured in months rather than
years. Companies in the developing world that steal intellectual property
from those in the developed world become instant international competitors
without becoming innovators themselves. Bypassing the difficult work of
developing over decades the human talent, the business processes, and the
incentive systems to become innovators, these companies simply drive more
inventive companies in the developed world out of markets or out of
business entirely. If more and more companies compete for the same amount
of business using the same technology and processes, growth stagnates. It
is only through innovation that world economic growth can be sustained. In
addition, in this new era of globalization, national industrial policies
unforeseen in times past have become possible. Many countries have taken
advantage of the opportunities provided by international businesses eager
for entry into their markets and by generous national and international
development programs. Some have gone beyond this by leveraging access to
their markets for IP and by sponsoring IP theft. Finally, the enormous scale
of IP theft is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the United States and the
rest of the developed world have been slow to respond. American policy in
this area has been limited mostly to attempts to talk foreign leaders into
building more effective intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes. In
addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted individual
employees of American companies who have been caught attempting to
carry trade secrets with them to foreign companies and entities. This policy
of jawboning and jailing a few individuals has produced no measurable effect
on the problem. The only encouraging sign on the horizon is a nascent and
small group of entrepreneurs who may be working within their developing
countries for more robust systems of protection of their own inventions
against competitors. If the United States continues on its current path, with
the incentives eroding, innovation will decline and our economy will
stagnate . In this fundamental sense, IP theft is now a national security
issue.
AT Not Effective
Chinese IP theft costs the US billions banking
sanctions solve
Woollacott 13 (Emma Woollacott, Freelance journalist and contributor
to the Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Financial Times, focuses on
technology, regulatory and legal issues, US Should Get Tough On Chinese IP
Theft, Committee Warns, Forbes 5/23/13,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/05/23/us-should-get-
tough-on-chinese-ip-theft-committee-warns/#754c9acbef04)//IZYP
IP theft is costing the US as much as $300 billion a year, a government report

warns, with China by far the biggest offender . According to the bipartisan Commission on
the Theft of American Intellectual Property, which produced the report, China accounts for at
least half and maybe as much as 80 percent of US intellectual property theft.
National industrial policy goals in China encourage IP theft , and an extraordinary
number of Ch inese in business and government entities are engaged in this
practice, it says, with other major offenders including Russia and China. Much of this theft is
facilitated through cyber-espionage, which has come increasingly to the fore over the last few months.
Recently, for the first time, the US directly accused the Chinese government of targeting US computer
Obama
systems, not just for military intelligence but for commercial purposes too. Indeed, President
has described the problem as one of the most serious economic and
national security challenges we face. China has dismissed such claims. But while cyber-
espionage is a growing problem, says the report, most IP theft is still taking place through more
traditional methods, such as bribing employees and plain on-site stealing. All in all, claims the
committee ,
its losing the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year around as
much as total US exports to Asia. Millions of jobs, too, are casualties . One
major difficulty in dealing with the issue is the length of supply chains, making it difficult even for ethical
multinationals to be certain theyre not exploiting stolen technology. Short product cycles make it even
harder to check. This view is borne out by a study last year of the Department of Defenses supply chain,
which uncovered more than a million suspect parts. The report makes 21 recommendations.
Controversially, it praises the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), passed by the
House of Representatives last month and currently awaiting approval by the Senate. The bill has had
strong opposition from privacy campaigners, and the White House has threatened to veto it. However,
An open, two-way communications flow between companies and US government agencies is more
necessary than ever before, the report reads. Companies cannot be asked to share more information
unless they have a reasonable expectation that they will receive useful information in return, and they
need protections from lawsuits if they do provide information. And much stronger punitive measures are
These could include banking sanctions or restrictions on
needed, the authors say.
imports and investments. The American response to date of hectoring governments and
prosecuting individuals has been utterly inadequate to deal with the problem, the authors say. As things
stand, the International Trade Commissions 337 process, for sequestering stolen IP, is slow and
inefficient, but speeding it up so that suspect goods could be impounded at the countrys borders could
act as a powerful deterrent. Other recommendations include increased funding for law enforcement and
The
an amendment to the Economic Espionage Act, allowing private companies to sue over IP theft.
committee also recommends that the US treasury secretary should have the
right to deny offenders the use of the US banking system effectively
shutting them out of the country altogether. Bizarrely, it even suggests witholding
funding from the World Health Organization until the WHO starts monitoring national regulatory
agencies for IP compliance. The US government has leverage at the WHO chiefly because of its financial
support, it points out. But it really shouldnt be all that difficult to make more conventional deterrent
measures work. The US, after all, is probably the worlds most desirable market to be in, and more
powerful penalties agaist offenders could have a strong effect. Punishing the WHO easily interpretable
as Pay up, or the sick kids get it must surely be a step too far.
Aff (IP theft)
Retaliation Turn
Turn: CP leads to Chinese retaliation and undermines the
global economy
Broder 15 (Jonathan, Newsweek, Why the U.S. Cant Stop Chinas
Cyberspies, 9/16, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/25/why-us-cant-stop-
chinas-cyberspies-372890.html)
But others say the administration will likely wait until after Xis visit to
determine if punitive measures are needed. Some China experts warn that
whatever the timing, sanctions will provoke an angry Chinese response. In
the wake of the U.S. indictment last year of five Chinese army officers for
hacking into the networks of several major American corporations, Beijing
pulled out of a working group to address cybersecurity issues. Its unclear
how China would respond to sanctions, but it could trigger a cycle of
retaliation at a time when global markets are increasingly concerned about
the future of the Chineseand globalmarketplace. In fact, some experts
fear any new tensions could undermine what they hope will be one of the
summits most important outcomesa statement by both leaders indicating
that the worlds two largest economies are not descending into a bruising
economic slugfest. People may care about disputed rocks in the South
China Sea, but they care a lot more about their 401(k)s, says Bader, now a
China scholar at the Brookings Institution.
In a move to counter the prospect of sanctions, China is co-hosting a
September 23 forum in Seattle during the first leg of Xis visit. He, along
with top Chinese technology officials and executives, has invited the leaders
of the major American tech companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google
and IBM, to discuss doing business in China, the worlds largest Internet
market. Though Beijing prevents Facebook and Google from operating on
Chinese soil, the prospect of that changing will make the invitation hard to
refuse. And U.S. officials worry the gathering will undermine Obamas ability
to pressure China on commercial cyberspying.
Econ 3 SEC
1NC
Text: The United States Federal government should
Enter enforcement arrangements with China
regarding FCPA regulations
Increase the number of skilled SEC agents in China
Offer Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protection for
Chinese nationals who come forward with FCPA
violations
Stricter regulations on Chinese auditing is key to
revealing fraud that undermines US markets
WSJ, 15 (The SEC Caves on China: An exemption for Chinese Auditor puts
U.S. Markets at risk, Feb 26, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sec-
caves-on-china-1424967173)//IZYP
U.S. stock-market regulators say they promote transparency and fair play,
but this month the Securities and Exchange Commission quietly carved out a
China-size exception: When Chinese companies list on U.S. markets, basic
auditing rules wont apply. Why? Because Chinas government doesnt want
them to, and Washington bent to Beijings pressure. The SEC has long
sought access to the auditing records of Chinese companies suspected of
fraud. Tens of billions of dollars in U.S. market value have disappeared in
recent years as more than 170 U.S.-listed Chinese companies have faced
scrutiny for embezzlement, theft, misrepresentation and other alleged
abuses. China-based auditors have refused to comply with SEC subpoenas
for their clients paperwork, citing Chinese laws that treat such corporate information as state
secrets. These laws, always vague and often harshly enforced, are a classic authoritarian tool for masking
the political interference, graft and opacity endemic to Chinas economy. In 2012 the SEC filed charges
against the Chinese affiliates of the Big Four audit firms, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young
and Deloitte. Only with access to work papers of foreign public accounting firms can the S.E.C. test the
quality of the underlying audits and protect investors from the danger of accounting fraud, enforcement
chief Robert Khuzami said at the time. Last year SEC Administrative Judge Cameron Elliot ruled that the
auditors were willfully violating U.S. regulations by refusing to turn over client information. Chinas
secrecy rules are no excuse, he wrote, because the auditors and their clients freely chose to list in the
U.S. under SEC regulation: To the extent the [firms] find themselves between a rock and a hard place, it
is because they wanted to be there. A good faith effort to obey the law means a good faith effort to obey
all law, not just the law one wishes to follow. He suspended the auditors from practicing before the SEC
for six months, pending appeal to the SEC Commissioners. Judge Elliots decision appeared to point the
way toward a U.S.-Chinese diplomatic compromise, as both countries would feel some pain if the
auditors suspension from the U.S. was affirmed. Chinese companies would have to delist from U.S.
exchanges and relist in less familiar and less sophisticated markets overseas. Bankers and lawyers on
Wall Street would lose some fees, and U.S. firms operating in China would have to adjust their own
relationships with auditors and the SEC. So officials had good reason to balance Chinese sensitivities
But the result is a cave-in, not a
over secrecy with U.S. concerns about accounting fraud.
compromise . SEC Commissioners decided this month not to suspend the

Chinese audit firms or penalize them beyond token fines of $500,000less
than an average partners salary. In return, the firms agreed to follow
certain procedures for conveying audit information to the SEC through
Chinese state regulators. Yet Chinese authorities arent even a party to the
settlement, so they remain as free as ever to stymie future investigations .
The upshot is that investors in U.S. capital markets still lack basic
protections against Chinese fraudsters. And the financial stakes are rising.
Chinese firms now account for hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. market
value, led by e-commerce giant Alibaba,which last year raised $25 billion in
an initial public offering. If the SEC is unwilling to enforce a level playing
field among auditors working around the world, it could at least do more to
flag risks for the market . On Chinas stock exchanges in Shanghai and
Shenzhen, domestic regulators have branded some stocks for special
treatment if their earnings and accounting practices suggest particular
risk. The SEC could adopt similar labels for the stocks of any U.S.-listed
companiesChinese or otherwisethat are unable or unwilling to share
their audit records. Chinas official Xinhua news agency says the SEC
decision proves that Chinese auditors are too big to ban. Thats bad
enough for U.S. capital markets. The greater threat, which endangers far
more than stock prices, is Chinas rising confidence that it can play by its
own rules.
Financial fraud collapses the economy legal enforcement is

needed
Galbraith, 10 (James K. Galbraith, Economist and Professor at the
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and the Department of
Government, University of Texas at Austin, Senior scholar with the Levy
Economics Institute of Bard College and part of the executive committee of
the World Economics Association, 5-14-10, ALTERNET - Why the 'Experts'
Failed to See How Financial Fraud Collapsed the
Economy,http://www.alternet.org/story/146883/james_k._galbraith
%3A_why_the_'experts'_failed_to_see_how_financial_fraud_collapsed_the_eco
nomy)//IZYP
Formal analysis tells us that control frauds follow certain patterns. They
grow rapidly, reporting high profitability, certified by top accounting firms.
They pay exceedingly well. At the same time, they radically lower standards,
building new businesses in markets previously considered too risky for
honest business. In the financial sector, this takes the form of relaxed no,
gutted underwriting, combined with the capacity to pass the bad penny to
the greater fool. In California in the 1980s, Charles Keating realized that an
S&L charter was a "license to steal." In the 2000s, sub-prime mortgage
origination was much the same thing. Given a license to steal, thieves get
busy. And because their performance seems so good, they quickly come to
dominate their markets; the bad players driving out the good. The complexity of
the mortgage finance sector before the crisis highlights another characteristic marker of fraud. In the
system that developed, the original mortgage documents lay buried where they remain in the records
of the loan originators, many of them since defunct or taken over. Those records, if examined, would
reveal the extent of missing documentation, of abusive practices, and of fraud. So far, we have only very
limited evidence on this, notably a 2007 Fitch Ratings study of a very small sample of highly-rated RMBS,
which found "fraud, abuse or missing documentation in virtually every file." An efforts a year ago by
Representative Doggett to persuade Secretary Geithner to examine and report thoroughly on the extent
of fraud in the underlying mortgage records received an epic run-around. When sub-prime mortgages
were bundled and securitized, the ratings agencies failed to examine the underlying loan quality. Instead
they substituted statistical models, in order to generate ratings that would make the resulting RMBS
acceptable to investors. When one assumes that prices will always rise, it follows that a loan secured by
the asset can always be refinanced; therefore the actual condition of the borrower does not matter. That
projection is, of course, only as good as the underlying assumption, but in this perversely-designed
marketplace those who paid for ratings had no reason to care about the quality of assumptions.
Meanwhile, mortgage originators now had a formula for extending loans to the worst borrowers they
could find, secure that in this reverse Lake Wobegon no child would be deemed below average even
though they all were. Credit quality collapsed because the system was designed for it to collapse. A third
element in the toxic brew was a simulacrum of "insurance," provided by the market in credit default
swaps. These are doomsday instruments in a precise sense: they generate cash-flow for the issuer until
the credit event occurs. If the event is large enough, the issuer then fails, at which point the government
faces blackmail: it must either step in or the system will collapse. CDS spread the consequences of a
housing-price downturn through the entire financial sector, across the globe. They also provided the
means to short the market in residential mortgage-backed securities, so that the largest players could
turn tail and bet against the instruments they had previously been selling, just before the house of cards
crashed. Latter-day financial economics is blind to all of this. It necessarily treats stocks, bonds, options,
derivatives and so forth as securities whose properties can be accepted largely at face value, and
quantified in terms of return and risk. That quantification permits the calculation of price, using standard
formulae. But everything in the formulae depends on the instruments being as they are represented to
An older strand of
be. For if they are not, then what formula could possibly apply?
institutional economics understood that a security is a contract in law. It can
only be as good as the legal system that stands behind it. Some fraud is
inevitable, but in a functioning system it must be rare. It must be considered
and rightly a minor problem. If fraud or even the perception of fraud
comes to dominate the system, then there is no foundation for a market in
the securities. They become trash. And more deeply, so do the institutions
responsible for creating, rating and selling them. Including, so long as it
fails to respond with appropriate force, the legal system itself. Control
frauds always fail in the end. But the failure of the firm does not mean the
fraud fails: the perpetrators often walk away rich. At some point, this
requires subverting, suborning or defeating the law. This is where crime
and politics intersect. At its heart, therefore, the financial crisis was a
breakdown in the rule of law in America. Ask yourselves: is it possible for mortgage
originators, ratings agencies, underwriters, insurers and supervising agencies NOT to have known that
the system of housing finance had become infested with fraud? Every statistical indicator of fraudulent
practice growth and profitability suggests otherwise. Every examination of the record so far suggests
otherwise. The very language in use: "liars' loans," "ninja loans," "neutron loans," and "toxic waste," tells
you that people knew. I have also heard the expression, "IBG,YBG;" the meaning of that bit of code was:
If doubt remains, investigation into the internal
"I'll be gone, you'll be gone."
communications of the firms and agencies in question can clear it up.

Emails are revealing. The government already possesses critical
documentary trails -- those of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Those documents should be
investigated, in full, by competent authority and also released, as appropriate, to the
public. For instance, did AIG knowingly issue CDS against instruments that Goldman had designed on
behalf of Mr. John Paulson to fail? If so, why? Or again: Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appreciate the
poor quality of the RMBS they were acquiring? Did they do so under pressure from Mr. Henry Paulson? If
so, did Secretary Paulson know? And if he did, why did he act as he did? In a recent paper, Thomas
Ferguson and Robert Johnson argue that the "Paulson Put" was intended to delay an inevitable crisis past
Let us suppose that the
the election. Does the internal record support this view?
investigation that you are about to begin confirms the existence of pervasive
fraud, involving millions of mortgages, thousands of appraisers,
underwriters, analysts, and the executives of the companies in which they
worked, as well as public officials who assisted by turning a Nelson's Eye.
What is the appropriate response? Some appear to believe that "confidence
in the banks" can be rebuilt by a new round of good economic news, by
rising stock prices, by the reassurances of high officials and by not looking
too closely at the underlying evidence of fraud, abuse, deception and deceit.
As you pursue your investigations, you will undermine, and I believe you
may destroy, that illusion. But you have to act. The true alternative is a
failure extending over time from the economic to the political system. Just
as too few predicted the financial crisis, it may be that too few are today
speaking frankly about where a failure to deal with the aftermath may lead.
In this situation, let me suggest, the country faces an existential threat .
Either the legal system must do its work. Or the market system cannot be
restored. There must be a thorough , transparent, effective, radical cleaning
of the financial sector and also of those public officials who failed the public
trust. The financiers must be made to feel, in their bones, the power of the
law. And the public, which lives by the law, must see very clearly and
unambiguously that this is the case. Thank you.
2NC - Solvency
Enforcement arrangements, SEC agents and
protection for whistle blowers solves reinforces
current regulations
Torres 16 (Nicholas Louise Torres, graduate student at the Emory
University School of Law, Editor-in-chief of Emory Corporate Governance
and Accountability Law Review, previously law clerk at NERO Immigration
Law and EPGD Attorneys at Law, - Emory Corp. Governance and
Accountability Rev. Perspectives 2041 (2016), Enforcing the Foreign
Corruption Practices Act in China,
http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/perspectives/volume-3/perspectives/enforcing-
foreign-corruption-practices-act-china.html)//IZYP
The U.S. has been cracking down on its enforcement efforts of the anti-
bribery provisions of the FCPA, 13 but its stricter efforts have not yielded the
most effective results. For example, the U.S. has established an enhanced
dialogue agreement with the CSRC, however this arrangement is
insufficient. 14 The efforts to create a better framework for dialogue between
the SEC and CSRC have failed because the enhanced dialogue agreement
merely called for joint efforts to better identify and discuss regulatory issues
of common concern. 15 Instead, the U.S. should have entered into an
enforcement arrangement with China , which would have better facilitated
the sharing of information between the two regulatory agencies by
increasing the amount of physical documentsevidenceshared amongst
the regulators regarding transactions in bank and brokerage accounts. 17 The
enforcement arrangement is more effective than the enhanced dialogue
framework because the exchange of physical documents would provide the
SEC with better grounds to conduct an investigation on the alleged FCPA
violation. Enforcement arrangements also create more opportunities for
regulators to assist one another in investigations and prosecutions of FCPA
violations. 18 The U.S. is currently involved in enforcement arrangements
with twenty-one nationsand China should be next. As China continues to
reduce its Negative List 20 and expand its Free Trade Zone (FTZ) to include
more provinces, 21 commerce between the U.S. and China will increase. As a
result, cooperation between the SEC and the CSRC should increase as well.
An enforcement arrangement is necessary for the U.S. to maximize its FCPA
enforcement efforts because it needs the CRSCs assistance in getting
China-based entities to comply with its measures. For example, there have
been instances where China-based, publicly-traded entities have refused to
cooperate with the SEC in on-going investigations. In 2015, Chinas Big Four
Accounting Networks 22 refused to produce documents that were vital to the
SECs investigation of potential fraud. 23 The SEC disciplined the firms, 24 but
their reluctance to comply with SEC demands raised enormous concerns
regarding the SECs ability to enforce the FCPA in China. As stated by
Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SECs Enforcement Division,
. . .obtaining an audit firms workpapers is critical to enforcement staffs
ability adequately to protect investors from the dangers of accounting
fraud. 25 Thus, in addition to enlisting more support from the CRSC, it
would serve the interests of the SEC to increase the number of agents they
have working in China. Ideally, these agents would be trained in Mandarin
Chinese and have a strong understanding of Chinese business customs.
These agents would be able to communicate with the CRSC regularly and
assist the SEC with facilitating cooperation with accounting firms. Lastly, if
the SEC enters into an enforcement arrangement with the CRSC, thereby
increasing the amount of documents the SEC has access to, it will need
ample Mandarin Chinese trained agents to evaluate the evidence.
Whistleblowers are an essential element to discovering U.S. securities
violations abroad and keeping foreign corruption in check . Unfortunately,
encouraging foreign nationals in China to come forward with information
has been problematic for two reasons. First, many Chinese informants fear
retaliation from their employers. A U.S. court may refuse to enforce the
Dodd Frank anti-retaliation provisions to protect a foreign-national
whistleblower, 26 leaving them vulnerable to retaliation without recourse.
Second, a Chinese national whistleblower may not have access to adequate
counsel and guidance regarding their claims because Chinese attorneys may
lack experience or expertise with whistleblower lawsuits. 27 To encourage
more whistleblowing, federal district courts should offer Dodd-Frank anti-
retaliation protection to Chinese nationals who come forward with
information regarding FCPA violations. In theory, Chinese law provides
whistleblowers with similar protections that the U.S. does. However, in
practice, the reported protection of whistleblowers within China is weak, 28
with nearly 70% of whistleblowers reporting incidents of retaliation. 29 Thus,
It is vital for the federal courts to extend jurisdiction over foreign Dodd
Frank anti-retaliation claims and offer foreigners protection.
Strict SEC regulation on Chinese business is needed to

root out fraud
Sternberg, 14 (Joseph Sternberg is an editorial page writer for The Wall
Street Journal Asia in Hong Kong. Prior to joining The Journal in 2006, he
was a Washington-based editorial writer for the New York Sun. He has also
been assistant editor, and then managing editor, of the Public Interest, 1-29-
14, Theres No Accounting for China: U.S. regulators inadvertently raise a
question about who's to blame for investor losses, The Wall Street Journal,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035532045793499011849
82802)//IZYP
In a ruling last week, an administrative trial judge at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
suspended the Chinese branches of the Big Four accounting firms from practicing at the SEC for six
months. As a consequence, these accountants will not be able to sign off on the books of Chinese
companies listed in the U.S., which could force the Chinese firms to delist at least temporarily for lack of
audited accounts. The Big Four are appealing the ruling. This is set to turn into an illuminating study in
unintended consequences. The case ostensibly turns on the fact that the firms have been less than
cooperative as the commission investigates a flood of alleged accounting frauds at U.S.-listed Chinese
companies. The China units of PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and E&Y
generally have resisted turning over audit work papers the SEC would need to conduct its probes. Under
American law, the accountants are required to cooperate. But the real problem is that the accounting
firms, which would almost certainly prefer to comply with the SEC's demands, worry that Beijing will
Chinese authorities have never definitively settled the
punish them if they do.
question of whether the audit records of Chinese companies constitute
"state secrets" under Beijing's vague and expansive secrecy rules. Partly this
is a simple attempt by Beijing to assert its sovereignty over companies
operating on its soil. But there's also plenty of reason to suspect more
cynical motives for obstructionism. Fraud investigations often implicate
various forms of corruption, especially unduly close relationships between
companies and officials at state-owned banks. A thornier question yet is
what kind of access the SEC might gain to audit records at state-owned
enterprises that are partially listed in New York including major banks. All
of this puts the accounting firms in the position of deciding which of two
countries' conflicting laws they will follow. This isn't a plea for sympathy. As
Judge Cameron Eliotnoted in his ruling, "to the extent [the firms] found
themselves between a rock and a hard place, it is because they wanted to be
there." They chose to build up China accounting businesses understanding
the legal bind they might face. But the solution ultimately will be for
regulators in Washington and Beijing to negotiate a deal allowing the
information-sharing the SEC requests. The U.S. Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board already has reached such a deal for some documents
related to its own accounting investigations. Yet that deal is limited in scope
and doesn't apply to the SEC, whose attempts to secure its own unfettered
access to accounting records have been stymied. The SEC's pursuit of the
Big Four is best understood as a strategy to force Beijing at last to hammer
out a regulatory deal . Chinese companies depend on overseas investors for
capital, a situation likely to continue for the foreseeable future despite a
recent loosening of restrictions on initial public offers. The SEC seems to
hope that if it turns off this capital spigot by denying Chinese companies
auditors for a spell, Beijing will have no choice but to come to the table. But
before the SEC's commissioners decide on the accountants' appeal of their
suspension, it's worth asking a heretical question: What's the point? If the
SEC's mission is investor protection, the horse is already out of the barn.
Investors have paid their money and received their share certificates. To the
extent that Chinese companies keep their listings by finding other, smaller
accounting firms not affected by last week's ruling, American investors will
own shares in companies whose auditors potentially lack the experience and
reputation of the displaced Big Four. Nor will a mass delisting of those
Chinese companies that don't find new auditors restore to shareholders any
value destroyed by frauds that may or may not have occurred at any
particular company. Instead, the proposed SEC move leaves those investors
worse off than they were before, their holdings shunted into over-the-
counter markets. Note that this will be true even for those investors who
have done enough homework to have invested in entirely legitimate Chinese
companies. This is a significant point since, while the SEC and other
authorities have been spinning their wheels on the matter of Chinese frauds,
market participants have started cleaning house. Alleged frauds have been
exposed by a growing number of short-selling research firms specializing in
Chinese companies, while sinking valuations for Chinese listings in general
suggest investors are growing savvier about the risks such investments
entail. Auditors themselves have grown steadily more sophisticated about
rooting out suspicious behavior. How ironic, then, that the biggest risk
American investors in Chinese listings currently face seems to be American
regulators. Recall that many alleged Chinese frauds sprouted in an
environment where excessive Chinese regulation and corruption force even
legitimate companies to adopt complex corporate structures and creative
accountingmaking it harder to tell when such tricks are merely a survival
strategy and when they're an outright fraud. One almost begins to think that
policy makers on both sides of the Pacific are a bigger threat to investors
than fraudsters are.
Aff
China Says No
China says no - empirics
Newquist 15 (Caleb, So Much for the PCAOB Inspecting Audit Firms in
China, Going Concern,http://goingconcern.com/post/so-much-pcaob-
inspecting-audit-firms-china)
Apparently China wanted to restrict the inspections to such a degree that
US officials decided "it wasnt worth proceeding." University of Tennessee
Professor and PCAOB Investor Advisory Group member Joseph Carcello told
Bloomberg, "There is no obvious solution that doesnt have serious side
effects.
China's been playing hardball so the devil in me wants the PCAOB to pull the
registrations, just to see what happens. They'll never go that route, and you
can't really expect the PCAOB to quit trying, otherwise the purpose of the
entire body gets called into question.
I don't know what their Plan B is, but a month or so back, Paul Gillis
mentioned this paper from Nemit Shroff of MIT that suggests "that
regulatory oversight of the [non-US] auditor helps improve reporting
credibility, which in turn facilitates corporate investment by increasing
firms external financing capacity."
Gillis says that could happen in China as well:
The study suggests that these companies would have greater credibility in
their financial statements if China were to permit the PCAOB to inspect the
Big Four in China and Hong Kong. The benefits would extend even to Big Four
clients not listed in the U.S.
If the PCAOB hasn't tried this line of reasoning, it might be worth a shot. If
they have, then it's back to the drawing board.
Either way, China seems to prefer keeping its secrets rather than give in to
a snoopy American quasi-government agency, regardless of the benefits.
Econ 4 State Infrastructure
1NC
Text: The 50 U.S. states, Washington D.C., and relevant
territories should substantially increase their
investment in public infrastructure.
Infrastructure investment on the state and local level

spurs national economic growth
McNichol 16 (Elizabeth McNichol is a Senior Fellow at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities specializing in state fiscal issues, she served as
Assistant Research Director of the Service Employees International Union in
Washington DC, MA in Political Science from University of Chicago Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2-6-16, Its Time for States to Invest in
Infrastructure, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/its-time-
for-states-to-invest-in-infrastructure)//IZYP
Reversing the decline in state investment in transportation, public buildings,
water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to
creating good jobs and promoting full economic recovery and this is an
especially good time for states to do it. The condition of roads, bridges,
schools, water treatment plants, and other physical assets greatly
influences the economys ability to function and grow. Commerce requires
well-maintained roads, railroads, airports, and ports so that manufacturers
can obtain raw materials and parts, and deliver finished products to
consumers. Growing communities rely on well-functioning water and sewer
systems. State-of-the art schools free from crowding and safety hazards
improve educational opportunities for future workers. Every state needs
infrastructure improvements that have potential to pay off economically in
private sector investment and job growth. But rather than identifying and
making the infrastructure investments that provide the foundation for a
strong economy, many states are cutting taxes and offering corporate
subsidies in a misguided approach to boosting economic growth. Tax cuts
will spur little to no economic growth and take money away from schools,
universities, and other public investments essential to producing the
talented workforce that businesses need.[1] This pattern of neglect of
infrastructure by states the primary stewards (along with their local
government partners) of the nations infrastructure has serious
consequences for the nations growth and quality of life as roads crumble,
school buildings become obsolete, and outdated facilities jeopardize public
health. States should address unmet infrastructure needs now for several
reasons: The investment will improve state economies, now and in the
future. Higher-quality and more efficient infrastructure will boost
productivity in states that make the needed investments , lifting long-term
economic growth and wages. In the short term, even though employment is
recovering, millions of Americans are working less than they would like and
making less than it takes to get by. Key infrastructure investments would
provide immediate job opportunities. Opportunities to finance infrastructure
investment abound. States often pay for building new schools, roads,
airports, water treatment facilities, and the like using debt, a sound practice
for financing infrastructure that can serve generations. Todays historically
low interest rates are especially favorable to such borrowing, and state and
local debt is below pre-recession levels. States also have many other
revenue sources available including user fees like tolls as well as federal
grants. States are in a better position to afford these investments than
theyve been in several years . The nations economy has slowly recovered
from the Great Recession, finally lifting state revenues above pre-recession
levels, better enabling states on average to afford infrastructure
investments. But in many states, revenues arent sufficient to adequately
cover the costs of needed services such as education and health care, and
still make the necessary infrastructure investments. These states will need
to consider tax increases to preserve public capital that is crucial to long-
term economic growth while meeting other needs. A number of states have
recognized the historic opportunity and need for infrastructure investments .
For example, Connecticut and Washington are in the early stages of multi-
year transportation improvement initiatives. Last year, in more than ten
states, including Idaho and Georgia, gas tax increases funded road
construction. But overall, states are cutting infrastructure spending as a
share of the economy, the opposite of what is needed. Spending by state and
local governments on all types of capital dropped from its high of 3 percent
of the nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the late 1960s to less than 2
percent in 2014. Falling federal spending on infrastructure is exacerbating
the problem. States must turn their attention back to the type of
infrastructure investments that will boost productivity, support business
growth, create jobs, provide a healthier environment , and improve
opportunities for all of their residents. The specific investments needed will
differ from state to state depending on factors like the condition of the
existing infrastructure and the mix of industries in the region, but states
continue to ignore needed investments at the countrys peril.
2NC - Solvency
Increasing infrastructure investment on the local level
increases economic efficiency and directly spills over to
neighboring markets
Furman et al. 16 (Jason Furman chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers (CEA), PhD Harvard University - Jay Shambaugh, Professor of
Economics and International Affairs at George Washington University, PhD
UC Berkeley - Sandra E. Black holds the Audre and Bernard Rapoport
Centennial Chair in Economics and Public Affairs and is a Professor of
Economics at the Univeristy of Texas, PhD Harvard University, 2-22-16, pg.
271, Economic Report of the President together with the Annual Report of
the Council of Economic Advisers,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ERP_2016_Book_Comple
te%20JA.pdf)//IZYP
While investing in infrastructure generates direct benefits in the form of
increased employment and higher productivitybenefits that may be
magnified through agglomeration effectsit can also offer spillover benefits
for neighboring economies. Road and highway infrastructure in particular
has led to marked spillover effects (see Box 6-3, which highlights the
spillover effects that stemmed from the formation of the Interstate Highway
System). Output in the agricultural sector in particular has benefited
through spatial spillovers from road investments . One study finds that a 1-
percent increase in outlays on roads in a state is associated with a roughly
0.03-percent expansion in agricultural output in that state, and an average
increase of 0.24 percent in adjacent states and their neighbors (Tong et al.
2013). The magnitude and structure of the spillover effects vary based on
the location of the state and the paths available for the spillover effect.
These effects are especially pronounced in the agriculturally concentrated
central United States relative to less agriculturally intensive regions.
Improvements in airport infrastructure offer both direct and spillover gains,
which can be geographically extensive because of the network nature of air
service; that is, improving an airport in one location results in faster and
more reliable connections with many other areas. Investments in air
transportation can effectively reduce travel time and promote more reliable
flights, enhancing worker productivity and shipping efficiency . Directly, a
10-percent increase in passenger enplanements in a metro area has been
found to raise employment in service industrieswhich account for almost
84 percent of total private employmentby about 1 percent (Brueckner
2003). Indirectly, the expansion of airport infrastructure has been associated
with cost savings in manufacturing production n ot only in states in which
the airports are located, but in other states as well . A 1-percent increase in
state airport infrastructure stockdefined as airport capital expenditures for
construction, land, structure, and equipmenthas been found to correspond
to a decrease in manufacturing costs of about 0.1 percent within that state
and between 0.1 and 0.2 percent within other states, with higher spillover
effects stemming from states without large hubs (Cohen and Morrison Paul
2003).6 Both investment in new public capital and improved maintenance of
existing infrastructure can produce spillover effects, again presumably due
to the network nature of most transportation infrastructure, where
expanding a single facility can improve connections among many origins
and destinations. In fact, there is some evidence that the effects from State
and local government investment in public capital can be larger for
neighboring states than for the ones in which the investments are made.
Evaluating annual state-level output and constructing weighted spillover
indexes based on the commodity flows across states and the relative
magnitudes of neighboring economies, Kalyvitis and Vella (2015) find that
outlays for new capital as well as those for operation and maintenance have
large positive effects on neighboring economies, calculating average
spillover elasticities of output from new public capital and maintenance of
0.09 and 0.34, respectively. The relatively large spillover effects from public
spending on operation and maintenance may result because states and
localities primarily fund operation and maintenance ; as such, only the states
and localities that make the investments incur the associated costs,
allowing other states to enjoy the benefits without paying for the
investment . Yet these authors estimates for direct output elasticities of
public capital for states in which the investments are made are noticeably
smaller at near-zero values. This divergence in magnitude between direct
and spillover effects from public infrastructure spending on output is one
reason why Federal support and trans-state organizations such as the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey are important . A failure to recognize
these spillover effects from the construction and improvement of
transportation networks by State and local government agencies
responsible for funding public infrastructure may cause those agencies to
undervalue the true social gains that such projects offer .
Infrastructure investment significantly improves

economic productivity during times of recovery
prefer recent research
McNichol 16 (Elizabeth McNichol is a Senior Fellow at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities specializing in state fiscal issues, she served as
Assistant Research Director of the Service Employees International Union in
Washington DC, MA in Political Science from University of Chicago Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2-6-16, Its Time for States to Invest in
Infrastructure, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/its-time-
for-states-to-invest-in-infrastructure)//IZYP
Recent research has found that infrastructure investments generally result

in a more productive economy, which typically means higher wages and a
better quality of life. The interactions between public infrastructure
investments and private sector growth are, however, highly complex and
difficult to quantify. A groundbreaking 1989 analysis by economist David
Aschauer of the countrys economic and public infrastructure growth
between 1949 and 1985 found that a 10 percent increase in public sector
capital stock (such as roads, transit, and public buildings) increased
productivity growth by almost 4 percent .[11] Some researchers, skeptical of
this finding, conducted studies using different data sets and methods. These
initial reports found considerably smaller effects than the early work or no
effect at all.[12] Many subsequent studies of this question have been
conducted using U.S. and international data. On balance, studies conducted
between the late 1990s and 2007 tended to confirm a relationship between
public infrastructure investment and economic growth. Although not all
studies find a growth-enhancing effect of public capital, there is more of a
consensus in the recent literature than in the older literature a 2007
survey of over 75 studies of the relationship concluded.[13] The search for
ways to restore economic growth following the 2008 recession prompted
additional research on this topic. Many of these more recent studies found
that spending on public infrastructure has a positive and statistically
significant effect on productivity and, thus, economic growth .[14] Although
the magnitude of the effects found in individual studies differed, the general
findings of the most recent studies is that an increase in the value of
existing current capital stock (roads, bridges, and other infrastructure)
would increase productivity growth . The effects are about half as large as
those Aschauer initially estimated.[15] Economists prepared a number of
estimates of the impact of an additional dollar of infrastructure spending on
GDP growth in 2008 during the debate over a federal fiscal stimulus
package. These estimates found that in the depths of the Great Recession, a
dollar in infrastructure investment would result in $1.50 in GDP growth,
according to the Council of Economic Advisers.[16] Similarly, Moodys, a
leading private econometric firm, estimated the effect at $1.60.[17] The
Congressional Budget Office found that that the impact ranged from a low
estimate of $1.00 to 2.50.[18] This impact will be less but likely still positive
during a time of economic growth, when there is still some slack in the labor
market as in the economy now. Moodys estimated that as of the
beginning of 2015 , after a number of years of economic recovery, an
additional dollar of infrastructure investment would increase GDP by $0.86.
That effect shrinks the closer the economy is to full employment
2NC - Politics Net Ben
Doesnt link to politics State actions dont spill-up to
influence national politics
Rabe, 04 (Barry Rabe is a Professor of Public Policy in the Gerald R. Ford
School at the University of Michigan, Statehouse and Greenhouse: The
Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy)
But this is not what occurred in the states examined in this study. Instead, a
much quieter process of policy formation has emerged, even during more
recent years, when the pace of innovation has accelerated and the intent of
many policies has been more far-reaching. This is not to suggesst that
climate-related episodes have been irrelevant or that leading environmental
groups have played no role in state policy development. Contrary to the
kinds of political brawls so common in debate about climate change policy
at national and international venues, however, state-based policymaking
has been far less visible and contentious, other cutting across traditional
partisan and interest group fissures. It has, moreover, been far more
productive in terms of generating actual policies with the potential to
reduce greenhouse gas releases.[p. 22]
Econ 5 - NIB
1NC
Text: The United States federal government should
create a National Infrastructure Bank.
A national bank would provide funding for
infrastructure innovation that revitalizes the economy
Anderson 16 (Norman F. Anderson is the CEO of CG/LA Infrastructure, a
strategy firm located in Washington, D.C., MA in Public Administration from
Harvard University The Daily Caller, Why we need a National
Infrastructure Bank, http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/28/why-we-need-a-
national-infrastructure-bank/)//IZYP
Imagine a major infrastructure build not in bricks, mortar and steel, but in
terms that more precisely define our advanced economy such as proximity
and velocity , increasing the speed at which we get things done. Thats the
opportunity we have before us to transform our country by focusing on
infrastructure that brings people closer together physically, emotionally and
productively. First, we need to focus on the right investment. A lot of old
thinking focuses on pot-holed highways and collapsing bridges, but if we
want to create a 21st Century economy with growth, wealth and possibilities
for everyone, then we better think differently. Listening to political
candidates address the issue, whether Republican or Democrat, is
depressing. Its crumbling, its collapsing, they say. We dont need to know
that our infrastructure is failing, what we need is a vision for how to seize a
tremendous opportunity. We also need to fund that investment. This is not
going to happen without a National Infrastructure Bank , a bank that is big
enough to make a difference, leveraging at least $1.5 trillion in private
capital through 2025. Additionally, we need to leverage technology and
ingenuity to transform our infrastructure bureaucracies into innovation
agents who are capable of incubating new technologies, managing
performance of new initiatives, and driving radical reform in the permitting
and approval process (which currently averages more than 9.5 years per
project). This is the defining moment for the president who assumes office
on Jan. 20, 2017. We stand at a true inflection point in the debate. Great
infrastructure changes everything because it brings everyone together,
takes us all somewhere together, and tells us in the way that only public
symbols can do who we are as a country. World class infrastructure
investment bears the hallmark of an incredible competitive advantage that
guides everyone closer into a new reality that we all envision, build and
share. How does my world change if the physical distance between New
York and Washington, D.C. is reduced by the equivalent of 150 miles through
high-speed maglev service; or if an autonomous vehicle takes an extra 30
minutes to reach my 3D manufacturing collaborator; or if my stake in
waterways means that I can bring global markets 2,000 miles nearer, and in
doing so increase profits and reduce carbon emissions? This is the vision
that matters, unleashing our savings, our imaginations and our incredible
new technology to bring us closer in ways unimaginable in the last century.
That old industrial model is exhausted and has been for more than 30 years.
Investment in highways and bridges is no longer believable as a reliable
source of progress. Ask the millennials if they get up in the morning
thinking of new highways and bridges? Here are the results that well see,
almost immediately, if we forget about the old paradigm and adopt a modern
initiative: First, a vigorous infusion of capital (doubling to 3 percent of GDP)
will elevate us to global leadership in imaginative infrastructure, generating
a whopping and sustained increase in national growth in the 4 percent range
(since the recovery our average annual growth has been a measly 2.1
percent). New industries will emerge . It is a massive opportunity at a time
when the cost of financing projects has never been lower . Second, well
focus as a nation on ushering people together, a driver of extraordinary
advantage. Everyone from the people who use public transit to those who
fly first class is critical in a proximity economy . They matter for their
participation, for inspiration and for their promise. In the words of the
distinguished philosopher Dr. Seuss, a persons a person, no matter how
small. Third, and most importantly, well get our confidence back! Small
wins lead to big wins. A successful build demonstrating to the world once
again that we are capable of incredible undertakings and stand on the
leading edge of the possible will generate a countrywide, top-to-bottom,
wind-at-our-backs sensation. Sustained growth and mushrooming
opportunities will be wonderfully inspiring, reengaging all of us with each
other in the kind of creative construction that has always defined America
and made reaching for greatness the only sensible life strategy!
Aff (answers to both
infrastructure CPs)
Spending Turn
Funneling billions into state transportation

departments leads to excessive wasting and ruins
current infrastructure
Schmitt 15 (Angie Smith, Administrator for Streetsblog.net, a national
blog network focused on sustainable transportation, smart growth and
livable streets Street Blog USA, More Money Wont Fix U.S. Infrastructure
If We Dont Change How Its Spent, 2-5-15,
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/05/more-money-wont-fix-u-s-
infrastructure-if-we-dont-change-how-its-spent/)//IZYP
Americas infrastructure is slowly falling apart went the headline of a recent Vice Magazine story that
epitomizes a certain line of thinking about how to fix the nations infrastructure crisis. The post showed
a series of structurally deficient bridges and traffic-clogged interchanges intended to jolt readers into
thinking we need to spend more on infrastructure .
The idea that decrepit roads are
caused by a lack of money is widespread. Voxs Matt Yglesias recently argued that
the nation should borrow a bunch of money at low interest rates now and invest in an
infrastructure surge that would help put idled construction workers back
to work. Liberal crusader Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill in the Senate to
spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over the next five years. Its true that a
surge of investment could be very helpful in building modern, high-capacity
transit systems in American cities, or in constructing high-speed rail links
between major metros. Its also true that the federal gas tax has been
eroded by inflation for more than 20 years, so tens of billions of dollars in
general fund revenue has been diverted to transportation spending since
2008. But throwing more money at the problem overlooks the fatal flaw in
American transportation infrastructure policy: The system is set up to
funnel the vast majority of spending through state departments of
transportation, and those agencies have an absolutely terrible track record
when it comes to making smart long-term decisions. As long as state DOTs
retain unfettered control of the money, potholed roads and decrepit bridges
will remain the norm. Thats because the sorry state of American
transportation infrastructure is mainly the result of wasteful spending
choices, not a lack of funding. State DOTs lack of fiscal discipline is nothing
short of criminal. The chart on the right,courtesy of Smart Growth America,
shows how states divided spending between new construction and
maintenance from 2004 to 2008. States used most of their money 57
percent on new construction (projects like that massive but oddly empty
interchange in Milwaukee, above, dont come cheap). Meanwhile, states
used the 43 percent left over to maintain the remaining 98.7 percent of road
infrastructure. This is a recipe for ruin. If you think that states have felt
chastised in the last few years, think again. Heres a chart from the
Minneapolis Star Tribune showing how Minnesota DOT divides its money
between maintenance and new construction: Doubling federal
transportation spending wouldnt solve this problem. Pumping billions of
additional dollars into state DOTs without reforming the current system
could actually make it worse giving agencies license to spend lavishly on
new projects that serve only to increase their massive maintenance
backlogs. A new report from the Center for American Progress finds that 50
percent of existing roads dont carry enough traffic to generate gas taxes
sufficient to pay for their own maintenance. While raising the gas tax might
change the equation for some of these roads, the level of subsidy is
disturbing. The last thing we need is more money-losing roads to maintain.
The Vice story the one thats supposed to scare us into approving funding
for transportation is actually a catalog of tremendous waste. The
magazine cites Seattles dangerously destabilized Alaskan Way Viaduct an
elevated highway as an example of decay, then notes that at least $2
billion has been dumped into building the most expensive possible solution
to that problem: an underground highway. Seattle and the state of
Washington could have selected a much cheaper alternative tearing down
the aging elevated highway, replacing it with an at-grade boulevard and
better transit options. Studies by the city actually found the surface transit
solution would have moved as many people as the tunnel at a fraction of the
price. But the regions politicians and transportation authorities chose the
high-cost, high-risk path, and they may end up with nothing to show for it.
Vice also points to Cincinnatis aging Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio
River. But is money the answer, or does Ohio just need to make better use of
the funds at its disposal? Elsewhere in the Cincinnati region, Ohio DOT has
insisted on building a $1.4 billion highway to the eastern suburbs despite
widespread opposition from the communities its supposed to serve. There
are similar stories in most states DOTs willing to break the bank on gold-
plated highway flyovers designed to shave 40 seconds off a half-hour
commute, while neglecting important bridges and other assets that present
real risks. One voice of reason has been civil engineer Chuck Marohn, whos
had to dodge threats from his peers because he challenged the orthodoxy
that more infrastructure is always the answer. As he put it in a recent post
on his Strong Towns blog: American prosperity is not simply a function of
how many roads, pipes and hunks of metal we can construct. Our
infrastructure investments must work to support the American people, not
the other way around.
Solvency Deficit
Infrastructure spending doesnt stimulate the
economy borrowing money causes job loss in other
sectors
Riedl 08 (Brian Riedl, Heritage Foundation's lead budget analyst,
previously speaker of Wisconson Assembly, MA Public Affairs Princeton 10-
12-08, The Heritage Foundation, Why Government Spending Does Not
Stimulate Economic Growth
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/why-government-
spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth)//IZYP
Nowhere is the government spending stimulus myth more widespread than

in highway spending. Congress is already rumbling to push billions in highway spending in the
next stimulus package. Over the years , lawmakers have repeatedly supported their
errant claim that highway spending is an immediate economic tonic by citing
a Department of Transportation (DOT) study. This study supposedly states that every
$1 billion spent on highways adds 47,576 new jobs to the economy.[15] The
problem: The DOT study made no such claim . It stated that spending $1 billion on
highways would require 47,576 workers (or more precisely, it would require 26,524 workers, who then
before the
spend their income elsewhere, supporting an additional 21,052 workers). But
government can spend $1 billion hiring road builders and purchasing
asphalt, it must first tax or borrow $1 billion from other sectors of the
economy-which would then lose a similar number of jobs . In other words,
highway spending merely transfers jobs and income from one part of the
economy to another. As The Heritage Foundation's Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way
that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1
billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."[16] The DOT report
implicitly acknowledged this point by referring to the transportation jobs as "employment benefits" within
the transportation sector, rather than as newjobs for the total economy. An April 2008 DOT update to its
previous study reduced the employment figure to 34,779 jobs supported by each $1 billion spent on
highways, and explicitly stated that the figure "refers to jobssupported by highway investments, not
jobs created."[17] Similarly, a Congressional Research Service study calculated similar numbers as the
To the extent that financing new highways by reducing
DOT study, but cautioned:
expenditures on other programs or by deficit finance and its impact on
private consumption and investment, the net impact on the economy of
highway construction in terms of both output and employment could be
nullified or even negative.[18] Not surprisingly, highway spending has a poor
track record of stimulating the economy. The Emergency Jobs Appropriations Act of 1983
appropriated billions of dollars in highway spending (among other programs) in hopes of pushing the
an audit by the General Accounting Office
double-digit unemployment rate downward. Years later,
(GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) found that highway spending
generally failed to create a significant number of new jobs.[19] The bottom
line is that there is no reason to expect additional highway spending this
year to boost short-term economic growth or create new jobs . As stated
above, resulting improvements in the nation's infrastructure may
increase future productivity and growth-once they are completed and in use.
This is not the same as suggesting that the act of spending money on
additional highway workers and asphalt is itself an immediate stimulant.
Even the hope of future productivity increases rest on the assumptions that
politicians will allocate money to necessary highway projects (rather then
pork), and that those future productivity benefits will outweigh the lost
productivity from raising future tax rates to finance the project.[20]
Heg - PGS
1NC
allow the Department of the Defense to
Produce an unclassified policy statement on
specific missions PGS weapons might be used
Conduct a comparative study in terms of their
successful prosecution
Conduct a comprehensive examination of gaps in
enabling capabilities, develop plans, and allocate
funds to fill found gaps
Produce an unclassified report on escalation risks
and possible ways of mitigating them
CP allows for successful US prompt global strike
capabilities self-reflexivity solves their offense
Acton 15 PhD Theoretical Physics, Cambridge University (James M., a co-
director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment and specializes in nonproliferation, deterrence, and
disarmament, 12/8/15, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Prompt Global Strike: American and Foreign
Developments, Testimony to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Kent Denver-jKIM)
I will not even try to offer any definitive conclusion about whether the United States ought to acquire
CPGS weapons; as I said at the start of my testimony, I am genuinely undecided. However, I do believe
a course correction is required if the program is to live up to its full
that
potential and, perhaps even more importantly, if Congress is to be able to assess the
scale of that potential.
To date, the CPGS program has focused too narrowly on technology
development; there has been an apparent failure to give proper attention to
the role of CPGS weaponsand potential alternativesin national strategy. To this end, I
would like to conclude by offering some suggestions for how the Department of Defense
might improve its process for developing CPGS weapons.
The Department of Defense could produce an unclassified policy statement
on the specific missions for which CPGS weapons might be acquired.
The Department of Defense could conduct classified studies into the
implications of possible adversary countermeasures over the next two
or three decades for CPGS weapons, including a comparison of the
effect of such countermeasures on non-prompt alternatives.
The Department of Defense could conduct a comparative study of CPGS
weapons and non-prompt alternatives in terms of their ability to hold mobile
targets, and hard and deeply buried targets at risk; their relative unit cost; and
their capability to successfully prosecute each of the missions for
which the Department is considering acquiring CPGS weapons.
The Department of Defense could conduct a comprehensive and dedicated
examination of gaps in enabling capabilities ; and develop plans , with
cost estimates, to fill these gaps.
The Department of Defense could produce an unclassified report on (i) the
escalation risks of CPGS weapons, including \but not limited to
warhead ambiguity; and (ii) possible ways of mitigating them ,
including cooperative approaches.
2NC Solves Heg
PGS capabilities are fundamentally key to countering
rising threats and guaranteeing US power projection
globally
Woolf 16 - M.A. in Public Policy Harvard Kennedy School of Government
(Amy F., a Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service at
the Library of Congress. She provides Congress with information, analysis, and support on issues related to U.S. and Russian nuclear forces
and arms control. She has authored many studies and participated in numerous seminars on these issues, addressing such topics as nuclear
weapons strategy and doctrine, nuclear force structure, strategic arms control and the U.S-Russian arms control agenda, ballistic missile
defense policy, and issues related to nuclear weapons and threat reduction in the former Soviet Union. Ms. Woolf has spoken at numerous
conferences and workshops, discussing issues such as Congressional views on arms control and ballistic missile defenses, cooperative threat
reduction with Russia, and U.S. nuclear weapons policy, 2/24/16, Congressional Research Service, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and
Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, R41464, pg.___, Kent Denver-jKIM)
The need for prompt long-range, or global, strike capabilities has been
addressed in general defense policy studies, such as the 2001, 2006, and 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Reports. The 2001 QDR noted that the U.S. defense
strategy rests on the assumption that U.S. forces have the ability to project
power worldwide.4 The 2006 QDR expanded on the need for prompt global
strike capabilities, noting that they would provide the United States with the
ability to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets
with improved accuracy anywhere in the world promptly upon the
Presidents order. This QDR went on to call for the deployment of a prompt global strike
capability, using Trident submarine-based ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads, within
two to four years.5 The 2010 QDR also noted that enhanced
long-range strike capabilities
are one means of countering growing threats to forward deployed forces and bases and
ensuring U.S. power projection capabilities. It noted that DOD is pursuing a number of
programs to meet this need, and, as a part of this effort, plans to experiment with conventional prompt
global strike prototypes.6DOD has also addressed the prompt global strike mission in specific
reports on Air Force doctrine, which have noted that rapid power projection based in
the continental United States has become the predominant military
strategy. In May 2003, the Air Force issued a formal Mission Need Statement for the Prompt
Global Strike (PGS) Mission. This statement indicated that the United States should be
able to strike globally and rapidly with joint conventional forces against high-payoff
targets, that the United States should be able to plan and execute these attacks in
a matter of minutes or hoursas opposed to the days or weeks needed for planning
and execution with existing forcesand that it should be able to execute these
attacks even when it had no permanent military presence in the region where the
conflict would occur.7
2NC Solves Taiwan War
CP solves Taiwan War
Sugden 09 - M.A. in I.R. and Public Policy University of Chicago (Bruce M., a
defense analyst for the Department of Defense and commercial clients on combating weapons of mass destructions,
future global strike force structure alternatives, nuclear policy and strategy, and emerging deterrence requirements and
technology issues, Summer 2009, The MIT Press, International Security, Vol. 34, No. 1, pg. 118-120, Speed Kills:
Analyzing the Deployment of Conventional Ballistic Missiles, Kent Denver-jKIM)
The second type of PGS mission involves a strike at a larger set of distant,
time-critical targets at the opening of major combat operations.18
Appropriate targets include command, control, and communications nodes
and air defenses. The political-military circumstances, mission requirements,
and weapons systems capabilities for ensuring successful strikes differ from
the near-term, niche mission. According to proponents, expanded roles for
CBMs could also include counter-nuclear missions and the shaping of
adversary military investments. These roles are predicated on a large-scale
CBM capability, perhaps a minimum of fifty deployed CBMs. The argument
for CBMs in the expanded mission is twofold. One rationale is that an
adversarys defense of a critical capability may pose serious risk to aircraft
and aircrews attempting to bomb the target, but a weapon traveling at
ballistic speed is guaranteed to penetrate most, if not all, defenses. Thus,
CBMs would increase the probability of destroying heavily defended targets,
such as those on the coast of the Peoples Republic of China opposite
Taiwan.19 CBMs could also play a role in opening the door to manned
aircraft as part of a major combat operation. There would be a greater
requirement for CBMs and large-scale PGS missions to defeat defensive
systems and enable entry for U.S. strike aircraft under two conditions. First,
the long-term international security environment will be marked by a
greater diffusion of anti-access and area-denial weapons systems, mobile
targets, and hard and deeply buried targets compared with today.20 Anti-
access and area-denial systems increase the distance between targets and
areas from which the United States can operate its military forces with
impunity. Command and control centers for these systems might be mobile
or deep and hardened against many direct attack options. The second
condition is that area-denial weapons technology overturns the dominance of
stealth technology. These conditions would put a premium on defense
penetration; persistence and high volume of fire; intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance and target acquisition; payload flexibility; throw weight;
and increased transparency regarding ballistic missile payloads. This option
for CBMs will require developing and fielding capabilities that are
unavailable in the near term. Thus, this analysis considers the use of CBMs
in expanded PGS missions to be a long-term option. The near-term PGS
mission and CBM options, such as CTM, do not focus on major combat
operations; they are stand-alone, limited, prompt strike options. The second
rationale for CBMs in an expanded mission is that a wider array of
conventional strike options will allow the United States to avoid crossing the
nuclear threshold; they will provide usable tools for escalation that are
proportionate to the threat that needs to be deterred or defeated. In
contrast, the use of nuclear weapons against most anticipated non-WMD
threats is deemed disproportionate. Using nuclear weapons, even against
WMD targets, will engender a host of undesired political consequences.21
Therefore, the threat to launch a conventional strike would be more
credible, which is conducive to managing the escalation of the use of force
below the nuclear threshold and to ensuring the success of deterrence. This
line of thinking echoes the Cold War doctrine of flexible response, wherein
the United States and its allies were prepared to fight at all levels of war to
deter the Soviet Union from all forms of military aggression.22 A U.S.
Department of Defense official, for example, declared in a 2002 briefing on
the Nuclear Posture Review that the non-nuclear strike forces, we believe,
have the potential, if fully exploited, fully developed, to reduce our
dependency on nuclear forces for the offensive-strike leg.23 Some CBM
proponents argue that long-term CBMs might be used in a large-scale,
counterforce role to defeat nuclear forces. For example, U.S. CBMs could
nullify a nuclear strategy that China might employ to deter U.S. intervention
in a Taiwan Strait conflict. Many of Chinas nuclear-armed intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are based at fixed sites, and U.S. CBMs could be
used to undertake a preventive or preemptive strike against their silos or
soft-site launch pads, or to functionally defeat their exit from secure storage
sites.24
AT Squo System Solves
CP key to resolving PGS capability gap
The near-term PGS mission is intended to defeat emerging, time-sensitive, soft targets,
such as exposed WMD launchers, terrorist leaders, and sites of state transfers of
WMD to terrorists or other states within roughly one hour of a decision to
attack.13 These targets may appear during any period in peacetime and wartime
when U.S. forces are unavailable in the vicinity or are otherwise committed.
Both the 1998 cruise missile strikes against al-Qaidas Tarnak Farm and other camps in
eastern Afghanistan, which failed to kill al-Qaidas leadership, and the opening F-117 air
attack in Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003,14 which destroyed a bunker where
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was thought to be located, underscore the importance of
coupling prompt weapons delivery vehicles to accurate, actionable
intelligence to hold time-sensitive targets at risk .15 The National Research Council
conducted a study on the mission requirements for using CTM and alternative systems as PGS weapons
Its final report stated that there is a PGS capability gap , wherein U.S.
systems.
nonnuclear strike capabilities fall short of those required for the current and
projected security environments. The gap is illustrated by credible scenarios where two
independent conditions for employing CBMs might exist: U.S. manned or unmanned aircraft are not
deployed close enough to the targets to enable prompt attack; or enemy air defenses are strong enough
to jeopardize the success of a mission carried out by aircraft.16 Even if U.S. long-range bombers were
deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia, for example, it could take up to ten to twenty hours of flight time to
reach distant targets.17 Because CBMs could hit distant targets from bases in the continental United
States within a one-hour time period, proponents argue they are the ideal PGS weapons system.
AT No Intel
Combination of intelligence systems solves
Accurate intelligence that is conducive to PGS strikes within a one-hour time

period places a high demand on a persistent presence in geographic areas of
interest to detect and track time-sensitive targets, especially mobile ones,
but U.S. imagery intelligence capabilities alone do not meet the demand.
First, fast-pass reconnaissance in the form of satellites is not conducive to
persistent reconnaissance of small geographic areas containing meeting
targets. Reconnaissance satellites optimize their resolution of imagery
through low orbits, typically below an altitude of 1,000 miles, which give
them a few minutes of coverage over a specific area per pass.35 These
satellites were designed for wide-area coverage to scan fixed targets in
support of strategic warning. For example, reconnaissance satellites are
excellent tools for taking snapshots over time to show changes in the size
and location of large military formations, such as armored units, aircraft
units, and ballistic missile emplacements. Notwithstanding the limitations of
imagery satellites, U.S. space-based radar reconnaissance satellites, if fully
deployed in the long term, will provide improved persistent coverage of
target areas.36 The maximum time gaps between observations might be in
the tens of minutes. The systems projected 2020 capability will enable more
reliable space-based target detection and identification compared to the
near-term capability. A second issue is that although it is difficult for large
military formations and fixed sites to hide from a variety of reconnaissance
assets, small, mobile targets such as trucks and individuals find the task
relatively easier. These types of targets can avoid open areas and employ
cover and concealment to reduce the probability of detection. More capable
means of persistent reconnaissance and intelligence collection are aircraft
and human intelligence sources on the ground near the targets. These tools
are the basis for Israels counterleadership strikes against Hamas, the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.37 Moreover,
reconnaissance via UAVs and intelligence from informants enabled U.S.
strikes against six suspected al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen in November 2002
and al-Qaida in Iraqs leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in Iraq in June 2006.38
Despite some successes, there are problems with relying on human
intelligence sources and UAV reconnaissance. First, the history of receiving
reliable intelligence from informants is mixed. For example, two U.S.
attempts to kill Saddam Hussein with air strikes in 2003, based on
information passed by Iraqi informants, failed.39 Informants can be
dishonest and motivated more by financial gain than by allegiance to the
state seeking the information.40 Second, UAVs have to violate sovereign
airspace to gather intelligence. If a UAV were detected or shot down, it
might disrupt U.S. diplomatic efforts or relations with other states. The
nearly global and persistent footprint of U.S. signals intelligence, which is
information collected through the interception of broadcast communications
and electronic transmissions, could compensate for shortfalls in other areas
of intelligence collection. For example, the United States has successfully
identified and tracked terrorist targets through signals intelligence and
other collection tools.41 One target was tracked in Somalia and reported
killed by Tomahawk cruise missiles from an offshore U.S. naval vessel.
Therefore, the combination of intelligence disciplines could create an
accurate and timely picture of events that prompt weapons delivery vehicles
could exploit.42
AT International Instability
PGS systems are comparatively less toxic for the
international community than nuclear weapons
The second rationale for CBMs in an expanded mission is that a wider array of
conventional strike options will allow the United States to avoid crossing the
nuclear threshold; they will provide usable tools for escalation that are
proportionate to the threat that needs to be deterred or defeated. In
contrast, the use of nuclear weapons against most anticipated non-WMD
threats is deemed disproportionate. Using nuclear weapons, even against WMD
targets, will engender a host of undesired political consequences .21 Therefore, the
threat to launch a conventional strike would be more credible, which is
conducive to managing the escalation of the use of force below the nuclear
threshold and to ensuring the success of deterrence . This line of thinking echoes the
Cold War doctrine of flexible response, wherein the United States and its allies were prepared to fight at
all levels of war to deter the Soviet Union from all forms of military aggression.22 A U.S. Department
of Defense official, for example, declared in a 2002 briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review
that the non-nuclear strike forces, we believe, have the potential, if fully
exploited, fully developed, to reduce our dependency on nuclear forces for
the offensive-strike leg.23
AT 2017 Budget Solves
More recent legislative provisions will undermine the
2017 budget
Harper 5/23 - M.A. in National Security Studies Georgetown University
(Jon Harper, , 5/23/16, is a senior writer for the National Defense Magazine and a reporter for Bloomberg Government,
5/23/16, Bloomberg Government, Secretary Carter blasts Armed Services Committees authorization bills,
http://about.bgov.com/blog/secretary-carter-blasts-armed-services-committees-authorization-bills/, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ripped legislative provisions recently

passed by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, saying May 17
that he would recommend President Barack Obama veto them if they ever
reached his desk. The Pentagon chief attacked several aspects of the Senate
and House versions of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization
Act, during a keynote speech at the Navy Leagues Sea-Air-Space
conference. One key provision he objected to in the Senate version of the
NDAA was the weakening of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition,
technology and logistics the Pentagons top weapons buyer. The bill would
essentially eliminate the position, currently held by Frank Kendall, and divvy
up its responsibilities among a new undersecretary for research and
engineering and an undersecretary of management and support.
Separating research and engineering from manufacturing, which is implied
in this proposal, could introduce problems in the transition from the
research and engineering phase to the production and sustainment phases,
Carter said. Such transitions are a frequent stumbling block for programs,
he said, citing as an example the growing pains in moving the F-35 joint
strike fighter program from the engineering and manufacturing
development phase to low-rate initial production. Carter said he shares
concerns that the acquisition executives position has become preoccupied
with program management at the expensive of focusing on the research and
engineering aspect of the job. Nevertheless, the Senate Armed Services
Committees proposal would be counterproductive, he argued. Procurement
and sustainment are closely linked with technology, engineering and
development, and represent about 90 percent of the cost of most programs,
he noted. Separating these functions makes no sense, as procurement and
sustainment costs are controlled by decisions made during development,
Carter said. The move could derail the Pentagons efforts to lower contract
cost growth on the most high-risk contracts, he said, noting that such cost
growth currently stands at a 35-year low. The defense leader called the
Senates approach overly prescriptive, saying it could lead to unhelpful
micromanagement and negative second- and third-order effects. He did not
specify what those effects might be. Carter also took aim at a funding
provision in the House NDAA that would move about $18 billion in overseas
contingency operations money to the base budget to pay for non-war related
items. Its proponents have suggested they are banking on the hope that the
next president will add supplemental war funding to the budget in the
middle of the fiscal year to cover the costs of ongoing operations. Deriding
the proposal as budget gimmickry and irresponsible gambling, Carter
said it would have several negative effects. Most disturbingly, it raids war
funds in a time of war when we have men and women deployed in operations
in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, he said. Moreover, it would spend money
taken from the war account on things that are not DoDs highest
priorities. The House bill would undermine readiness, he argued, by
beefing up the size of the military without ensuring there will be sufficient
funding for training ranges, schoolhouses, depots and shipyards. Its a
path to a hollow force, he said. On a broader fiscal level, Carter is
concerned that the diversion of war funds to the base budget could upend
the bipartisan budget agreement reached last year, which set base budget
and war funding levels for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The effort by
lawmakers to bust the spending caps could lead to budget turmoil, including
a continuing resolution and the return of sequestration, he said. The
budget stability that was supposed to last for two years is already under
threat after only six months, he said. Its exactly the kind of terrible
distraction weve had for years. It undercuts stable planning and efficient
use of taxpayer dollars, dispirits troops and their families, baffles friends and
emboldens foes. The head of the Pentagon also criticized the committees
for not approving some of his reform proposals, including another round of
base realignment and closure. For the controversial provisions in the NDAA
bills to become law, the House and Senate must include them in the
reconciled version that comes out of a joint conference. The two chambers
must then pass a common NDAA, and the president must sign it. If a final
version of the NDAA reaches the president this year that risks stability
and gambles with war funding, jeopardizes readiness and rejects key
judgments of the department, I will be compelled to recommend that he veto
the bill, Carter said. I am hopeful, however, that we can work with
Congress to achieve a better solution.
NDAA proposals undermine 2017 war spending

Copp, M.A. in Security Studies Georgetown University,
5/16 (Tara, is a Pentagon correspondent for Stars and Stripes. She previously covered DOD for the Washington
Examiner, Janes Defense Weekly, the Austin American-Statesman and Scripps Howard News Service, 5/16/16, Stars and
Stripes, DOD: Carter could recommend veto of 2017 defense bill, http://www.stripes.com/news/dod-carter-could-
recommend-veto-of-2017-defense-bill-1.409825, Kent Denver-jKIM)
WASHINGTON Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is waiting to see whether

Congress uses war funds in the 2017 defense budget before he decides to
recommend that the president veto it, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook
said Monday. During the last month, the House and Senate have passed
their versions of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Though
each chamber has passed an overall budget of $610 billion, the House
version shifts $18 billion from a fund dedicated to war spending to pay for
increased troops, aircraft and shipbuilding, a maneuver that Carter
criticized as gambling with funding for our troops. Rep. Mac Thornberry,
R-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is pushing the
plan to use the $18 billion to address military readiness by tapping into the
Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO, fund to pay for it. This fund is
not subject to the spending caps set by sequestration. The war spending
account pays for increased operations against the Islamic State group and
increased U.S. troops and equipment in Europe. If the OCO fund runs out
before the fiscal year ends, Congress would have to vote to approve
additional war funding to replace the $18 billion used in the NDAA. The
Senate version of the bill does not use OCO funds. The secretary has been
pretty clear about his views on the use of those OCO funds, Cook said
Monday. He just believes that to rob money from the warfighter in this sort
of way is not the right approach. Last year, Carter did recommend
President Barack Obama veto the defense bill. In October, the president did,
in part over policy fights about the closure of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and decisions to increase defense spending while
cutting domestic programs. This year, Carter is waiting to see whether a
deal can be made before offering his recommendation to Obama, Cook said.
Wed like to work with these committees before anyone talks about veto
threats, he said. Congress will take up part of the bill this week as the
Rules Committee decides how the House floor debate on the bill will
proceed.
AT Links to Politics
Pursuing PGS capabilities are popular garners
support from national security hawks
Payne 12 -Ph.D. in International Relations, USC (Keith, is the President and co-founder
of the National Institute for Public Policy, served in the Department of Defense as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Forces Policy. He received the Distinguished Public Service Medal and the Forces Policy, was the head of
U.S. delegation in allied consultations and negotiations on BMD cooperation with the Russian Federation. was awarded
the Vicennial Medal from Georgetown University, the Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Commands Senior Advisory Group,
Strategy and Policy Panel, served as a Commissioner on the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States, the Secretary of States International Security Advisory Board, as co-chairman of the
Department of Defenses Deterrence Concepts Advisory Group, a participant in numerous governmental and private
studies, including White House studies of U.S.-Russian cooperation, Defense Science Board Studies, and Defense
Department studies of missile defense, arms control, and proliferation, 6/12, National Institute For Public Policy,
Conventional Prompt Global Strike: A Fresh Perspective, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Since the 2010 congressional elections, the political dynamic on Capitol Hill has
shifted, with new chairmen in charge of key committees in the House of Representatives. Although
there is general congressional support for the concept of CPGS, concern
remains over whether the Department of Defense is focusing its CPGS efforts
too narrowly. The House Armed Services Committee, for example, has encouraged a broader
examination of the tradespace of CPGS capabilities and concepts to meet warfighter requirements.46 In
light of this, the time may be ripe for an examination of multiple CPGS
alternatives that could accomplish military objectives at reasonable cost and
with minimal technical risk. For those who support more robust strike
options for the United States, CPGS can provide them. For those who support additional
nuclear reductions, CPGS can help offset the attendant risks that may flow from them. For those
who believe terrorists armed with nuclear weapons pose the greatest
security threat today, CPGS can help defeat them. And for those who are
most concerned with WMD proliferation, CPGS can help deter and dissuade
those who might otherwise seek to acquire such capabilities.
Republicans hate any arms restrictions CP reverses

perception of Obama compromising national security
Rogin, George Washington Universitys School of
International Affairs, 9 (Josh, has been featured on CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, CBS, ABC, NPR,
WTOP, and several other outlets. He was a 2008-2009 National Press Foundation's Paul Miller Washington Reporting
Fellow, 2009 military reporting fellow with the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism and the 2011 recipient of the
InterAction Award for Excellence in International Reporting, 9/16/2009, Foreign Policy: The Cable, Exclusive: House
Republicans ding Obama on nuke treaty in previously unreported letter, http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/16/exclusive-
house-republicans-ding-obama-on-nuke-treaty-in-previously-unreported-letter/, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Yesterday, The Cable brought you news about the Obama administration's new
nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Today, we share with you a
previously unreported letter (pdf) from senior House GOP lawmakers telling
the president that they don't like where they see the negotiations headed. Signed by
the House Armed Services Committee's ranking Republican, Howard P. "Buck"
McKeon (R-CA) and House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking Republican Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the letter's basic point is their contention that administration officials are
rushing to complete a follow on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before the
Dec. 5 deadline, which will cause them to make too many concessions to the Russians
and get ahead of their own Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The GOP leaders also refer to HASC
testimony (pdf) by Philip Gordon, the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs, to
criticize the possibility that the Obama team might compromise too much and
end up near the lower end of ranges agreed to between Obama and Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev in their July 8 Joint Understanding, namely 500 delivery vehicles and 1,500 deployed
warheads. "Congress has yet to learn what the administration's deterrence
objectives and policies are, much less the appropriate nuclear force
structure requirements that would be derived from them," the letter states. The
letter also warns that Congress (read: Republicans) would not look favorably on
any restrictions in the new treaty that would limit U.S. missile defenses or
conventional strike systems.
AT PGS Prolif
Increasing conventional weaponry signals global
nuclear disarmament resolves prolif
Futter and Zala 13 - Lecturers in International Politics at the
University of Leicester (Andrew and Benjamin, 2/26/13, The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 20, Is. 1, pg.
107-108, ADVANCED US CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Obama has appeared determined to reduce the

Since taking office, President Barack
nuclear weapons in US defense posture, at least in part to
salience and centrality of
help facilitate the achievement of a nuclear weapon-free world. A
fundamental, but often overlooked, component of this plan (in relation to the US defense
posture) is the gradual attempt to place a far greater reliance upon advanced
conventional weaponry in US national security thinking as well as practice ,

specifically through a larger role for ballistic missile defenses, advanced
conventional strike programs , and sophisticated command, control, and
monitoring capabilities.1 By doing this, the administration hopes to foster the
domestic conditions favorable for further US nuclear reductions thereby
reigniting the push towards nuclear abolition internationally while at the
same time placating domestic global zero skeptics worried about a
weakening of US security and the US global role. For the Obama administration, an
increased role for advanced conventional weapons will allow for further US
nuclear reductions, signaling to other nuclear powers an intent to eventually
disarm. In this regard, the shift toward a greater role for advanced conventional
weaponry may seem logical, both to increase the possibility of further nuclear
reductions, and as a prudent response to the fluid requirements of US security.
Aff
2017 Budget Solves
2017 budget solves DoD placed significant emphasis
on precision strike weapons
Wasserbly 3/7 0 - M.A. in Security Studies George Washington
University (Daniel, is a Americas Editor for IHS Janes with expertise in include U.S. military equipment, U.S.
defense budgeting, military operations and missile defense. A seasoned journalist, he has studied and written about
defense issues for the last eight years, including coverage of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3/7/16, IHS Janes 360,
Pentagon budget 2017: Evolving power projection concepts shaped DoD's request,
http://www.janes.com/article/58589/pentagon-budget-2017-evolving-power-projection-concepts-shaped-dod-s-request,
Kent Denver-jKIM)
To help form the fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017) budget, US Department of Defense (DoD)
leaders conducted a strategic review of the 'power projection portfolio', which
includes platforms for deterring adversaries and potential adversaries . That
review identified key areas that then drove some of the major budget
choices in the current request, Jamie Morin, director of DoD's Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation office, said during a 7 March briefing at the Center for Strategic and International
said the review and resulting budget placed significant
Studies. Morin
emphasis on the military's ability "to deliver effects from range", which is
largely due to the proliferation of technologies enabling anti-access/area denial
(A2/AD) strategies that the United States would need to overcome or address.
That technology, which includes longer range precision strike weapons, drove
many of the themes shaping the 'power projection portfolio' . For example, DoD
also determined that it must better disaggregate its expensive, precious, and valuable systems that can
be held at greater risk but are still needed to project power, Morin said. Similarly, the Pentagon must
"leverage areas of sanctuary" because it is increasingly important to "act from domains or from means
where you enjoy relative sanctuary", he added.
Turn U.S.-Russia War
PGS capabilities causes US-Russia miscalc cant tell
the difference between conventional and nuclear
missiles
Gormley 16 - M.A. University of Connecticut (Dennis M., a Senior Research Fellow at
the Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies, Gormley served as a senior vice president for 20
years with Pacific-Sierra Research (PSR), has chaired or served on numerous Department of Defense and intelligence
advisory panels, 2/3/16, The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 22, #2, US Advanced Conventional Systems and
Conventional Prompt Global Strike Ambitions, pg.128-129, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Strategic stability is also threatened by the ambiguity over whether an

incoming CPGS missile is armed with a conventional or nuclear payload . As
noted at the outset, Russian analysts assert that CPGS augurs a future US capacity
to conduct effective counterforce strikes on their strategic nuclear forces, enabling
the United States to threaten Russias retaliatory capability without
resorting to nuclear weapons. If this perception prevails, then the potential for
Russia to mistakenly perceive either one or two CPGS weapons as a leading-
edge attackconventional or nuclearagainst their nuclear arsenal is not entirely
farfetched. Attempts to mitigate these worries through various confidence-
building and transparency measures might allay some underlying concern pertaining to
replacing a CPGS missiles conventional payload for a nuclear one. Still, such measures cannot
confidently eliminate a states potential for erratic behavior under the
extraordinarily compressed circumstances of a CPGS scenario. Context, as always,
is critical, but prompt decision making comes with its own inherent dangers. 128 A second important
dimension of risk lies in a firm appreciation of the important differences between nuclear and
conventional weapons. The performance of a modest number of US precision-guided munitions in the
1991 Gulf War signaled that precision weapons might one day replace nuclear weapons for some
missions. In 2008, one US Strategic Command officer stated that conventional weapons were capable of
destroying 10 to 30 percent of extant nuclear targets.37 That said, proponents of nuclear weapons
remain steadfast in their belief that the sheer scale of nuclear effects, compared to conventional
weapons, contributes critically to their deterrent value. Whether one agrees with this distinction in
regard to its outcome for deterrence, there is little debate about the difference in scale and effects
between nuclear and conventional weapons. Thus, what separates nuclear from conventional weapons is
the reality that their huge difference in scale greatly compensates for expected errors in weapon
accuracy or target uncertainty. Compared with nuclear weapons, precision conventional weapons depend
critically on an array of supporting needs. This includes, first and foremost, highly accurate and swiftly
gathered intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, rigorous mission planning, precise
knowledge of the targets aim points (i.e., its vulnerabilities), post-attack damage assessment capabilities
(to determine whether damage objectives have been achieved and whether additional strikes are
necessary), and finally, an agile command-and-control system to manage these complex, interconnected
tasks. Consequently, while nuclear weapons are forgiving due to their comparatively large-scale effects,
conventional weapons, no matter how precise, cannot afford a breakdown in the performance of their
supporting cast of functions if they are to succeed as planned. Therefore, while the sum of the CPGS
concepts desired performance is certainly greater than the parts, as each part critically enables the
concepts objective synergy.
Prolif Turn
CP sets the precedent for miscalculation and nuclear
missile prolif
Conventional Prompt Global Strike Ambitions, pg.135, Kent Denver-jKIM)
The only thing certain about future nuclear reductions is that they will require
an unprecedented level of dialogue and transparency between and among the
affected state parties to reach some accommodation that enables deeper cuts in each
sides nuclear arsenals. To achieve progress, parties must refrain from
exaggerating capabilities and appreciating the distinction between what is hypothetically
possible and realistically achievable when evaluating threat scenarios of gravest concern. But what
seems certain is that making heretofore nuclear-only missiles also capable of
delivering conventional warheads is fraught with the prospect of serious,
unintended consequences. A particularly pertinent example is that, to the extent
states begin embracing the use of ballistic missiles for conventional missions or
worse, for missions with only one hour of decision time before use a strong
precedent will be set for other states to emulate such behavior. A possible reason
why cruise missiles did not find their way into the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against the Proliferation
of Ballistic Missiles is that they were seen, especially by the Pentagon, as a weapon of great
discrimination rather than mass destruction. Very soon, too, ballistic missiles may gain a
similar reputation, even though everyone knows that both ballistic and cruise missiles are equally
capable of delivering nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Nevertheless, the
consequence may be the unintended spread of ballistic missiles and
accompanying strategic instability. Thus, when US decision makers pause to
consider the ramifications of any decision about deploying CPGS systems, they should broaden the
scope of their perspective to also include these systems effects on
nonproliferation policy and future missile proliferation. 68 Finally, the notion of
prompt use of a highly precise intercontinental-range missile within an hours decision time powerfully
conveys the longstanding American preference for dabbling with technological solutions to the exclusion
US decision makers should best avoid myopic
of clear-headed strategic thinking. Here,
thinking about the utility of CPGS as a silver bullet. It would be preferable to
consider more fully the broad and unwelcome dangers and policy
ramifications that such narrow thinking could produce .
PGS Intel Fails
PGS fails and increases accidental launches lack of
actionable intelligence
Gormley 16- M.A. University of Connecticut (Dennis M., a Senior Research Fellow at the
Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies, Gormley served as a senior vice president for 20 years
with Pacific-Sierra Research (PSR), has chaired or served on numerous Department of Defense and intelligence advisory
panels, 2/3/16, The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 22, #2, US Advanced Conventional Systems and Conventional
Prompt Global Strike Ambitions, pg.129-130, Kent Denver-jKIM)
A third dimension to CPGS risk is its essential dependence on intelligence

support. This facet of risk deserves to be seen as the Achilless heel of the
CPGS concept. Rumsfeld had called for exquisite intelligence to support
precise attack a little less than fifteen months before the invasion of Iraq, intended to
destroy that countrys wrongly assessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).40 General
James Cartwright, formerly vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drew attention to the stiff demands
of intelligence when he observed that success encompasses the ability to plan rapidly, to apply the
precision to the intelligence and gather that intelligence in a very rapid manner. 41 Yet the fact that
such decision making and its accompanying planning may have to occur within
an hours timeframe places unprecedented demands on the intelligence
community. Commenting on the quality of intelligence needed to support CPGS use in 2007, then-
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Hayden observed, if you are going to strike
suddenly it has to be based on very powerful, very convincing
intelligence. Regarding General Haydens remarks, the Congressional Research Services Amy
Woolf added, most analysts agree that the United States does not yet have
the capability to meet the intelligence demands of the PGS mission. 42 One
possible scenario underscores the dubious possibility of meeting the enormously stiff intelligence
demands of CPGS: providing the president with a counterforce option against a
rogue states decision to launch a nuclear missile. More often than not, the implied or stated rogue state
isNorth Korea, arguably the most opaque of all intelligence challenges. Both
the South Korean and US intelligence communities failed altogether to
promptly detect the death, in 2011, of Kim Jong Il. Only several days after his death
was announced on North Korean television did US decision makers become aware of this critically
Nor did the US intelligence community promptly detect evidence
important transition.
that North Korea had undertaken the construction of a huge uranium
enrichment facility until roughly eighteen months after it began and then only
because US physicist Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University was invited by North Korea to inspect the
a missile launch might be more subject to detection than
plant.43 In principle,
these examples, but knowing such details as, for example, whether or not the
missile is armed with a nuclear warhead and the precise intentions of North
Koreas leadership are highly likely to remain opaque . Thus, taking a
decision to launch a CPGS weapon under such circumstances is likely to be
fraught with ambiguity and highly prone to dangerous mistakes. Adding to
the likelihood of intelligence error is the strong tendency within the inner councils of
government decision making to ignore information that is inconsistent with the
desired consensus for a particular course of action. As George Washington
Universitys Janne E. Nolan wrote in Tyranny of Consensus, a book that examines several cases of
strategic surprise, The premises guiding American strategic planning all too frequently prove to be at
odds with the actual nature of the challenges involvedthe so-called facts on the ground. 44 If the past
is prologue to the future, this historic failure to accurately comprehend the true character of the threats
is not the kind of decisionmaking context that produces comfort
we have faced
about taking decisive action. It leaves decision makers hardly any time to fully appraise the
direct and potential unintended consequences of their actions.45
AT PGS Solves Terrorism
PGS doesnt solve terrorism lack of intel and cherry-
picked scenarios
Gormley 16 - M.A. University of Connecticut (Dennis M., a Senior Research Fellow at the
Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies, Gormley served as a senior vice president for 20 years
with Pacific-Sierra Research (PSR), has chaired or served on numerous Department of Defense and intelligence advisory
panels, 2/3/16, The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 22, #2, US Advanced Conventional Systems and Conventional
Prompt Global Strike Ambitions, pg.131, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Boththe Bush and Obama administrations have focused on two scenarios that
could benefit from the capacity to strike targets any place on earth within
sixty minutes. The first is a low-probability-but-high-consequence situation
wherein a fleeting terrorist target with a presumed nuclear weapon is
detected in a neutral country. The second scenario envisions a rogue state
(such as North Koreaor perhaps in the future, Iran) placing what appears to be a nuclear
warhead on a missile capable of striking US or allied territory. In both scenarios and others, CPGS
supporters say the chief benefit of CPGS is that it reduces the perceived need for the United States to
employ nuclear weapons to defend its interests.47 However, not only is that first scenario unlikely to
occur, but employing CPGS would be enormously problematic: the sheer
difficulty of obtaining the precisely correct intelligence needed to carry out
the attack, or the decision to take such a preemptive action even without it, is
worrisome. Moreover, pre-emptive strike doctrines, coupled with long-range
means of attack, have spread widely in Northeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East to allies,
friends, and potential enemies alike. Adding yet another hairtrigger capability, while the United
States strongly emphasizes the importance of strategic stability as a critical
component in reducing global nuclear stockpiles, is inconsistent with that objective and potentially
dangerous
AT PGS Solves Rogues/North Korea
PGS increases nuclear war risk - causes rogues to
place weapons on hair trigger
Conventional Prompt Global Strike Ambitions, pg.131-132, Kent Denver-jKIM)
stability may also be adversely affected due to the unintended

Strategic
consequences of possessing a first-strike weapon, albeit a conventional one, that in
principle threatens an adversarys nuclear capability. In 2002, President Bush branded Iraq, North Korea,
and Iran as comprising an axis of evil, and then ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in 2003,
although many still argue that the decision to commence that war was an unjustified preventive action.
There is little doubt that such a decision exacerbated North Korea and Irans security dilemma and
Facing a bolt-out-of-
accelerated at least North Koreas quest to achieve its nuclear objectives.48
the-blue CPGS is likely to drive such threatened states to eventually place
their own limited nuclear capability on hair-trigger alert .49 Fostering such
use-it-or-lose-it incentives is surely not what even promoters of CPGS originally
had in mind, but it is nonetheless a likely consequence of deploying even a niche
CPGS capability. The presumed benefit that CPGS would decreaseor eliminate the need to
use nuclear weapons is also dubious: the likelihood of a situation developing where using nuclear
weapons is considered a justifiable course of action is remote; what is the likelihood that such a
situation could equally be addressed by the alternative use of CPGS? Indeed, since the Obama
administration took office in January 2009, there has been a modest turn toward
looking at reducing the role of nuclear weapons to one of last resortuseful only as an
ultimate reserve option to threaten retaliation in response to a nuclear attack on the United States or its
allies. It is also important to recall that Nitze, in his 1994 article, argued that while conventional smart
weapons would suffice for deterrence purposes, nuclear weapons were unlikely to deter regional
aggressors and that US presidents would be unwilling to use them to punish aggression.50 Other senior
decision makers would seem to agree. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and former
Secretary of State Dean Rusk both came to view nuclear weapons as essentially unthinkable for
political, moral, as well as military reasons.51 After the 1991 Gulf War, General Colin Powell dismissed
the utility of nuclear weapons, while his commander-in-chief, President George H.W. Bush, acknowledged
in his memoir, co-written with his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, that he had ruled out a
nuclear response in the 1991 Gulf War.52 However, the risks and ambiguities associated with CPGS
Thus, rather than reducing
might actually increase the chances of nuclear weapons being used.
the circumstances under which the United States might have to resort to
nuclear use, particularly for the kind of scenarios (fleeting terrorist groups with WMD
or a rogue state apparently brandishing a nuclear missile ) envisioned by CPGS
supporters, deploying CPGS weapons could actually increase the number of
circumstances where the United States might have to resort to nuclear use.
Human Rights - Liberty
Forum
1NC
Text: The United States should launch a Liberty Forum
for Human Rights.
CP solves human rights
The United States should launch a Liberty Forum for Human Rights .[26] The
new U.N. Human Rights Council has not been an improvement over the
disbanded U.N. Commission on Human Rights . In its first three years, it failed to hold
most of the worlds worst human rights abusers accountable . The world and especially
the oppressed people in places such as Sudan, Burma, Cuba, Iran, and China need a legitimate standard-bearer for human
rights, one with members that truly respect liberty and the rule of law and are willing to seek new ways to advance them.
A Liberty Forum would give them a platform from which to highlight the
critical linkages between human rights and security and between economic
freedom and political freedom. It would be a place where emerging
democracies could go to gain a better understanding of the proper role of the
sovereign state in upholding individual liberties, equality before the law and
to receive guidance to improve their human rights . Its members that sit on U.N. bodies such
as the Human Rights Council could advance the Liberty Forums agenda in those bodies and support each others
candidacies for important leadership positions. To be successful, such an entity should have strict membership rules and a
clear strategy for how best to coordinate their activities.
2NC - Solvency
Other countries will participate in a Liberty Forum
Holmes 09 distinguished fellow at the Heritage
Foundation (Kim R., Time for a New International Game Plan,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/01/time-for-a-new-
international-game-plan)//AC
Time for a Liberty Forum for Human Rights A Global Freedom Coalition would be best placed to
mobilize freedom-loving peoples into a common effort to define and defend liberty, and a Global Economic Freedom
there also is a need to create a new
Forum would help promote economic freedom. But
international association of nations to defend and advance human rights . The
U.N. Human Rights Council has proven itself completely unworthy of the
mantle. The President of the United States should take the lead in launching
a Liberty Forum for Human Rights, a place where countries that uphold
economic, civil, and political freedoms can promote them and the role of the
free democratic and sovereign state in upholding liberty, justice, and equality
before the law . Some of America's friends (particularly in Europe) would at first be lukewarm, but many other
countries would want to join. All of the forum's meetings should be held in neutral places as far from the
discredited United Nations Human Rights Council as possible.
Multilat 1 - G-20
1NC - Multilat
support the use of the G20 as a strategic steering
group for the World Bank, IMF, and WTO.
CP solves multilat concessions signal affirmation in
multilateral institutions
Hillman 10 - Senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall
Fund of the U.S.; current member of the WTO Appellate Body
(Jennifer, Saving Multilateralism Renovating The House Of Global Economic
Governance For The 21st Century, www.g8.utoronto.ca/scholar/hillman-
2010.pdf)//AC
The present global economic crisis has not been of the same order of magnitude of the events of the 1930s But
it does represent another transformative moment in world history In particular, it presents the United States and
Europe with another opportunity to exercise shared transatlantic leadership to
ensure that the vision of their past leaders can be preserved, updated, and
carried forward into the 21st century with all the challenges it brings What do Europe and
the United States need to do to meet this challenge? First, they need to commit to not give up on
the multilateral economic institutions, but to reform them instead Together, the United
States and Europe created these multilateral institutions and they have as much to gain as ever in
keeping them at the core of the global economic architecture However, ensuring that
these institutions remain relevant, legitimate, and effective will mean some significant changes in the manner in which
both the United States and Europe participate in their operations These changes are an opportunity to show real
Agreeing to make
leadership on the world stage at the cost of some concessions in the formal power structure.
these concessions would also send a powerful signal to the rest of the world
that they can have faith that these institutions are changing to accommodate
shifting relationships in the global economy and an equally powerful
affirmation by the transatlantic powers of their continuing reliance on
multilateral institutions For its part, the United States should give up on both the
unwritten rule that the head of the World Bank must be an American and the
insistence that it retain veto power over matters requiring a supermajority In
addition, the U nited S tates should support the use of the G20 as a strategic
steering group or Council of Governors for the World Bank, IMF, and WTO
to ensure a strong G20 role in strategy formulation and coordination that
would also give greater voice to the emerging market economies In the same vein, the
member states of the European Union should give up on the unwritten rule that the head of the IMF must be a European,
and work to consolidate European votes and seats at the IMF and World Bank either into a single European seat (which
would give Europe the single largest voting share) or at least consolidate its seven partial seats with the bigger European
economies so that Europe ends up with no more than four seats As with the United States, the European Union and its
member states should also lend their support to the G20 as the steering committee of the global economy
1NC - Trade
CP solves protectionism and trade barriers
Gnath, Mildner, & Schmucker 12 Associate Fellow of the German
Council on Foreign Relations; Head of the Globalization and World Economy
Program of the DGAP (Katharina, completing her Ph.D. at the Berlin Graduate
School for Transnational Studies, G20, IMF, and WTO in Turbulent Times,
https://www.swp-
berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2012_RP10_Gnath_m
dn_Schmucker.pdf)//AC
the G20 heads of state agreed to grant $250 billion for
At the London summit in 2009,
trade finance in the form of export credits and export insurance as part of the
effort to stabilize world trade. In 2010, global trade flows did rebound in many parts of the world. Yet
poorer countries in particular continued to face significant obstacles to
gaining access to capital, since financial risks remained high .26 At the summit in Seoul,
the G20 countries reaffirmed their commitment to implementing measures
designed to increase funding for trade finance in developing countries and

especially in low-income countries . Among other organizations, the World Bank and its subsidiary, the
International Finance Corporation, as well as the G20 countries themselves were mandated to increase trade finance. The
the G20
additional funds actually did help to stabilize world trade.27 Already at the first G20 summit in Washington,
states had pledged to avoid protectionism and refrain from erecting any new
trade barriers in the following twelve months. This also applied to any export restrictions
or measures to promote exports that violated WTO regulations .28 This pledge was
reiterated at subsequent summit meetings in London and Pittsburgh. In Toronto, the G20 states promised to refrain from
creating any new trade barriers until the end of 2013. At the summit in Los Cabos, G20 members extended their standstill
commitment until the end of 2014. The WTO, OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and
UNCTAD were tasked with conducting a quarterly public review to evaluate compliance. The G20 Information Centre in
Toronto, however, has given a mixed evaluation of the implementation process: while the implementation of trade
resolutions following the Washington summit was relatively satisfactory in comparison to other policy areas, it declined
steadily between the London and Seoul summits.29 reducing macroeconomic imbalances Most of the G20 governments
financial crisis has
had in fact created more trade barriers than before. Nevertheless, it can be said that the
not significantly increased protectionism among the G20 members . The political
signals emanating from the G20 declarations have undoubtedly contributed to this.
2NC Solves Multilat
G20 solves multilat funding and reform boost
market confidence
Gnath, Mildner, & Schmucker 12 Associate Fellow of the German
Council on Foreign Relations; Head of the Globalization and World Economy
Program of the DGAP (Katharina, completing her Ph.D. at the Berlin Graduate
School for Transnational Studies, G20, IMF, and WTO in Turbulent Times,
https://www.swp-
berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2012_RP10_Gnath_m
dn_Schmucker.pdf)//AC
TheG20 was able to provide capital and to help reform the international
financial institutions. At the summit in London in 2009, the G20 countries significantly
increased the funding for the IMF and other multilateral organizations ,
allowing them to prevent countries from running into short-term liquidity
problems and to restore market confidence.22 G20 members tripled the
resources available to the IMF to $750 billion, including $250 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDR).23
The G20 has also been effective in increasing the momentum to reform
international financial institutions most importantly the IMF. Owing to the G20s high political visibility,
pressures to reform increased and the governance deadlock in the IMF was successfully broken. In Seoul, the G20
countries agreed to a quota shift of 6 percent in favor of large emerging market economies and to a reduction in Europes
influence in the Executive Board. A large portion of the initial financing has already been transferred to the IMF. At the Los
Cabos summit in June 2012, countries pledged another $456 billion in bilateral credit to increase IMF resources, thereby
almost doubling IMF lending resources. 24 The debate over the final structure of the governance reform, however, has not
been fully settled. Nevertheless, the G20 can already count the initiative changes as a success, since the emerging
The reform of
market economies had been calling for far-reaching IMF reforms for some time.
international financial institutions to consider the interests of the emerging

and developing countries can be seen as a means for the G20 to increase
their legitimacy by proxy.25
Aff
Cant Solve Growth
G-20 is incapable of boosting growth European
shares prove
Reuters 2/29 (European shares fall as G20 fails to strike new measures,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks-idUSKCN0W20SF)//AC
European shares retreated from a three-week high on Monday and were on
track for their third-straight month of losses as a weekend meeting of the
G20 group of leading economies failed to strike new, concrete measures to
boost growth . The Group of 20 finance ministers and central bankers declared on Saturday they needed to look
beyond ultra-low interest rates and printing money to shake the global economy out of its torpor, with a communique
The
flagging a series of risks to world growth, including volatile capital flows and a sharp fall in commodity prices.
pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 index .FTEU3 was down 1 percent in early
trading after ending 1.6 percent stronger on Friday. It has fallen more than 4
percent this month and is on track for its third-straight month of losses. However,
Morrisons (MRW.L) rose 5.5 percent after Amazon (AMZN.O) struck a wholesale supply deal with the British supermarket
that will help the online retailer step up its food offering in Britain with fresh and frozen products.
G-20 countries lack growth themselves cant be a

multilateral leader
UN News 15 (G20 nations weighed down by weak economic growth and
lack of decent jobs UN backed report,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51798#.V5E8c5MrLdQ)//AC
In advance of the Group of 20 (G20) meetings taking place this week in Ankara, Turkey, a United Nations-backed
inter-agency report has warned that growth among the economies of those countries has
slowed considerably over the last three years and unemployment rates
remain unacceptably high. The report G20 Labour Markets 2015: Strengthening the Link between Growth
and Employment, compiled by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
growth among G20 economies
and Development (OECD) and the World Bank Group, reveals that
averaged 3.2 per cent over the last three years compared to 4.1 per cent
from 2000 to 2007. A weak economic recovery continues to weigh heavily on
G20 labour markets, while the persistent lack of decent jobs is in turn hurting
the recovery, said ILO Director-General Guy Ryder, who is set to participate in the G20 labour and employment
ministers meeting and their joint meeting with finance ministers. The joint meeting will aid G20 leaders by integrating
policy initiatives that work on both the demand and supply side of labour markets, he added. The report also notes that
the unemployment rate remains cause for concern. It rose from 5.1 to 6.0 percent between 2007 and 2009, and remains
This has resulted in an estimated shortfall of 50 million jobs
high at 5.8 percent in 2014.
across the G20 (comprised of 19 countries and the European Union)
compared to the start of the crisis. It is not only the quantity of jobs that has
fallen, but the quality, notes the report. Many G20 country jobs created
between 2009 and 2014 are part-time, offering lower wages, less job
security, and weaker social protection coverage. Some 51 per cent of workers in emerging
G20 countries were in vulnerable employment in 2014. The report notes that while this is an improvement, it is still an
Wage growth, meanwhile, has suffered a significant
unacceptably high number.
slowdown, which, combined with the jobs gap, has led to a decline in the
labour share of national income and rising inequality in most G20 economies .
As this report clearly states, we need a comprehensive and multi-sectoral approach to reverse the current self-reinforcing
cycle of slow growth, low job creation, weak wage and income growth and low investment, said Mr. Ryder. Policies that
reverse the worrying trends towards greater inequality can both accelerate economic recovery and make growth more
inclusive.
Asian members of the Group of 20 major economies have not introduced laws to
prevent another too big to fail financial crisis, the worlds top financial watchdog warned on Friday.
TitanicThe Financial Stability Board (FSB) on Friday published its Second Thematic Review on Resolution Regimes. The
report is part of series that show how countries are implementing the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regions for
Financial Institutions. In short, the Key Attributes show how G20 countries are supposed to implemented rules to avoid a
repeat the government bailouts of lenders that happened in the wake of the 2008 fiscal crisis. The FSB, which can name
and shame those which do not yet comply with its rules, said member countries that do not yet have these laws include
China, Chinese territory Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, and Korea. But Asian members are not alone. Other countries that
have not complied include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Membership in the G20
includes a commitment to implement the rules it has agreed to. And the FSB has the responsibility to make sure they
follow the rules. Only the European Union member states, Switzerland and the United States are currently able to achieve
a creditor-financed resolution to support continuity of critical functions, the report said. Substantial work remains to put
in place a full set of resolution powers and recovery and resolution planning requirements, Fernando Restoy, Deputy
Governor of the Bank of Spain and chair of the team who carried out the review told Reuters. The task force said countries
need to clarify by December what actions they have taken or intend to take.
Multilat 2 Ambassador
1NC
appoint an ambassador to the Arctic Council.
CP solves multilat an ambassador would strengthen
artic cooperation and promote energy governance
Ribar 15 (Matthew, International Policy Digest, U.S. Needs an Arctic Push,
01/05, http://intpolicydigest.org/2015/01/05/u-s-needs-an-arctic-push/)//ww
Melting ice caps in the Arctic in recent years have rapidly increased the ease by which humans can access the frozen north. As the ice recedes further every year, new opportunities open for activity within the Arctic
Circle. In 2010, only four ships made the transit across the newly accessible Northern Sea Route; in 2012, that figure was up to 46. Moreover, a report by the US Geological Survey notes that 22 percent of the
worlds undiscovered petroleum reserves lie under the Arctic. Historically, US foreign policy in the High North has been unambitious and low-priority; the little diplomatic capital which was expended focused on
resource extraction. That changed with the publication of a comprehensive Arctic strategy in 2009, but there is still no U.S. ambassador to the Arctic; the United States is represented at the Arctic Council by Senior
Arctic Official Julia L. Gourley. In June, the United States appointed its first Special Representative to the Arctic, Bob Papp. But neither of these positions convey the legitimacy of an ambassador, or even the authority
of a Special Envoy. Though diplomatic rank may not seem like the most pressing issue in the Arctic, it conveys the little priority the United States seems to put on the Arctic. However, there are three clear areas in
which the United States could use an Arctic ambassador to push its policy agenda. Taking the Lead in Energy Governance The energy resources that are being explored in the Arctic are immense: the US Geological
Survey reports 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Though commentators have argued that the global need to reduce carbon output makes tapping difficult, particularly in the context
of the recent deal between the United States and China to reduce carbon emissions. However, for better or for worse, hydrocarbons will remain in demand for the foreseeable future, and if Arctic extraction is
economically viable, it will be attempted. Moreover, much of this extraction has taken place under the aegis of Gazprom, the Russian state oil giant, which has signed a deal to export 400 billion dollars worth of
natural gas to China over the next thirty years. So while many countries have made a commitment to decarbonize, Arctic petroleum reserves will still be extracted. A policy goal in the 2014 Implementation Plan for
the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, a document which outlines the US plan of action for its chairmanship of the 2015 session of the Arctic Council is to ensure the safe and responsible development of non-
renewable energy resources. Whats clear is that there is a lot more to be done. Managing responses to oil spills, making sure there is a regulatory regime for drilling, and coordinating policy are all policy areas
where US leadership could be beneficial. The travails of Shell Oil in the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas show that these issues are not just abstractions. Shell Oil had problems certifying a response plan to a potential oil
spill, and the drilling season was plagued by mishaps, including having to move the drill ship to dodge a massive ice floe. While these incidents happened relatively close to US shores, difficulties are sure to increase
as drilling activities go further out to sea. A recent report from Bookings notes that managing the responsible extraction of resources from the Arctic should be a priority of every Arctic littoral state. It also argues
that to achieve this, the United States needs to broaden its involvement in the Arcticthe authors go so far as to suggest that the Department of State establish a Polar Bureau, much like its Bureau of African
Affairs. Certainly, a greater focus from the Department of State would go a long way towards enacting these policy goals. Promoting Arctic Infrastructure A greater network of infrastructure needs to be established
in order for the littoral states to take full advantage of emerging opportunities in the Arctic. The Arctic Maritime and Aviation Initiative, a project of the Arctic Council tasked with inventorying infrastructure in the
Arctic Circle, notes a paucity of ports, airstrips, and other necessary infrastructure within the Arctic Circle. A lack of such a support network negates the utility of shipping routes, and makes resource extraction near
impossible. Necessary infrastructure goes beyond airports and ports: a support network needs to be in place. A prime example of this is the need for search and rescue teams and icebreakers. Currently the United
States operates a single operational icebreaker; search and rescue resources are likewise scarce, although there is an agreement between the Arctic littoral states which establishes the specific obligations of every
state. This is another opportunity for the United States to take the lead. Clearly, some leadership is
needed to organize and strengthen the infrastructure in the Arctic, including support networks. Considering that the United States will take the chair of the Arctic Council in 2015, it is logical for the United States to
leadership is more easily achieved from a position of real

take the initiative in such projects. Such
leadershiplead by an ambassador. Strengthening the Arctic Council The easiest and most
direct ways of accomplishing the aforementioned goal is by way of existing institutions. The Arctic Council is the most established international institution in the Arctic, handling most internationally coordinated
projects. It is also more inclusive than similar institutions, with six groups of indigenous peoples represented as permanent participants. As such, it is the ideal vehicle for advancing a policy agenda.
Strengthening the Arctic Council should be the primary responsibility for any
future Arctic Ambassador, and presents another strong argument for the
necessity of such a position. Having a higher ranked negotiating presence at
Arctic Council meetings would increase US bargaining power; in addition, the
greater independence of an ambassadorial appointment delegates more
agency to the Arctic Council. Though there is little doubt that Bob Papp will be working closely with Julia Gourley to make US presence known at the Arctic Council, a
The more the United States is

full ambassadorial appointment would no doubt increase the visibility of US engagement with the council.
engaged, the more it can show its support for strengthening the councilthis
is the way forward for the United States to use existing institutions to achieve
policy objectives in the High North. The High North is one of the most dynamic and emerging regions in international politics, demanding space on the
policy agendas of all Arctic littoral states. Eleven countries have posted Arctic ambassadors in the past seven years. In order to guarantee a leadership position consistent with US policy goals, it simply must shed its
there remains
culture of disengagement in the Arctic Circle. Though at the present US diplomatic capital is spread thin, with high-priority initiatives in both East Asia and the Middle East,
sufficient resources for the State Department to appoint a full ambassador to

the Arctic. From energy governance to Arctic infrastructure to strengthening
the Arctic Council, the United States needs to appoint an ambassador to the
Arctic to advance these essential policies.
Prolif - GFC
1NC
develop a global freedom coalition
CP checks WMD proliferation and terrorism
events such as Irans defiance of the U.N. regarding its nuclear weapons program, North
Recent
Koreas nuclear weapons and ballistic missile tests, Chinas use of a ground-based
missile to destroy a satellite in space, and Russias invasion of Georgia
highlight how ill equipped the U.N. is to respond to the worlds security crises .
In the more than sixty years since the U.N. was created, there have been over three hundred wars resulting in over
twenty-two million deaths. Yet during that time, the U.N. authorized military action to counter aggression just twice: in
response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 and to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. At other times,
U.N. peacekeepers have stood aside and failed to prevent despicable acts,
including the genocide in Rwanda. In the Democratic Republic of Congo and other countries, U.N.
peacekeepers have abused or raped the very people whom they were supposed to protect. . America must strengthen its
alliances and pursue alternative arrangements with new allies that better enable it to respond to todays challenges.
Topping the listshould be developing a new, more flexible security arrangement, a
truly global alliance that would include only those states deeply committed to
liberty. Free nations have far more in common than what divides them politically, militarily, or geographically. NATO is
simply too slow, too divided, and too parochial to become that institution. Countries committed to
freedom should create a global freedom coalition, a flexible platform that

enables them to collaborate more closely to counter terrorism, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, trafficking in persons, international crime, and
other threats that the U.N. and other organizations and security alliances are
unable to address.[25] It should be a voluntary association made up of nations
from around the world that believe that security and liberty are inextricably
linked and that broader multilateral security cooperation is necessary . The
options for closer cooperation include coordinated sanctions, increased intelligence sharing, better-integrated law
The successful Proliferation Security Initiative proves that
enforcement, and joint military training and exercises.
such multilateral coordination is not only possible, but a productive option. The
Global Freedom Coalition could eventually consider drawing that successful initiative into its global strategy. The only
requirements for membership in the coalition should be a demonstrated
commitment to freedom at home and abroad, a willingness and readiness to
take immediate action in the face of a threat, and an ability to contribute
meaningfully to the coalitions activities. States that are committed to its objectives but still
transitioning to greater liberalization should also be involved in some fashion, much as our Cold War alliances included
Portugal even when it was not yet fully democratic.
2NC - Solvency
CP solves prolif, terrorism and international crimes
Objectives for the Coalition. Such a new coalition should have four essential objectives:To serve as
a flexible, adaptive multilateral forum for the world's major free nations . In the
coming years, countries linked by a commitment to freedom will need a better
consultative mechanism for matters of international importance. Existing
institutions like the U.N. and the Community of Democracies cannot fulfill this
role; the former is overbureaucratized, and Consensus is the dominant value; the latter is defined by
inaction and irrelevance. To cooperate to defeat the most immediate global threats to
free nations. Members of the coalition would take collaborative action to limit
the perils posed by terrorism, international crime, and the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological weapons , utilizing a full
complement of tools -- such as coordinated sanctions, intelligence sharing,
integrated law enforcement and counter-terrorism capabilities, and joint
military training, exercises, and operations . The success of the Proliferation
Security Initiative has demonstrated the potential for such effective
multilateral coordination. The coalition could draw these and other projects into a broader, more coherent
strategy for addressing threats as they arise. To maintain, as the 2002 National Security Strategy asserts, "a balance of
power that favors freedom" well into the future. Amid today's uncertainty and potential instability, the coalition would
strive to protect the cause of liberty against forces that have both the aim and the capacity to undermine free institutions
on a global scale. Much as the Concert of Europe kept the peace in the 19th century, the coalition should work to ensure
that the current order evolves toward a stability in which freedom flourishes and authoritarianism and anarchy fade. To
create positive inducements for economic liberalization and the growth of
free institutions worldwide. Members of the coalition would tailor and
coordinate their development and aid strategies to open economies further
and ensure an uninterrupted supply of energy, strengthen pluralism and
political systems, and adopt other measures that will increase freedom.
AT Links to Net Ben
CP hedges against China
The benefits of such a coalition are attractive . Its mission would
The Advantages.
match well the policies of allies like the United Kingdom, Australia, New
Zealand, and others that joined us in promoting freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democratic and transitioning states in East and Southeast Asia (such as
Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines) would value its
counterterrorism work as well as its role as a hedge against an aggressive
China . Colombia, Indonesia, and others menaced by violent extremism would gain much
from building trust and cooperating on law enforcement, intelligence sharing,
and military training. Rising powers that desire respect and recognition might
find its prestige more alluring than relations with Russia or China. Finally, the
potential for receiving U.S. technical and military assistance, traditionally a
central part of U.S. relations with its allies, would be a strong attraction.
Soft Power 1 Disaster Relief
1NC
The United States federal government should
Expand disaster and humanitarian relief towards
all relevant African countries affected by severe
drought
Create a framework in which aide can be revoked
in all relevant instances
Eliminate the Buy American subsidies and
provisions for all relevant shipping companies
Facilitate technology and expertise innovation in
agricultural sectors
CP boosts U.S. soft power

Meservey, M.A. in Law and Diplomacy Tufts University
16 (Joshua, is a Policy Analyst, Africa and the Middle East at the Heritage Foundation, 5/4/16, Heritage Foundation,
Record-Setting Drought in Africa Requires U.S. Leadership on Disaster Relief,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/record-setting-drought-in-africa-requires-us-leadership-on-disaster-
relief, Kent Denver-jKIM)
The latest iteration of El Nioa recurring weather pattern associated with warmer Pacific Ocean temperaturesis one of the strongest ever recorded. The higher temperatures it has brought, coupled with
since early 2015 created a drought in swathes of Africa

unusually low rainfall in a number of countries, has
more severe than has been seen in decades. The drought has decimated
crops and livestock, and hunger among their citizens is overwhelming the
ability of countries to respond adequately. The crisis is projected to worsen
and requires sustained effort from the international community It to avoid further deterioration.
is another reminder of the need for reforms that strengthen

also countries resiliency to food crises and
the U.S.s ability to respond quickly and effectively. Drought and Crisis in East and Southern Africa According to the
at least fourteen African countries

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-led Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET),
have regions experiencing crisis or emergency levels of food scarcity,

the latter of which is one step before the famine designation. Four African countries
Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe have and a regional body, the Southern African Development Community,
declared states of emergencies . Below-average rainfall and above-average temperatures have combined to create the drought. Northern Somalia has had
three years of failed rains. Zimbabwes most recent rainy season was the driest on record, as was all of 2015 for South Africa since it began keeping records in 1904. October 2015 to January 2016 was the driest
stretch in 35 years for areas of eight Southern African countries.[1] Droughts are particularly dangerous in Africa given how dependent many of the continents people are on agriculture. Eighty-five percent of
Ethiopias populationone of two African countries of highest concern according to FEWS NETworks in the agricultural sector. Agriculture employs more than 60 percent of the population throughout all of
The effects are already being felt

East Africa, and about 70 percent of Southern Africans.[2] . The U.N.s humanitarian agency estimates that
more than 19 million people in East Africa need critical or emergency

humanitarian assistance, while as many as 32 million Southern Africans lack
enough food, a number that could rise to 49 million in the coming months .[3]
The coping
Acute malnourishment is rising quickly in affected areas as well, as is the number of people contracting waterborne diseases from drinking unclean water.
mechanisms that poor households use to weather crises are also failing . People who
Households have resorted to selling off

work as day laborers during harvest season have little, if any, work, given the poor crops.
their livestockakin in developed countries to emptying ones bank account

to buy food , yet are receiving below-average prices. As the supply of staples has shrunk, prices have spikedin Malawi, Mozambique, and South Africa, maize prices are nearly double
Worse Yet to Come There is little relief in sight as

their five-year average[4]making food unaffordable for many.
the crisis has not yet peaked. The April/May harvest is likely to be poorer than normal given the second straight year of low rainfall in many areas. Crop
production this year in Malawi is projected to be 20 percent to 25 percent below average, 25 percent to 30 percent below average in Zambia, and 40 percent below average for South Africa,[5] forcing the
Southern African regions breadbasket to start importing maize. There is a chance as well that La Niacharacterized by colder-than-usual tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures that often brings extreme weather
Droughts have knock-on effects beyond the

could follow on El Nios heels towards the end of 2016, extending the crisis.
danger to life and property they pose . Some people will migrate in search of water or grazing for their livestock, potentially leading them into
conflict with neighbors trying to protect their own limited resources. Already, Ethiopians are crossing into Somaliland, an autonomous region of northern Somalia, in search of water and pasture. In a region
Many of the affected countries

prone to deadly raids among competing tribes, there is a risk that displacement will lead to further violence. have built
are being overwhelmed by the scale of the problem The

systems to mitigate the effects of drought, but they .
international community is ramping up relief efforts, but as of April 2016,

nearly $2 billion of the approximately $3 billion emergency request was
unfunded .[6] The Role of Poor Governance The crisis has been made far worse by poor governance in many of the affected countries. Zimbabwes vulnerability is due largely to the ruinous
economic policies of its nonagenarian dictator, Robert Mugabe, while South Sudan is gripped by a civil war between the president and vice-presidents forces that exacerbates the crisis. Yet many of the strained
countries are allies that cooperate with the U.S. on a range of issues. Ethiopia, for example, is one of the countries in greatest danger from the drought, but is also a major contributor to the military coalition
fighting the al-Qaeda-aligned al-Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia. Similarly, Djibouti hosts the U.S.s only permanent military base in Africa, which is integral to counterterror operations in Africa and the
Middle East. Recommendations In the face of a burgeoning crisis, the United States should:
Rally the international community to respond quickly. The U.S. has
existing resources budgeted for disaster relief it is using to respond,
but it should also urge a timely, increased response from allies before
the crisis worsens. Action now will save lives and be less expensive than intervening later
when the crisis has deepened.
Do no harm. Poorly planned humanitarian responses can have
unintended ill effects. Dumping aid into a country can drive its
merchant class out of business. In conflict-torn countries such as South Sudanone
of the countries hardest hit by the current crisismisappropriated aid has bolstered armed
groups. Regimes such as Ethiopia and Zimbabwe have used aid as a weapon against political
The U.S. needs to
opposition, withholding food from opposition areas as punishment.
work diligently to avoid these and other pitfalls to ensure its response
does not inadvertently exacerbate parts of the crisis.
Reform how aid is delivered. Buy American provisions and subsidies to shipping
companies that deliver aid make the U.S. food aid program unnecessarily expensive and
The U.S. adopted very modest reforms in this area in 2013,
inefficient.
but eliminating all such subsidies and provisions would enable quicker
and more effective aid to reach more people.[7]
Facilitate and encourage African countries connections to countries
with agricultural expertise. Israel faces many of the same climactic and water-scarcity
challenges as drought-prone African countries, yet is a food exporter and one of the worlds
leading agricultural innovators.
The U.S. should encourage and facilitate an
enhanced relationship between its African allies and Israel that involves the
latter using its technology and expertise to help African countries
create more efficient and resilient agricultural sectors.
Countries around the world look to the U.S. to lead in calamities of all kinds,
as with the current African food crisis. The U.S. should work to ameliorate
the crisis while also pushing for longer-term reforms that can break the
cycle of drought and food insecurity that grips too many regions of Africa.
2NC - Solvency
Increased disaster relief is key to soft power
measurably changes how other countries perceive the
US
Harman, J.D. Harvard Law School 13 (Jane, President and CEO of the
Woodrow Wilson Center, previous US Congresswoman of California for nine terms, served on all the major security
committees: six years on Armed Services, eight years on Intelligence and four on Homeland Security, received the
Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Seal Medal in 2007 and the National Intelligence
Distinguished Public Service Medal in March 2011, made numerous Congressional fact-finding missions to hotspots
around the world including North Korea, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Guantanamo Bay to assess
threats against the U.S., 11/18/2013, The World Post, The Militarys Invaluable Soft Power,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jane-harman/the-militarys-invaluable_b_4297452.html, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Just as in Pakistan after devastating floods and earthquakes, Thailand after

the tsunami and the worst flood in a century, and Haiti after an earthquake
leveled its major city, Americas military is once again doing a masterful job
of staging relief supplies into an area devastated by a catastrophic natural
disaster. In the Philippine islands where barely a tree is left standing and as many as 10,000 are feared dead, U.S. soldiers are on the ground. As
Americans, it is natural for us to display generosity and compassion in
response to natural disasters. These are truly American values . In fact, our
generosity and compassion combined with the U.S. militarys unparalleled
ability to deliver disaster relief may be our most effective foreign policy
tools. Our militarys complete focus cant be overseeing rescue and recovery efforts after a typhoon. However, our extraordinary
competence at staging disaster relief gives the U.S. the ability to show the
world our better angels . Its a side that unfortunately many otherwise wont
see. Speaking on a panel on security resilience at the World Economic Forum in Bangkok last year, I pointed out that the United States has a proven record in
providing aid after disasters, including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, the Thai floods, the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, and the Fukushima, Japan,
nuclear disaster. We have the opportunity to again provide more than just hard
assistancerelief designed to save lives. We also have the opportunity to
show the world American generosity and compassion. Coming to the aid of the people of the Philippines
is the right thing to do as human beings. It is also the right thing for the U.S. to do to improve
relations with other countries. Relief efforts have a real and measurable
impact on how others view us . After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japanese Cabinet office polls
registered record levels of public goodwill towards the U.S. Eighty-five percent of Japanese viewed the
United States positively in Pews annual Global Attitude Project survey in 2011 up from 66 percent the
year before. Indonesia may be the best example of what our humanitarian aid and our militarys ability to
stage relief efforts and deliver crucial supplies can mean for Americas image. After the Iraq War began, only 15
percent of Indonesians had a favorable view of the U.S. A few months after relief efforts began in
regions in Indonesia devastated by tsunami, 38 percent of Indonesians said they had a favorable view of the U.S. By 2011, 54 percent of
Indonesians say they had a favorable view of the U.S. To be sure, there are other factors that helped
improve Americas favorability in Indonesia. However, Indonesians saw with their own eyes our military
delivering food, medicine, and supplies to their neighbors. This made a real
impact in how they feel about Americans an especially important development considering that Indonesia is primarily
a Muslim nation. The devastating tsunami that hit Indonesia also pounded Thailand in 2004. In relief efforts, Americans and Thais worked side-by-side to deliver food
U.S. humanitarian assistance helped build trust with

and supplies. Americans lined up to donate blood.
Thailands government and the Thai people. Building this relationship played
an important part in facilitating the capture of the terrorist Hambali by Thai
authorities in Bangkok in 2005. Building trust both with citizens and
governments is an invaluable foreign policy tool. At a time when too many see U.S. foreign policy in kinetic
terms, like drones or special ops, the soft power diplomacy of disaster relief delivers life-saving
help to desperate people, and improves their image of America.
Disaster relief is crucial to affirm soft power

internationally
Brattberg, M.S. in Foreign Services Georgetown University,
13 (Erik, a fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University in Washington,
D.C., 11/21/13, The Hill, The case for US military response during international disasters,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/190954-the-case-for-us-military-response-during-international, Kent
Denver-jKIM)
As natural disasters and complex humanitarian emergencies are becoming

more common worldwide, the U.S. will increasingly be called in to assist
during other disasters. Whats more, weak and fragile states with inadequate
emergency response capacities, infrastructure and public health services are
particularly vulnerable to severe natural disasters. Here, military response is crucial to
getting relief efforts up and running during the immediate post-disaster phase. But military-led
disaster relief is not only a humanitarian imperative it can also serve a
larger strategic imperative as a part of U.S. foreign policy. Compounding the
strategic importance of the US militarys role in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief are four key
First, and most obviously, providing disaster relief helps boost U.S.
reasons.
soft power in the world. By assisting in humanitarian emergencies, the U.S.
military sends a message that its a global force for good. The importance of this
kind of soft-power diplomacy cannot be underestimated , especially in times
when the US is perceived as losing influence in the Asia-Pacific region to
China . Responding to disasters can also lead to a more positive attitude
towards the U.S. as was the case following U.S. assistance during the flood
in Pakistan in 2010. Second, disaster relief can help contain some of the negative consequences
of major disasters from spreading elsewhere in the world. This is particularly the case in weak states
where crises can easily spill over national boundaries in the forms of massive refugee flows, the spread of
infectious diseases, or environmental collapse. Case in point: the robust U.S. intervention in Haiti after
the earthquake in January 2010 prevented what could otherwise have been huge refugee flows to the
Third, disaster relief is also an opportunity for the U.S. military to forge
U.S.
stronger multilateral security relationships with other countries militaries . In
the Philippines, U.S. troops have worked alongside troops from several other countries. As the U.S. looks
these kinds of activities can serve a
to expand its presence in the Asia-Pacific in the future,
clear purpose of building trust and developing military-to-military ties . As the
Pentagon currently winds down its military presence in Afghanistan, relief efforts can also provide
they can serve to
essential real-life training opportunities for American troops. Moreover,
legitimize US military presence in certain parts of the world where it is
currently disputed. Finally, military-led disaster relief reinforces the view of
America as an indispensible nation. Clearly the only international actor capable of carrying
out such large-scale complex operations as the one currently seen in the Philippines is the US military.
Few countries are complaining when the US acts as the worlds police in
times of real crisis. In contrast, China sent no troops to the Philippines and has so far contributed
little in financial aid. The forceful U.S. response also serves to affirm American
commitment to allies and partners that the U.S. is there and is willing to
assist in times of crisis.
AT Relief Now
CP is key to effective disaster aide status quo is
insufficient
LaFranchi 16 (Howard, a Monitor's diplomacy correspondent in DC , 4/12/16, The Christian Science
Monitor, The mounting call for a humanitarian revolution, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0412/The-mounting-
call-for-a-humanitarian-revolution, Kent Denver-jKIM)
WASHINGTON The remarkable strides over the past two decades in reducing
global poverty and hunger and expanding education and prosperity are in
jeopardy as a result of a set of humanitarian crises . These surpass in size and
complexity those the world confronted at the end of World War II. But as the international
community prepares to convene a first-ever summit next month , aid experts
assert in a just-released report that the tools and know-how exist to meet the challenge. The
challenges are indeed unprecedented in their combination. They include
longer and more destructive conflicts, higher mobility as a record number of displaced seek refuge
increasingly intense and damaging natural disasters, the
farther from home, and
But the authors of the report, to which the Monitor was
reports contributors say.
given exclusive advance access, point to opportunities to apply some of the
same innovations that allowed for impressive global development gains
since 2000: Greater involvement of local actors in meeting their own needs .
Private-sector participation. Emphasizing crisis prevention where before
crisis response sufficed. Steady streams of funding. Such steps, the reports
authors say, can and must be used to build a humanitarian assistance
system for the 21st century. We know how to do this, says Rick Leach, president and CEO of
World Food Program USA, one of seven humanitarian relief organizations that together authored the new
Were not saying the current humanitarian system is
report, A World at Risk.
broken, but what we are saying is that we need to adapt it to make it work
better to meet todays needs, he says. And weve learned some important
lessons that can be applied to deliver a more effective system for this new
situation. To give just one example, if people are going to be displaced for a decade or more, they
have to be able to work something host countries are understandably uneasy about as they focus on
What
their own populations. That, Mr. Leach says, is an area where the private sector can play a role.
wont work, other contributors to the report add, is sticking with the old pattern of
begging the worlds wealthy to open their hearts and wallets at periodic
crisis-specific donors conferences, and then sending in outside experts to
try to make things better. We can no longer do the usual of responding to a
crisis that is already before us by calling a big conference to collect pledges
of funding and then having the international community swoop in to save the
day, says Shannon Scribner, who heads the humanitarian policy team at Oxfam America in Washington.
Its really an 80s approach that is no longer working today. Much has
been written about a global humanitarian crisis affecting numbers of people
not seen in seven decades. The globe now counts more than 60 million refugees and internally
displaced nearly doubling over the decade since the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
estimated a total of 34.2 million in 2006.
Numbers have soared partly due to
intensifying storms such as typhoons. The average length of a refugees displacement now
stands at a record 17 years up from about nine years in 1993, according to the UNHCR. That means, for
example, that an infant arriving at a refugee camp is now likely to grow and become an adult outside her
home country.
AT Aid is Perceived as Strategic
Only applies to emergency aid CP broadens disaster
relief and reverses that perception
Gaouette 16 (Nicole, is a national security reporter for CNN Politics, 3/3/16, CNN Politics, U.S. dispatches
emergency aid for Ethiopian drought, http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/ethiopia-us-disaster-assistance-drought/,
Kent Denver-jKIM)
Washington (CNN) The Obama administration is sending disaster response teams

to northern Ethiopia to try to address a humanitarian emergency and avoid
a national security risk to the U.S. should the drought there spiral out of
control. Experts are predicting northern Ethiopia will experience the worst drought in generations,
one that will surpass the 1984 famine that killed one million men, women and children and galvanized
stars like Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder and Bruce Springsteen to record the 1985 charity song "We are
The Ethiopian government -- a major partner in U.S.
the World."
counterterrorism efforts -- estimates that 10.2 million people will need food assistance, on
top of about 8 million people who are chronically food insecure, and up to 2 million people will need safe
15 million Ethiopians could
drinking water. The United Nations estimates that as many as
suffer acute malnutrition or worse unless more help is found. "We are acting to
prevent a major humanitarian crisis and protect Ethiopia's hard-earned development progress," Gayle
Smith, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said Thursday In announcing the
deployment of a Disaster Assistance Response Team. She also called on additional countries to pitch in.
Intervening isn't just a moral
"Other donors must also step-up their responses now," she said.
issue but also a matter of national security, U.S. officials said. "Climate-related
threats pose an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural
disasters, refugee flows and potential conflicts over basic resources like food and water," said USAID
spokesman Ben Edwards.The U.S. is concerned that conditions could lead to
instability, that a situation where there's a lack of food and jobs could
encourage young people to join extremist groups while refugees flows
destabilize population centers. Ethiopia works with the U.S. on threats in
the Horn of Africa, a conflict-ridden area plagued by the terrorism of al-
Shabaab, among other groups. The area encompasses Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti -- home to
the U.S. naval expeditionary base Camp Lemonnier -- as well as Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia. Events in the
region often impact Yemen, Libya and Egypt.
AT Links to Politics
CP has bipartisan support disaster relief is
empirically popular
Holtan, M.S. in Public Relations Syracuse University, 16
(Elizabeth, Digital Communications Manger at the USGLC, 3/15/16, U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, What Congress is
Saying About the Future of U.S. International Affairs Programs, http://www.usglc.org/2016/03/15/what-congress-is-
saying-about-the-future-of-us-international-affairs-programs/, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Congress is often accused of becoming more and more divided, and that
partisanship is worse than ever (check out Brookings interactive graphic of Members
historical voting patterns). However, the International Affairs Budget and U.S.
global development programs continue to enjoy broad support from both
sides of the aisle. A couple recent examples: the recently-signed Electrify Africa
Act, co-sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD),
and Senator Bob Caseys Global Food Security Act, which has a host of both
Republican and Democrat co-sponsors. Theres also the bipartisan support
for the overall International Affairs Budget, which funds everything from our U.S.
embassies to American humanitarian workers , disaster response, and our HIV
and AIDS relief programs. As the FY2017 federal budget process moves forward, weve been
tracking whats being said in the House and Senate hearings about the future of our nations
international affairs programs. Secretary John Kerry Secretary of State One penny on the dollar is
everything we do with respect to diplomatic security, development security, relationship security, all the
things we do with embassies, AID, everything. I would suggest, very respectfully, to members of this
Committee, it is a minimum price for the leadership that we offer to the world. (February 25, 2016)
The reason the
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
State Department exists, really, and the reason that we fund it is to do
everything we can through diplomacy to solve the many problems that exist
around the world, and do everything we can to keep our men and women in uniform from being
utilized more than they are today. (February 23, 2016)
Aff
Corruption Turn
Aid wont boost soft power corruption diverts funds
for development
Moyo 9 PhD in Economics, Oxford University (Dambisa, is a global economist and
author who analyzes the macroeconomy and international affairs, 3/21/9, The Wall Street Journal, Why Foreign Aid Is
Hurting Africa, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083, Kent Denver-jKIM)
In 2005, just weeks ahead of a G8 conference that had Africa at the top of its
agenda, the International Monetary Fund published a report entitled " Aid
Will Not Lift Growth in Africa ." The report cautioned that governments, donors
and campaigners should be more modest in their claims that increased aid will
solve Africa's problems. Despite such comments, no serious efforts have
been made to wean Africa off this debilitating drug. The most obvious criticism
of aid is its links to rampant corruption . Aid flows destined to help the
average African end up supporting bloated bureaucracies in the form of the
poor-country governments and donor-funded non-governmental
organizations. In a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in May 2004,
Jeffrey Winters, a professor at Northwestern University, argued that the World
Bank had participated in the corruption of roughly $100 billion of its loan
funds intended for development. As recently as 2002, the African Union, an
organization of African nations, estimated that corruption was costing the
continent $150 billion a year, as international donors were apparently
turning a blind eye to the simple fact that aid money was inadvertently
fueling graft. With few or no strings attached, it has been all too easy for the
funds to be used for anything, save the developmental purpose for which
they were intended. In Zaire -- known today as the Democratic Republic of Congo -- Irwin
Blumenthal (whom the IMF had appointed to a post in the country's central bank) warned in
1978 that the system was so corrupt that there was "no (repeat, no) prospect for
Zaire's creditors to get their money back." Still, the IMF soon gave the
country the largest loan it had ever given an African nation . According to
corruption watchdog agency Transparency International, Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire's president
from 1965 to 1997, is reputed to have stolen at least $5 billion from the
country.
No Solvency - Britain
Disaster relief doesnt solve soft power Britain
proves
MacShane 13 PhD, University of London (Denis, a Contributing Editor at The Globalist,
was the United Kingdom's Minister for Europe from 2002 to 2005, 12/11/13, The Globalist, Soft Power Doesnt Exist,
http://www.theglobalist.com/soft-power-doesnt-exist/, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Soft power advocates also like to claim disaster relief as an example of soft
power. In fact, it is just charity writ large . Nations have rightly been moved to
send help to the Philippines. But we know from the help sent to starving
children in Somalia or to earthquake victims in Pakistan, generosity from the
United States or the EU produces no change in those countries political line
or support for enemies of the West. Britain has given billions in aid to India
without obtaining any support from India at the UN or in global disputes.
The Indian prime minister has just boycotted the Commonwealth Heads of
Government conference in Sir Lanka leaving Britains prime minister
Cameron having to explain on the BBC why he appears to endorsing the
hardliners in Colombo. Aid may be a good and worthy in itself but it is non-
power, neither soft nor hard.
Military Turn
Turn - Using the military to host disaster relief blurs
the line between genuine moral obligations and a
guise to justify security objectives
Bryce 14 - M.S. in International Relations University of Cambridge (Hannah,
the manager of the International Security Department at Chatham, 9/16/14, Chatham House: The Royal Institute of
International Affairs, The Dangers of Politicizing Aid, https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15761, Kent
Denver-jKIM)
The reality is that much government backed humanitarian work is politicized

to some degree, with aid being offered as one of the many negotiating tools
from the diplomatic box. This reality is difficult to avoid for most humanitarian operators
who rely on government funding. The last 20 years have also seen the military, in
addition to politicians, co-opt the language of humanitarianism to justify and
explain their role overseas, with the British Armed Forces being deployed to undertake humanitarian
activities. Some of this has been well executed and well received , such as the delivery of
supplies by the Royal Navy in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan, but this has also had the
broader adverse impact of confusing the roles of those working in the
humanitarian space. Afghanistan provides a useful example of a
humanitarian context where the division of roles between military and
humanitarian actors became, and continues to be, blurred, beyond distinction to
many. It is perhaps no coincidence that Afghanistan, a country where aid has long
been used to consolidate military gains, is also currently the most dangerous
country in the world for aid workers to work in, as it is increasingly difficult
to distinguish those delivering aid and those delivering military assistance.
From 2002, the establishment of military-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), for example, to coordinate
and implement reconstruction assistance programs in remote areas of
Afghanistan, meant that activities normally in the domain of aid workers
were being carried out by the military (opens in new window) focused more on
meeting narrow security objectives than broader development targets.
Further, this confusion looks unlikely to change following the withdrawal of
troops. One report notes (opens in new window) that it has not been the casethat the withdrawal of ISAF has
made aid actors any less vulnerable to threats The report goes on to note that incidents have increased as the pool of
those who deliver aid are perceived as no more than
viable targets has decreased. If
political pawns of the West, they will become, in the eyes of some, a legitimate
target. This apparent erosion of neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian
aid undermines the very core of humanitarianism. Governments providing
humanitarian aid should recognize the danger that any perceived
politicization of aid may present to those working in the field and seek to
protect and preserve the independence of that humanitarian aid. The failure
by those in positions of authority to make this clear risks turning
humanitarian action into political and military action.
Soft Power 2 Saudi Arms
Sales
1NC
suspend the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia uses American weapons to commit war crimes
Human Rights Watch 16 (3-21-16,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/21/yemen-embargo-arms-saudi-arabia)
governments that arm Saudi Arabia have rejected or downplayed
For the past year,
compelling evidence that the coalitions airstrikes have killed hundreds of

civilians in Yemen, said Philippe Bolopion, deputy global advocacy director. By
continuing to sell weapons to a known violator that has done little to curtail
its abuses, the US, UK, and France risk being complicit in unlawful civilian
deaths. Nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations have
investigated and reported on numerous unlawful coalition airstrikes. Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International, and other international and Yemeni groups have
issued a joint statement calling for the cessation of sales and transfers of all
weapons and military-related equipment to parties to the conflict in Yemen
where there is a substantial risk of these arms being used to commit or
facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or
international human rights law. Human Rights Watch has documented 36
unlawful airstrikes some of which may amount to war crimes that have killed at least 550
civilians, as well as 15 attacks involving internationally banned cluster
munitions. The UN Panel of Experts on Yemen, established under UN Security Council Resolution 2140 (2013), in a
report made public on January 26, 2016, documented 119 coalition sorties relating to violations of the laws of war.
Saudi Arabia has not responded to Human Rights Watch letters detailing
apparent violations by the coalition and seeking clarification on the intended
target of attack. Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied the UN Human Rights
Council to prevent it from creating an independent, international
investigative mechanism. In September 2014, the Houthis, a Zaidi Shia group from northern Yemen also
known as Ansar Allah, took control of Yemens capital, Sanaa. In January 2015, they effectively ousted President Abdu
Rabu Mansour Hadi and his cabinet. The Houthis, along with forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, then
swept south, threatening to take the port city of Aden. On March 26, the Saudi-led coalition, consisting of Bahrain,
Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan, began an aerial bombing campaign
At least 3,200 civilians have been killed and 5,700
against Houthi and allied forces.
wounded since coalition military operations began, 60 percent of them in coalition airstrikes, according to
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights . The naval blockade the coalition imposed on
Yemen has contributed to an immense humanitarian crisis that has left 80 percent of the population of the impoverished
country in need of humanitarian protection and assistance. The UN Panel of Experts found that, the coalitions
targeting of civilians through air strikes, either by bombing residential neighborhoods or by treating the entire cities of
Sadah and Maran in northern Yemen as military targets, is a grave violation of the principles of distinction,
proportionality and precaution. In certain cases, the Panel found such violations to have been conducted in a widespread
and systematic manner. Deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks against civilians are serious violations
The UN panel said that the attacks it
of the laws of war, to which all warring parties are bound.
documented included attacks on camps for internally displaced persons and

refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including
buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques;
markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian
infrastructure, such as the airport in Sanaa, the port in Hudaydah and
domestic transit routes.
US double standard undermines soft power and

threatens U.S. legitimacy
Evans 13, former Foreign Minister of Australia (1988-1996) , 8-23-13,
(Gareth, Diplomacy and Double Standards, Project-Syndicate)
[President of the International Crisis Group (2000-2009), is currently
Chancellor of the Australian National University. He co-chairs the New York-
based Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect and the Canberra-
based Center for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.]
Unless political leaders know that tearing up the rule book on the scale seen in Egypt will expose them to
more than rhetorical consequences, the tacit message that regimes that pick the "right" targets can
repress at will will resonate in Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Syria. Farther afield,
the US risks reinforcing the perception that it is comfortable with double
standards. For a country whose global leadership depends as much on its
soft power as on its military might, that is dynamite. The charge sheet here
is already rather full, with multiple instances in recent years of America
being almost universally regarded as not practicing what it preaches. For
starters, there was the invasion of Iraq in 2003: Embracing the United
Nations Security Council when you get your way, but bypassing it when you
don't, does not do much to encourage a cooperative rule-based international
order.
2NC - Solvency
Double standards hurt soft power making it difficult
to combat a laundry list of impacts
Ignatieff 5, Member of the Canadian House of Commons, Harvard
Kennedy School, 2005, (Michael, American Exceptionalism and Human
Rights, 128-129)
a
If these are the elements of the emerging Bush Doctrine, why is it so troubling? Because such
doctrine makes double standardsthe most virulent strain of American
Exceptionalism not just the exception but the rule. Each element of the
emerging Bush Doctrine places the United States in the position of
promoting genuine double standards, one for itself and another for the rest
of the world. The exclusive focus on American vulnerability ignores the far greater vulnerability of
such countries as, for example, Israel and Turkey, (which, being a neighbor of Iraq, surely had more to
fear from Saddam Hussein than did the United States, from Turkish bases). Even while asserting its own
the United States has properly hesitated to
right to preemptive self-defense,
recognize any other countrys claim to engage in forced disarmament or
preemptive self-defense in the name of homeland security. The technique of
creating extralegal rights-free zones and individuals under U.S.
jurisdiction necessarily erects a double standard within American
jurisprudence, by separating those places and people to whom America must
accord rights from those it may treat effectively as human beings without
human rights. Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of imposed democracy authorizes top-down
regime change in the name of democracy. Yet the United States has always argued that genuine
democracy must flow from the will of the people, not from military occupation. Finally, a policy of
strategic unilateralism seems unsustainable in an interdependent world. Because the United States is a
party to a global network of closely interconnected treaties enmeshed in multiple frameworks of
international institutions, unilateral administration decision to break or bend on treaty commitment
the United States
usually trigger vicious cycles of treaty violation. In an interdependent world,
simply cannot afford to ignore treaty obligation while at the same time
expecting its treaty partners to help it solve the myriad global problems that
extend far beyond any one nations control: the global AIDS and SARS
crises, climate change, international debt, drug smuggling, trade
imbalances, currency coordination, and trafficking in human beings, to name
just a few. Strategic unilateralism undermines American soft power at the
exact moment when the United States is trying to use that soft power to
mobilize those same partners to help it solve problems it simply cannot solve alone:
most obviously the war against global terrorism, but also the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, the Middle
East crisis, and the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea. If the emerging Bush Doctrine takes
hold, the United States may well emerge from the post-9/11 era still powerful, but deeply committed to
double standards as a means of preserving U.S. Hegemony. Promoting standards that apply to others but
not to us represent the very antithesis of Americas claim, since the end of World War II, to apply
universal legal and human rights standards. The real danger of the Bush Doctrine is thus that it will the
United States, which since 1945 has been the major architect and buttress of the global system of
international law and human rights, into its major outlier, weakening that system and reducing its
capacity to promote universal values and protect American interests.
AT No Double Standard
US has overlooked Saudi human rights abuse for
decades
Cartalluci 16, Independent American geopolitical analyst based in
Thailand, 4-1-16, (Tony, Global Research, U.S. Double Standards Human
Rights: Thailand vs. Saudi Arabia)
The Southeast Asian nation of Thailand has found itself repeatedly in the
spotlight regarding labor practices, and in particular those among its shrimp
and fishing production industry where Western media sources continue to
focus on the use of migrant workers and the appalling conditions they toil
under. However, the Wests sudden fascination with Thai shrimp and fishing industries
should strike the world as somewhat suspicious, or at least hypocritical.
After all, the West, and the United States in particular, imports a sizable percentage of
its oil from Saudi Arabia, a nation with the absolute worst human rights
record on Earth where enemies of the state are literally beheaded in public
by a regime that has reigned for decades absent any semblance of
democracy or interest in the will and well-being of its own people. Yet
despite that, media campaigns like that aimed at Thailand since 2014, are
utterly absent regarding Saudi Arabia and it has been that way for decades
transcending various presidential administrations. Whats most ironic
about Thailands current human rights situation is that the current
government is in the middle of undoing a decade of corruption, abuses, and
rackets created by a very much US-backed regime ousted from power in 2014 a
regime these same Western media interests knew was overseeing human
rights abuses, and for years helped it cover them up just as it does in Saudi
Arabia today. The Rest of the Story In Thailand on May 22, 2014, over a decade of impunity was brought to an
end when the regime of US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra [image right] was finally ousted from power in the
second military coup aimed at uprooting him and his political networks. Thaksin Shinawatra had, since coming to power
in 2001, aided and abetted the US in everything from the invasion and occupation in Iraq by sending Thai troops to
participate, to hosting the US CIAs abhorrent rendition program, to an attempt to illegally pass a US-Thai free trade
agreement that was ultimately defeated by Shinawatras opponents. In return for Shinawatras infinite utility to Wall
Street and Washington, he and his political networks have been endowed with immense US backing, ranging from a
myriad of Washington lobbyists working on Shinawatras behalf in the Western media, to US State Department funded
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to this day attempting to undermine and overthrow Thailands various
institutions working against Shinawatra and the special interests from abroad he represents. The US ambassador
himself has attempted to intervene on multiple occasions on behalf of pro-Shinawatra agitators. At the time of the 2014
coup, Shinawatra was already in self-imposed exile in Dubai, United Arab Emirates after a 2006 coup ousted him from
power while his sister, Yingluck Shianwatra symbolically held the office of prime minister in his absence. There was
never any doubt, however, over whether or not Thaksin Shinawatra was still running his powerful political network from
afar, which included among other things, control over the nations police. Under the Shinawtra crime family, a myriad of
abuses took place which included human trafficking, exploitation of labor, and just before being ousted, the robbery of
over a million of Thailands rice farmers of their annual harvests which were stockpiled by the regime in warehouses,
sold on the black market, and promised subsidies never paid. Shinawatras control over the nations police ran deep,
with Shinawatra himself having been a high-level bureaucrat within the police force before becoming prime minister in
2001. It would be the incoming military-led government that ousted Shinawatra that would finally pay back the farmers
and begin undoing the criminal networks including those among the police that flourished under Shinawatras rule. This
included attempting to enforce long-standing laws aimed at cleaning up the fishing industry, which includes Thailands
lucrative shrimp harvesting and processing sectors. After the 2006 coup, the military-led government even then
attempted to reform migrant labor laws. The attempt was unsuccessful. The same year the laws were passed,
Shinawatras proxies would find their way back into power. And despite the fact that migrant labor was a burning issue
even then, the silence from the West was not only deafening, it was telling. While a regime sat in power that bent to Wall
Street and Washingtons every whim, it was rewarded with silence from the Wests media and NGOs who for years
silently documented migrant worker abuse but did nothing to bring attention to it. Ironically, it is only now, with a
government attempting to finally enforce longstanding migrant labor laws targeting human trafficking and slavery US
mega-retailers have long benefited from, that the West has decided to put pressure on the Thai government. As a matter
of fact, the coup was in May of 2014, and the first salvos aimed at the incoming government were fired by the Western
The suspicious timing of the
press beginning the very next month. Hypocrisy, Not Human Rights:
Wests sudden concern is no coincidence. The West is pressuring Thailand,
even threatening sanctions not because of human rights abuses it has
suddenly found out about, but because of human rights abuses it knew about
for a decade and ignored until a government it didnt like came into power.
Pressure on Thailand over migrant labor issues is only one facet of a much larger, concerted campaign to undermine the
The current military-led government
current government and help return the Shinawatras to power.
has brought Thailand on an entirely alternate and for Washington an
unacceptable path. Bangkok is pivoting toward Beijing, economically, politically, and militarily. As the US
attempts to shun the new government in Bangkok by rolling back military cooperation, the Thai and Chinese air forces
held their first ever joint exercise. A myriad of weapon and infrastructure deals have also been struck or are in the
Last year, Thailand refused Western demands that
process of being negotiated with China.
Uyghurs fleeing China, suspected of terrorism, be allowed to continue on to
Turkey where Beijing accused them of seeking to join the ranks of the
notorious Islamic State terrorist organization. Only months after sending the suspected
terrorists back to China, Bangkok suffered a terrorist attack itself, carried out by NATO-backed terrorists from Turkey as
reprisal. Since then, two Washington-backed activists from China were also sent home to face justice, despite Western
The move was
demands the two be allowed to travel onward to Canada to seek political asylum.
condemned publicly by the US ambassador to Thailand, and followed by a
flurry of media attacks on all fronts, including among other things, aviation
safety reviews, hotel labor conditions, and migrant labor reforms among
Thailands shrimp industry. All of this leads us right back to Saudi Arabia.
The United States imports double digit percentages of its oil from Saudi
Arabia. It, along with its European allies, also exports billions in weapons to
the regime in Riyadh. Reports in the news about Saudi Arabias barbaric
regime and the abhorrent human rights conditions that exist within Saudi
Arabia are nonexistent in the West. Saudi Arabia has existed as an
unquestioning, unflinchingly obedient proxy of US foreign policy in the
Middle East for decades, waging multiple proxy wars at great personal
expense on behalf of Wall Street and Washington. In exchange, the West has
clearly granted Saudi Arabia with unlimited impunity within which it has
created one of the most depraved states in modern existence.
AT Angers Saudis
Saudis are not willing to sacrifice their alliance with
the US
Bandow 16, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, Served as Special
Interest to Ronald Reagan, 5-17-16, (Doug, Saudi Arabia Needs the U.S.
More Than the U.S. Needs Saudi Arabia)
In practice, Saudi Arabia differs little from the Soviet Union. Both were totalitarian states animated by
transcendent worldviews. Both regimes suppressed human liberty in service to those visions, one secular,
and the other religious. The main difference is that the second posed a direct security threat to America,
None of this prevents
while the first sometimes interferes with U.S. interests indirectly.
Washington and Riyadh from cooperating. However, the U.S. should stop
acting as supplicant. The kingdom has far greater need for America. The
monarchy is ruthless and cannot be counted out as a survivor, but it long has
looked to the U.S. as its backstop. Witness arms sales and combat support
for the misbegotten war in Yemen In contrast, the royals continued rule,
however advantageous for U.S. geopolitical interests in the short-term, is by
no means vital to America in any meaningful sense of the word. A worst-case
implosion in the kingdom would be ugly for the Saudi people and their
neighbors, but would most likely manifest itself in the U.S. primarily through
higher energy prices. The greatest danger for Washington may be the moral
hazard from defending such a regime, encouraging it to resist needed
reforms. Despite occasional signs of progress, such as the recently announced decision to strip the
religious police of the power to arrest, Saudi Arabia generally has moved backward since King Salman
ascended the throne.
AT Buy Weapons Elsewhere
Saudis wont buy weapons elsewhere- value US
alliance too much
Stratfor 16, Global Intelligence company founded in 1996(learn more at
https://www.stratfor.com/about), 1-9-16, (https://www.stratfor.com/situation-
report/saudi-arabia-riyadh-will-not-purchase-russian-military-hardware)
Saudi Arabia has no plans to purchase
Information obtained by Stratfor reveals that
military hardware from Russia, including the Iskander-E, a tactical ballistic missile capable of
carrying a nuclear weapon. A Saudi delegation was invited to St. Petersburg in June
2015 after expressing interest in the Iskander, but Riyadh does not have nuclear warheads to necessitate
In the past, Russia has tried to sell arms to Saudi
the purchase of such a missile.
Arabia, but Riyadh has consistently chosen to purchase its advanced
weapons from the West. Russia's defense industry would receive a much-needed boost from an
arms deal with Saudi Arabia. For its part, Riyadh has been looking to obtain
advanced missile defensea systems such as the S-400 allegedly on offer from
Moscow. The United States, a critical Saudi partner, will not allow such a
deal. Riyadh wants to maintain this relationship and the Saudi military is
trained to use Western equipment. Using weapons systems of different
origins will put a burden on the military, which will need to retrain soldiers
and overcome the logistical complications of interfacing between
technologies.
No alternative Britain stopped selling weapons

Stone 7-1 (Jon, The Independent, High Court grants legal challenge
against British arms sales to Saudi Arabia)
British courts could ban the Government from signing off arms sales to
Saudi Arabia after the first hurdle to a legal challenge was cleared. The High Court on
Thursday granted a judicial review into the legality of UK arms sales to Saudi
Arabia after a bid by campaigners and lawyers, who say the sales are
unlawful. MPs on the international development committee and MEPs in the
European Parliament earlier this year called on the Government to stop selling
weapons to the autocratic petro-state. Saudi Arabias ongoing bombing
campaign in Yemen has been accused of serious atrocities by observers and
the United Nations, including carnage at schools, hospitals, and weddings.
Ministers have however resisted the calls and instead ploughed on with granting export licenses as
British arms companies cash in on the conflict amid soaring sales of bombs and other weapons. After
months of inaction by ministers, campaigners have decided to take the Government to court to get the
sales declared unlawful.
Terrorism 1 Terrorist
Financing
1NC
Substantially increase funds for the FATF
Work with allies in order to develop CFT regimes
internationally
Monitor Middle Eastern countries success in the
criminalization, prosecution and conviction of
terrorism
CP solves terrorism by closing opportunities for

terrorist organizations to raise, store, and move funds
Levitt and Jacobson 8 (Matthew, is the Fromer-Wexler fellow and director of The Washington
Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Michael, is a senior fellow in The Washington Institute's
Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, November 2008, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
Policy Focus #89, The Money Trail: Finding, Following, and Freezing Terrorist Finances, pg. 43-44, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Despite some success in the struggle against terrorist financing, the United
States and its allies cannot afford to grow complacent. Serious challenges have
emerged that could threaten the record to date. As governments have cracked down on
terrorist financing, the growing number of terrorist cells and organizations
have found new ways to raise, store, move, and gain access to funds . The
evolutionary nature of this aspect of the terrorist threat requires regular and
ongoing reassessment to identify potential vulnerabilities and adapt our
counter-terrorist-finance posture accordingly. The U nited States should take a
number of steps to ensure that its efforts in combating the financing of terrorism
will continue to stand out as a counterterrorism success story . Explain the nature
of the CFT threat. There is too little understanding of the terrorist financing threat, particularly among
governments in the Middle East and Latin America. Designing effective systems to combat
terrorist financing is especially difficult without a thorough understanding of
how terrorist groups raise, store, and move funds . The United States performs
regular, comprehensive assessments focused specifically on terrorist financing. These assessments
or at least sanitized versions of themshould be shared with key countries
whose assistance is needed in this global effort . While the FATF has
performed admirably in establishing international standards in the AML/CFT
arena and pressing countries to adopt these measures, there is too little
focus on riskensuring not only that countries adopt the model AML/CFT
regime but also that they are actually focusing on the specific problems they face.
The FATF needs to perform broader assessments covering not only whether
countries have adequate AML/CFT regimes, but also whether they are
taking the necessary steps to address their particular terrorist financing
threat. To fulfill these growing responsibilities, the United States should
press for the FATFs budget and resources to be dramatically increased.
Make CFT a priority. There is a great deal of skepticism in the public and even among some Western
allies about the impact of CFT efforts.The United States must continue to explain and
emphasize the importance of CFT, and ensure that combating terrorist
financing remains an important component of every governments
overarching counterterrorism strategy. Washington should work with its
allies to develop robust CFT regimes, including both asset-freezing
authorities and the capability to follow the money trail. The United States should
make the case that CFT efforts are effective to its partners and alliesand their constituenciesby
providing confidential assessments to governments and unclassified
versions of those assessments to the public on an ongoing basis. The
United States should focus on ensuring that key Middle Eastern countries,
particularly those in the Persian Gulf, are not only developing adequate
regimes to prevent terrorism financing but also are taking the necessary
follow-up actions. Policymakers should closely monitor these countries
success in criminalizing terrorism financing, prosecuting and convicting
terrorism financiers, and overseeing the activities of charities and NGOs.
Countries should be pressed to develop strong oversight mechanisms for
charities and NGOs that operate within their jurisdictions and are sending
funds to conflict zoneswhich are ripe for exploitation . Washington should
approach the CFT challenge strategicallyusing different approaches for different problems.
2NC - Solvency
CP solves terrorism
Haigner et al. 12 (Stefan Haigner, Freidrich Schneider, Florian Wakolbinger, EUSECON, Policy
Breifing 17, The financial flows of terrorism and transnational crime,
http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Schneider/files/publications/2013/EUSECON%20Policy%20Brief%2017.pdf, Kent
Denver-jKIM)
Policy recommendations: Money laundering is on the increase although

international bodies in charge of the problem (i.e. the Financial Action Task
Force FATF) have issued encompassing recommendations with respect to
the supervision of financial institutions and information exchange across
authorities. To our point of view, more and better information exchange is
key to making AML/CFT strategies more efficient and mandatory for their
success. Moreover, policy makers should clearly define the main information
and data requirements in order to effectively thwart money laundering and
terrorist financing, and financial institutions should be trained in detecting
such data. The complexity of terrorist financing and money laundering and
the wide variety of techniques used by criminals requires cooperation of law
enforcement and the private sector.
Increasing anti-money laundering (AML) laws key to

stopping global terrorism
Kumar and Campbell 9 (Leena Thacker, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of
Houston-Downtown, Joel R., Associate Professor, Center for International Education. Kansai Gaidai University, Japan,
March 2009, Forum on Public Policy, Global Governance: The Case of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, pg.
1-2, Kent Denver-jKIM)
Sheik Saeed, a key al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, was asked in a May, 2007
interview, what are the [most important] needs of Jihad in Afghanistan? He responded that the
foremost need is financial, and added that there are hundreds wishing to
carry out martyrdom-seeking operations, but they cant find the funds to
equip themselves. So funding is the mainstay of Jihad (Shapiro, 2009: 1). This
casual quote reveals the central importance of financing to terrorist operations .
The money required to carry out a terrorist operation is channeled to
training camps, weapons, travel, payouts, and propaganda. Both American and
British governments claim that they had successfully thwarted terrorist attacks in Bali and Heathrow,
following the money
respectively, by tracking money linked to financing of planned attacks. Thus,
trail and stopping terrorist financing could lead to a decline in terrorist
incidents. Following the money trail and halting terrorist financing in many cases requires
transnational operations, which may be difficult because each country guards its sovereignty. However,
since money laundering and terrorist financing are key issues for the
security of all states, there is a strong need for global governance . Though
correct estimates of the amount of money laundering are hard to come by, the IMF in 1996 reported that
between two and five percent of the global GDP ($590 million to $1.5 trillion dollars) may be due to
This has potential for economic
money laundering (FATF, Money Laundering, 2009: 1).
distress for various countries. The increasingly transnational nature of
criminal activities requires international cooperation. However, the diversity of
national legal systems, especially in surveillance of financial activities, creates loopholes
that terrorists often use. They can exploit countries with weak or ineffectual
controls to participate in legal financial markets.
Aff
Tranparency Turn
AML laws create perverse effects that increase
criminal banking activity
Saperstein, Sant & Ng 15 (Lanier, Geoffrey & Michelle, Lanier
Saperstein is a partner, Geoffrey Sant is a special counsel, and Michelle Ng is
an associate at the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Mr. Saperstein and Mr.
Sant are also adjunct professors at Fordham Law School,
The Failure of Anti-Money Laundering Legislation: Where is the Cost-Benefit
Analysis? Notre Dame Law Review, December,
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1015&context=ndlr_online)
Banamex USA and Standard Chartered are examples of a troubling trend in
which regulators levy massive fines on banks even though the regulators do
not identify any missed instances of money laundering or financial crimes. In
so doing, the regulators effectively are punishing banks for not meeting the
regulators own subjective vision of the ideal antimoney laundering program.
There is no indication that higher standards and the massive costs imposed
on banks are actually effective in reducing money laundering and other
financial crimes. The regulators are incentivized to quickly and firmly address
any potential money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk. An increased
regulatory response equals greater job security for regulators, and more
recognition and adulation from elected officials and the public. Yet, regulators
do not bear any of the compliance costs imposed by their vision. The
regulators vision is untethered to the economic costs of implementing the
supposedly ideal antimoney laundering program, and (understandably) the
regulators have no incentive to determine whether the benefits obtained, if
any, justify the increased costs imposed. Banamex USA and Standard
Chartered represent just two of the many banks criticized or punished where
no financial crimes were identified. In 2013, the Federal Reserve criticized the
Bank of Montreals compliance program, asserting that it lacked effective
systems of governance and internal controls to adequately oversee anti
money laundering compliance.10 Also in 2013, a federal regulator savaged
Royal Bank of Canada for antimoney laundering controls that the
regulator called unsafe and unsound.11 In each of these instances,
the regulators reserved the right to penalize the banks, despite not
identifying any actual money laundering or financial crime. In fact,
considering the difficulty of uncovering complex money laundering
schemes, a banks failure to discover a financial crime does not
necessarily mean that the bank has a weak antimoney laundering
program. The Under Secretary of the Treasury Department
acknowledged that it is not possible or practical for a financial
institution to detect and report every single potentially illicit
transaction that flows through the institution.12 Likewise, the
Financial Action Task Force stated that it does not expect a zero
failure approach,13 and the director of the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network stated, I think we can all agree that it is not
possible for financial institutions to eliminate all risk.14 Considering
that it is impossible to eliminate financial crime, and regulators do not
expect zero failure, it is problematic that regulators are nonetheless
punishing banks where no financial crime has been identified. III. THE
COST OF COMPLIANCE IS SKY-ROCKETING International banks spend
enormous amounts on antimoney laundering compliance. HSBC
recently estimated it now devotes $750 million to $800 million per year
on compliancean amount equivalent to one quarter of the operating
budget of its entire U.S. operationsto fight 5000 additional staff
about $300 million in salaryto work in compliance alone.16 To a large
extent, the fight against financial crimes has swallowed up the core
business of banking, such as providing loans and banking services.
Regulators appear to have shifted their focus to how much banks
spend on compliance, as opposed to the effectiveness of compliance
efforts. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently
described it as a hopeful sign[] and impressive that many of the
largest banks are increasing spending by significant amounts and
adding substantial numbers of employees in antimoney laundering
compliance, a trend we want to encourage.17 IV. DE-RISKING
Considering the massive sums involved, one would expect the
regulatory actions to be based on scientific studies and empirical
research weighing the costs and benefits of their regulations and
enforcement actions. Instead, regulators appear to have simply
assumed that higher standards, more employees, and increased
spending from banks will necessarily reduce the number of financial
crimes. They may turn out to be right. However, evidence to date
indicates the opposite. Regulatory punishments and compliance costs
have contributed to banks retreating from high-risk regions and
businesses.18 This de-risking has made financial activity less
transparent and more susceptible to misuse by criminals. For example,
all major banks in the United States and the United Kingdom have
abandoned wire transfers to Somalia in order to avoid the risk that a
money transfer ends up in the hands of terrorist groups.19 This
abandonment of Somalia by major banks has caused a humanitarian
tragedy. Many families in Somalia depend upon relatives working
abroad to send money home in order to pay for food and medicine.
Somalis living in the United States now hire third-party agents to
physically carry the money in cash in suitcases on flights to Somalia.20
The money still flowing to Somalia has thus become unregulated,
untraceable, and more expensive for Somalis living hand-to-mouth.
The end result is not only tragic for individual Somalis, it is also riskier
for money laundering than if banks had continued to provide wire
transfer services. Along the Mexican border, banks fearful of money
laundering linked to drugs and smuggling have closed customer
accounts and bank branchesand in one recent case, the bank
itself.21 When Citigroup shuttered its Banamex USA subsidiary, it
eliminated a banking group that once had eleven branches in the
southwest.22 The closing of Banamex USA came mere months after
Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake demanded a hearing in
response to the rapid-fire closing of four bank branches in one Arizona
border city.23 Banks have also closed long-term accounts of cash-
intensive businesses, like ranchers and farmers, due to cash being
risky for money laundering.24 The ironic result of closing the bank
accounts of cash-intensive businesses, of course, is to force these
clients to move even more heavily into cash transactions. After all, if
these businesses are unable to deposit cash in a bank account, then
they must necessarily pay others in cash as well. The move to cash has
a ripple effect upon other businesses and individuals, spreading the
risk of money laundering. Overseas banks worry about having too
many cash-intensive business clients.25 For example, for fear of losing
their connections to the U.S. banking industry, Mexican banks have
sharply limited the amount of cash deposits they will accept from
customers.26 If customers are depositing too much money in cash, the
bank itself is seen as high-risk for money laundering and loses its
access to the global financial system.27 Mexico has seen an epidemic
of cash-heavy businesses losing their bank accounts.28 Some
businesses in Mexico described opening strings of accounts at different
banks in order to disguise cash deposits.29 One business owner told
the Associated Press that he scattered dollar deposits among
something like 10 banks after Bank of America closed his original
account.30 By forcing legitimate businesses to structure holdings and
disguise cash flows, it becomes far harder to spot criminal networks
doing the same thing. Regulatory pressure leads to serious unintended
consequences, including forcing banks out of high-risk regions, forcing
businesses to disguise cash holdings, and causing an overall increase
in cash transactions and the use of underground networks to transfer
funds. In this way, regulators have unintentionally made it harder to
catch financial crimes, increased opportunities for money laundering,
and strengthened criminal networks.
Terrorism 2 Lift Russian
Sanctions
1NC
Text: The USFG should advocate for lifting the
European Union Sanctions on Russia that bar Russian
heads of intelligence from visiting the EU.
Cooperation and info-sharing with Russia is key to

eradicating terrorism
Dati 16 (Rachida Dati, To prevent terrorism we must lift EU sanctions against
Russia. The Independent, June 12, 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/to-
prevent-terrorism-we-must-lift-eu-sanctions-against-russia-a7077856.html) S.He
In October 2014, a few months after European Union sanctions had been decreed against Russia in
reaction to the situation in Ukraine, we already thought that missing the Russian partner was a mistake
both in a political context in Syria and on an economical level for our agriculture, and we would pay for it
dearly. Today, more than two years after the implementation of these sanctions, the warning signal is still
the European sanctions were extended to personalities
red. In July 2014,
including some of the Russian intelligence, preventing them from receiving
visas for countries in the European Union. Alexander Bortnikov, head of the Federal
Security Service and Mikhail Fradkov, director of Foreign Intelligence Services, are both concerned by
the sanctions. Let us recall that the US has also imposed sanctions, mainly economic ones, to Russia, but
they have never gone as far as jeopardising their security co-operation with the heads of the intelligence
why are we putting so much effort into this, at the expense of our
service. So,
own security? These sanctions impact us twice, both on French and
European levels, as demonstrated by the suspension since the Ukrainian
crisis of the Cooperation Council on security issues. This council brought
together the foreign and defence ministers from both French and Russian
sides. These annual meetings have not taken place since October 2012 in Paris. And even if
interactions did continue, lifting sanctions would allow full-scale exchanges. Practically, this means that
the heads of Russian intelligence would be able to get visas to the European Union so as to be able to
trust is fundamental and visa
directly meet and interact with their counterparts. In this field,
bans clearly damages high level cooperation and dialogue , and we need them to
confront the threat we are facing. How can we explain that these sanctions are in our own interest, the
interest of the Europeans, when one knows the impact and possible consequences of breaking or
The attacks in Paris and
weakening the exchange of information between two countries?
Brussels sadly reminded us that this co-operation is far from being optimal,
even within the EU. If we continue to weaken our cooperation with Russia in
this field, we are participating in putting our citizens in danger. Russia,
thanks to its position in Syria, has access to valuable information on Isis,
which we would be wrong to turn away from, as the enemy we face is
multifaceted and ever-evolving. If it is not thanks to passion, let it be thanks
to reason that we co-operate with the Russian state, in order to exchange
critical information on the positions and intentions of Isis. This realpolitik is
no longer a choice: it is a duty imposed by the world around us. We may not
agree on everything, and we can sanction where it hurts; but there are goals
and interests that require us to go beyond the desire to punish. Take the example
of Israel: Benjamin Netanyahus government has decided to strengthen its ties with Russia, to enhance
national security, even though Moscow is working closely with Iran, Israel's most hostile and powerful
enemy in the region. Without taking any country's side in the region, the Israeli decision shows that
realpolitik the Israelis' security goes beyond geopolitics. If Israel does it, why not us?
2NC Solvency
Allied info-sharing is key to terrorism prevention
Heritage Foundation 15 (Solutions 2016, accessed 7/25/16,
http://solutions.heritage.org/defense/terrorism/) S.He
Enhance Domestic and International Information-Sharing Efforts. Efforts to
increase information sharing between the U.S. and its allies while improving
interagency communication between the Departments of State, Justice, and
Homeland Security and the intelligence agencies are vital to protecting the
U.S. from the continued threat of terrorism. One of the central failures
leading up to the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack was the lack of
sufficient information sharing between entities across the government.
Similarly, Boston police were not made aware that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was
interviewed by the FBI based on Russian intelligence, which, while not a
smoking gun in itself, would have been an important piece of the puzzle for
Boston authorities to know and potentially investigate. At home, the U.S.
should improve interagency communications and ensure that information is
better shared throughout all levels of governmentfederal, state, and local.
Internationally, the U.S. should seek (among other measures) to expand
Passenger Name Record (PNR) data sharing as well as the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP), which allows pre-screened foreign travelers from member
nations to travel to the U.S. without a visa. The VWP promotes national
security by allowing U.S. officials to focus on higher-risk individuals and
requiring greater information sharing between member nations and the U.S.
AT Europe Says No
Russia and the EU want to cooperate both parties
are reconsidering sanctions.
Dati 16 (Rachida Dati, To prevent terrorism we must lift EU sanctions against
Russia. The Independent, June 12, 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/to-
prevent-terrorism-we-must-lift-eu-sanctions-against-russia-a7077856.html) S.He
After two years of sanctions, we know that the cost of division is

immeasurably higher than that of cooperation with Russia. Besides, Russia
also wants to help us. To those who doubt it, let us remind them that
following the 13 November attacks, Franois Hollande and Vladimir Putin
agreed to establish closer co-ordination between both countries armies on
Syria. The geo-economic war taking place between Russia and the European
Union must no longer stand in the way of the fight against terrorism. While
the European Council must decide on 28 and 29 June on whether to renew
sanctions against Russia, let us call together to revive security cooperation
between those two major players on the international scene. More and more
voices in Europe already call for a re-evaluation of sanctions and the lifting
of sanctions applied to individuals, as shown by the French Senate's vote on
9 June, which called, with a wide majority, for a reassessment and even the
lifting of the sanctions. History will prove right to those who find the
political courage to make such a statement.
Aff
EU says No
EU wont lift sanctions still doesnt trust Russia over
Ukraine
Rankin 16 (Jennifer Rankin, degrees from Cambridge (undergraduate) and
Oxford (masters) and three years experience as a think-tank researcher specialized
in UK health and social policy, EU to extend sanctions against Russia. The
Guardian, June 21, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/eu-to-
extend-sanctions-against-russia) S.He
The European Unions top diplomats have agreed to extend sanctions

against Russia by six months to keep pressure on Moscow over the conflict
in eastern Ukraine. Ambassadors from the 28 member states agreed
unanimously on Tuesday to prolong the sanctions until 31 January 2017. The
EU wants more time to assess whether Russia is abiding by peace
agreements signed at Minsk aimed at bringing peace to war-hit eastern Ukraine. The decision still
has to be approved by EU ministers or leaders. This step, largely a formality, may come as early as next
week at a summit. The union imposed sweeping sanctions against swaths of the Russian economy in July
2014 in response to Russias arming of the rebels in eastern Ukraine and failure to cooperate in the
investigation over the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines jet MH17, which killed 298 people. The
sanctions, targeting Russian banks, energy companies and arms makers, were tightened up in September
2014. Despite a ceasefire agreement signed in Minsk last February, fighting continues in Ukraines
breakaway eastern regions. In the past few days independent monitors at the Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe have reported shelling, bursts of machine gun fire and explosions from
undetermined sources, from various places in the war-stricken regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Heavier
fighting has led to several deaths on both sides in recent weeks. An earlier round of international
sanctions were imposed against senior Russian officials linked to the illegal annexation of Crimea in
The decision to extend economic sanctions comes as cracks appear
March 2014.
in Europes united front on Russia. Italy, Greece and Hungary have
questioned the need for extending sanctions against Russia. Last week the Italian
prime minister, Matteo Renzi, had a series of jokey exchanges with Vladimir Putin, at a packed summit of
business executives and government officials at the St Petersburg economic forum. The European
commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, also attended the event, which is known as Russias mini
Davos, where he said he hoped to build a bridge. Expectations are growing that EU sanctions will be
lifted in 2017. Some diplomats in Brussels speculate that a Brexit could hasten their demise, as the UK
has been one of the strongest voices for sanctions.
Trade 1 Intermediate Goods
Tariff
1NC
eliminate tariffs on intermediate goods.
CP solves trade
Riley 13 -- Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade
Policy at The Heritage Foundation (Bryan, 4-29-2013, Tariff
Reform Needed to Boost the U.S. Economy, Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/tariff-reform-needed-to-
boost-the-us-economy#_ftn31)//mz
U.S. efforts to reduce tariffs started with the Declaration of Independence, which cited Englands
attempts to cut off U.S. trade with the rest of the world as a major grievance. Eleven years later, the U.S.
Constitution was signed, establishing a historic free trade area among all U.S. states. More recently, the
United States led the largest global tax cut in history through creation of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 1995, and the U.S.Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) spurred new free trade agreements across the globe. But during the past few years,
the United States has seen a dramatic decline in economic freedom. In 2010, for
the first time, the United States fell from the ranks of the economically free as measured by the Index
of Economic Freedom. Trade is a mainstay of the U.S. economy, equaling nearly
one-third of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). More than 57 million
Americans are employed by firms that engage in international trade.[2 ] But
America can do better. Thirty-seven economies, including Hong Kong, Switzerland, Canada, and
Germany, outperform the United States in trade freedom. Some countries have
eliminated tariffs completely. One way the United States can reverse its
decline in economic freedom is by eliminating its own tariffs. Eliminating
tariffs would add 3.6 points to the U.S. trade freedom score in the Index of
Economic Freedom. The United States would jump from 38th place to first
place in the trade freedom rankings, and almost certainly move up from its
current 10th place in the overall rankings
2NC - Solves Trade
Tariff reductions lead to improved economies and free
trade - empirics
Riley 13 -- Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy
at The Heritage Foundation (Bryan Riley, 4-29-2013, Tariff Reform
Needed to Boost the U.S. Economy, Heritage Foundation,
Many countries have cut tariffs unilaterally because they realized it was in
their own self-interest to do so. Some notable examples include Australia, Chile,
China, and New Zealand. Case Study in Tariff Reform: Australia The Australian government emphasizes
the benefits of tariff cuts in its official trade policy: Since competition provides strong
incentives for innovation and price restraint, opening up an economy to
competition will increase national prosperity over time. Pro-competitive economic reform
should be pursued in its own right; it should not be conditional upon other countries reforming their economies.
Adopting a bargaining-chip approach of refusing to liberalise at home unless other countries offer trade barrier
reductions as a quid pro quo only damages the home countrys long-term prosperity. Using domestic reform as a
bargaining chip in negotiations is akin to an athlete refusing to get fit for an event unless and until other competitors
Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul
also agree to get fit.[7] In the early 1980s,
Keating revitalized the countrys stagnant economy by pushing through
unilateral tariff cuts. For example, tariffs on manufactured goods fell from
22 percent to less than 5 percent. According to the countrys Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade: These policies required enormous political courage and the understanding of a visionary trade union movement.
they helped lay the platform for
But, as an essential part of the overall economic reform program,
almost 20 years of sustained economic growth and job creation.[8] Indeed,
Australias economy, measured by real GDP, grew 57 percent faster in the 10
years after tariff cuts were initiated in 1983 than in the 10 years before
tariffs were reduced. Case Study in Tariff Reform: Chile In the 1970s, Chile unilaterally cut its average tariff
rate from 105 percent to 10 percent.[9] A 1997 WTO review concluded: Chiles liberal and transparent trade regimein
place now for almost 20 yearsand its successive unilateral reforms have resulted in strong economic growth and lower
In 2003, Chile enacted further unilateral tariff cuts, bringing the
inflation.[10]
average tariff rate down to 6 percent.[11] As a result of such economic
policies, Chile is one of the most economically successful countries in Latin
America. According to the BBC: Chile is one of South Americas most stable
and prosperous nations. It has been relatively free of the coups and arbitrary
governments that have blighted the continent .[12] Chiles economy shrank by nearly 11
percent from 1970 to 1975, but in the five years after the government started radically
cutting tariffs, the economy grew more than 40 percent. (See Figure 2.) Case Study in
Tariff Reform: China Chinas rise to economic power would never have happened without the countrys unilateral tariff
China cut its average statutory tariff rate from 56 percent in 1982 to 15
reform.
percent in 2001. According to Nicholas R. Lardy, by 1994 Chinas average tariff rate was lower than that of any
other developing country.[13] Lardy concluded: China is perhaps the best example of the positive connection between
openness and economic growth. Reforms in China transformed it from a highly
protected market to perhaps the most open emerging market economy by
the time it came into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 .[14] In
1984, import penetration was the same in China and the United States, at about 10 percent of GDP. By 2011,
imports were 18 percent the size of U.S. GDP, but in China, imports were 27 percent of GDP.[15]
Critics may argue that many of Chinas tariff cuts were not truly unilateral, because they were intended to promote the
countrys entry into the world trade system under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the
WTO, and to respond to international pressure following the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. It is also the case
Chinas economy
that China eventually backtracked on its commitment to economic reform.[16] Nevertheless,
grew 90 percent faster in the 10 years after it started cutting tariffs in 1982
than in the prior 10 years. Case Study in Tariff Reform: New Zealand The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative reports: Tariff rates in New Zealand are generally low as a result of several rounds of unilateral tariff
cuts that began in the mid-1980s.[17] The countrys unilateral tariff cuts from an average of about 30 percent in the
1980s were part of Rogernomics, named for Finance Minister Roger Douglas. Douglas advised: Define your objectives
clearly, and move towards them in quantum leaps, otherwise the interest groups will have time to mobilise and drag you
down. Winning public acceptance depends on demonstrating that you are improving opportunities for the nation as a
whole, while protecting the most vulnerable groups in the community. Before you remove the privileges of a protected
sector, it will tend to see change as a threat which has to be opposed at all costs. After you remove its privileges and
make plain that the clock cannot be turned back, the group starts to focus on removing the privileges of other groups.
New Zealand underwent radical
[18] According to one analysis: Between 1984 and 1993,
economic reform, moving from what had probably been the most protected,
regulated and state-dominated system of any capitalist democracy to an
extreme position at the open, competitive, free-market end of the
spectrum.[19] A WTO review of New Zealands trade policy concluded: Radical macroeconomic and structural
reform, including unilateral trade liberalization, commencing in the mid 1980s, have transformed New Zealand from a
The outcome has been a substantial
rather closed economy into one of the most open in the world.
improvement in its economic performance.[20
CP is the best option for promoting trade

Riley 13 -- Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy
at The Heritage Foundation (Bryan Riley, 4-29-2013, Tariff Reform
Needed to Boost the U.S. Economy, Heritage Foundation,
In 2015, over 60 percent of U.S. imports were either intermediate goods , such as
parts, or capital goods, such as machinery used by U.S. manufacturers to compete in
the global economy. Eliminating tariffs on these goods would support the
creation of more manufacturing jobs here in the United States. Mexico's
embrace of free trade has encouraged some carmakers to locate there
instead of in the United States, according to The Wall Street Journal. As CBS Money Watch reported, "Mexico ...
trumps the U.S. on free trade. It has agreements with 45 countries, meaning low tariffs for exporting globally." Some suggest
that U.S. trade deficits with China and Mexico are a big problem. But there is no
evidence that trade deficits shrink the economy . From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. trade deficit plummeted
by over 50 percent, and U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) also declined. Then from 2009 to 2014, the U.S. trade deficit increased by $125
What about the

billion, but U.S. GDP increased by $2.9 trillion as U.S. manufacturing output soared to the highest level ever.
idea that U.S. companies who relocate to other countries should be

penalized? That type of government control over economic activity seems
more suited for North Korea or Russia than a country based on private
property rights and the rule of law. It would also risk the jobs of over 6
million Americans working for foreign companies that invested in the United
States. If the U.S. government starts penalizing companies that move abroad, what's to stop other countries
from retaliating by penalizing companies that want to invest in the United
States? By the way, in 2014, new foreign investment in the U.S. exceeded new U.S. investment abroad by $185 billion. Another
idea that has been floated is to force Americans to pay high tariffs on Chinese-made
clothing and other products, supposedly in order to create jobs in the United States. That
makes as much sense as forcing Americans to stop downloading movies and

start shopping at Blockbuster Video stores again. These types of backward-
looking proposals would create some jobs, but would destroy others and
make Americans poorer. The Heritage Foundation's annual "Index of Economic Freedom" shows that countries with low
trade barriers are much more prosperous than those that restrict trade. Americans should reject the failed trade policies of Herbert Hoover
and his modern protectionist successors, and instead embrace the pro-trade vision of FDR and Reagan.
2NC Solves Manufacturing
Increasing imports boosts the manufacturing sector
Kliesen & Tatom 13 -- business economist and research officer
at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and the President of
Thoroughbred Economics, a consultancy in financial economics
serving universities, central banks, financial institutions and
other private clients and a fellow at the Institute for Applied
Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise
at Johns Hopkins University (Kevin L. Kliesen and John A. Tatom,
January/February 2013, U.S. Manufacturing and the Importance of
International Trade: Its Not What You Think,
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/13/01/Kliesen.pdf, pg
47)//mz
the role of exports and imports in affecting manufacturing performance.
Our analysis focuses on
we find that imports have played a critical positive role in boosting
Surprisingly,
manufacturing output in the United States much more so, in fact, than
exports. We find no discernible influence of export growth on manufacturing growth, but there is
a strong positive influence of import growth on manufacturing growth . Many
industry, labor, and political leaders believe that boosting manufacturing
growth will require limiting imports through favorable preferences for
domestic purchasing and raw material and capital goods sourcing, perhaps
through quotas, tariffs, domestic content legislation, or simply
discriminatory preferences. However, reliance on imports has been a strong
positive influence on manufacturing output and productivity. Moreover,
there is no discernible gain to manufacturing growth that could arise from
new policies proposed to boost exports.
CP solves for the manufacturing sector

Ikenson 15 -- director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade
Policy Studies (Dan Ikenson, 6-3-2015, How Simple Changes to Tariffs Could
Help U.S. Manufacturers, WSJ, http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/03/how-
simple-changes-to-tariffs-could-help-u-s-manufacturers/)//mz
The myth of decline dominates the narrative about U.S. manufacturing. Yet, the preponderance of
evidence indicates that U.S. manufacturing, relative to the past and relative to other countries
manufacturing sectors, excels by the metrics that speak to its current and future prospects. But it could
be doing even better if Congress made some simple changes to the outdated U.S. tariff system.
According to WTO and OECD figures, intermediate goods trade may account
for as much as 75% of all global trade . The proliferation of cross-border investment and
transnational supply chains has blurred the distinctions between U.S. and foreign products and has
rendered tariffs on imported inputs incompatible with the imperative of wooing, securing and
To compete more effectively at home
maintaining productive, capital investment in the U.S.
and abroad, manufacturers in the U.S. need access to imported inputs at
world market prices. Last year, about 55% of U.S. imports were intermediate
goods and capital equipment, the purchases of U.S. producers. Yet, und er
U.S. tariff policy, many imported inputs remain subject to import taxes . Duties
on products such as magnesium, sugar, polyvinyl chloride and hot rolled steel may please domestic
they are costly to U.S.
producers, who are freed to raise prices and reap larger profits. But
producers of auto parts, food products, paint, and appliances, who consume
those products as inputs in their own manufacturing processes. These taxes
chase manufactures to foreign shores, where those crucial ingredients are
less expensive, and they deter others from setting up manufacturing
operations stateside. What has been a deterrent to investment and
production could be turned into a magnet for investment and production.
During the financial crisis and subsequent recession, as G-20 governments were pledging not to resort to
the Canadian and Mexican governments went
beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism,
even further and slashed duties on imported intermediate goods . Each
government properly recognized import duties as business costs and, since business revenues were
projected to plunge on account of the global economic contraction, acted to limit the adverse impact on
their businesses by reducing their costs through trade policy .
That logic is universal, and does
not only apply in times of economic recession.
Not only does current U.S. tariff policy
elevate the interests of certain producers over others, but it tends to favor
the lower-value-added, basic-materials producers to the higher-value-added,
intellectual property-, capital-, and export-intensive industries, which usually
contribute more to GDP and create higher-skilled jobs. In 2013, U.S. Customs
collected nearly $41 billion in duties, taxes and fees levied on imports, with approximately $24 billion
collected on imported inputs, which amounts to nothing more than a tax on U.S. value creators. Removing
that tax would encourage U.S. and foreign companies to locate or expand in the U.S. and hire more
workers. What has been a deterrent to investment and production could be turned into a magnet for
investment and production.
Establishing a policy of zero tariffs on intermediate
goods would go a long way toward bolstering U.S. attractiveness as a
destination for both U.S. and foreign direct investment , which will be a
major determinant of manufacturing success and economic growth in the
21st century.
2NC Solves Econ
CP revitalizes the economy experts agree
Riley 13 -- Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade
Policy at The Heritage Foundation (Bryan, 4-29-2013, Tariff
Reform Needed to Boost the U.S. Economy, Heritage Foundation,
Elimination of tariffs on inputs used by U.S. manufacturers. Since Canada is
eliminating all tariffs on inputs used by its manufacturers to produce goods,
Canadian producers will soon have an edge over their U.S. competitors. The
United States should adopt similar tariff reforms in order to boost U.S.
manufacturing. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis concluded: Many industry, labor, and
political leaders believe that boosting manufacturing growth will require limiting imports through favorable preferences
for domestic purchasing and raw material and capital goods sourcing, perhaps through quotas, tariffs, domestic content
reliance on imports has been a strong
legislation, or simply discriminatory preferences. However,
positive influence on manufacturing output and productivity .[31] Quicker resolution
of pending trade deals. One of the best ways in which the U.S. promotes trade and economic prosperity is through free
trade agreements. Congress should direct the U.S. Trade Representative to adopt Australias policy for negotiations
including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the International Services
Agreement, and other trade agreements: Pro-competitive economic reform should be pursued in its own right; it should
not be conditional upon other countries reforming their economies.[32] More than 1,000 economists
urged Congress not to increase tariffs in 1930: The undersigned American
economists and teachers of economics strongly urge that any measure which
provides for a general upward revision of tariff rates be denied passage by
Congress, or if passed, be vetoed by the President . We are convinced that increased protective
duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices
which domestic consumers would have to pay. By raising prices they would
encourage concerns with higher costs to undertake production, thus compelling the consumer to
subsidize waste and inefficiency in industry. At the same time they would force him to pay
higher rates of profit to established firms which enjoyed lower production costs. A higher level of
protection, such as is contemplated by both the House and Senate bills,
would therefore raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our
citizens.[33] Congress listened to special interests instead of economists, and the resulting Smoot-Hawley tariff
contributed to a drastic decline in international trade.[34 nomists were right in 1930, and they
] Eco
are right today. Although eliminating all remaining tariffs and quotas might sound like
a radical idea to lobbyists for the sugar industry and other special interests, it is the consensus
recommendation from U.S. economists. In 2006, 87.5 percent of respondents to
a survey of 210 PhD members of the American Economic Association agreed
that the United States should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.[35]
More recently, a 2012 survey of prominent economists found that 85 percent agreed with the following statement:
Freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better
choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on
employment.[36] Congress should listen to the economists, not the special
interests, and engage in broad-based, permanent tariff reform.
Increasing imports boosts the manufacturing sector
Kliesen & Tatom 13 -- business economist and research officer
at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and the President of
Thoroughbred Economics, a consultancy in financial economics
serving universities, central banks, financial institutions and
other private clients and a fellow at the Institute for Applied
Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise
at Johns Hopkins University (Kevin L. Kliesen and John A. Tatom,
January/February 2013, U.S. Manufacturing and the Importance of
International Trade: Its Not What You Think,
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/13/01/Kliesen.pdf, pg
47)//mz
the role of exports and imports in affecting manufacturing performance.
Our analysis focuses on
we find that imports have played a critical positive role in boosting
Surprisingly,
manufacturing output in the United States much more so, in fact, than
exports. We find no discernible influence of export growth on manufacturing growth, but there is
a strong positive influence of import growth on manufacturing growth . Many
industry, labor, and political leaders believe that boosting manufacturing
growth will require limiting imports through favorable preferences for
domestic purchasing and raw material and capital goods sourcing, perhaps
through quotas, tariffs, domestic content legislation, or simply
discriminatory preferences. However, reliance on imports has been a strong
positive influence on manufacturing output and productivity. Moreover,
there is no discernible gain to manufacturing growth that could arise from
new policies proposed to boost exports.
2NC Politics Net Ben
No link similar bills have been passed in Congress
with resounding support
Mastel and McCadney 6/1 -- worked in the Senate on three
MTB bills as chief international trade advisor and economist for
the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and led the House Ways &
Means Committee Democratic staff efforts on the last MTB bill
enacted into law (Gregory J. Mastel and Jennifer E. McCadney, June 1,
2016, The Resurrection Of The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill,
http://www.law360.com/articles/802463/the-resurrection-of-the-
miscellaneous-tariff-bill)//mz
MTBs are bills to suspend collection of tariffs by U.S. Customs on certain imported
products usually for two to three years. From 1982 to 2010, the Congress passed MTB bills, which
These bills passed regularly
included hundreds of separate temporary tariff suspensions.
because there was significant political support for the legislation . Tariff
suspensions were done only on products not produced in the United States, so there was little
competition-based opposition and the tariffs were a minor source of government revenue. The tariffs
suspended by the MTB were sometimes called nuisance tariffs because they accomplished little positive
purpose. But they did marginally add to the costs of consumers and manufacturers who imported the
products subject to MTBs.
In addition to the general argument for lower tariffs and
free trade, there was a particular advantage to suspending the MTB tariffs.
Many of the products subject to MTB suspensions were in fact input or
intermediate goods that U.S. manufacturers used to make final products. For
these manufacturers, the typically 3 or 4 percent tariffs needlessly added to the cost of producing in the
United States. Some of these domestic manufacturers also faced tariff inversions on imports of the
finished goods, which were subject to a lower duty than the input component or no duty at all which
increased their competitive disadvantage. The MTB tariffs needlessly held back investment and
employment; an economic analysis completed in 2009 suggests that MTB suspensions increased growth
by $3.5 billion and supported 90,000 U.S. jobs far exceeding the cost of suspending tariffs. These small
tariffs actually also increased the incentive to offshore production because these input goods could often
be obtained duty-free in offshore markets. Thus, the cost of these small tariffs was significant to many
U.S. manufacturers and the workers they employed. For some years, critics argued that the individual
MTB bills, which were introduced by members of Congress in order to become part of final legislation,
seemed too similar for comfort to spending earmarks. Whether or not that comparison is fair, it held
sway with the House Republican Caucus and when they took the House majority in 2011 an MTB process
already straining under the weight of this earmark comparison broke down entirely. In many ways,
There was and continues to be significant
however, MTB was an unintended casualty.
bipartisan support for the MTB. Undoubtedly, many of the House Republicans
that supported the MTB rule changes wanted a more transparent MTB process rather than an end
to the process. It is difficult to discern any real interest in continuing to collect nuisance tariffs.
Aff
No Solvency
CP doesnt solve tariffs are net better for the
economy
Buchanan 13 former Director of Communications for the Reagan
presidency, advisor for the Nixon and Ford presidencies, and commentator
for MSNBC (Patrick, 5-31-2013, We Need a Tariff, Not a Corporate Income
Tax, American Conservative,
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/05/31/we-need-a-tariff-not-a-
corporate-income-tax/)
Over the late 19th century, real GDP and employment doubled, annual
average real earnings rose by over 60 percent and wholesale prices fell by
75 percent, thanks to marked improvement in productivity. Astonishing. And what
is the difference between that age and ours? A 35 percent income tax rate on individuals and corporations that did
not exist then, and would have been regarded by Americans of the Gilded Age as the satanic work of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. From the Civil War to World War I,
American companies were capturing

our economy grew from one-half the size of Great Britains to twice Britains.
markets abroad. Todays U.S. companies are looking for ways to relocate
abroad. Herewith, a modest proposal to turn this around . Since the U.S. corporate income tax now
produces less than 10 percent of federal revenue and less than 2 percent of gross domestic product, abolish it. Get rid of it. Think of it. A continent-wide nation that
Put a 10 percent tariff on

doesnt tax business. Assume this would cost the Treasury $250 billion in lost revenue. How to make it up?
imports entering the United States, which last year added up to $2.7 trillion.
This tax reform would thus be revenue neutral. And what would a corporate
income tax rate of zero, with a 10 percent tariff on goods entering the U.S.A.
from abroad, accomplish? First, every U.S. corporation that had moved
abroad in search of lower taxes in recent years would start thinking about
coming home and bringing its production and its jobs back to America.
Second, that $2 trillion in income U.S. companies have stashed abroad would
come roaring back into U.S. institutions. Third, foreign companies would
begin to relocate and produce here in America, both to get around the tariff
and pay no taxes. Fourth, U.S. producers would see sales soar inside the $17
trillion U.S. market, at the expense of foreigners who would pay a 10-percent
admission fee to get into this market, a fraction of what they used to pay in
the 19th century. While this would cause a surge in unemployment among
IRS agents and accountants, hundreds of millions of man hours could be
redirected away from filling out tax forms and into productive work.
Trade 2 - Monetary Reform
CP
1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should establish a stable
exchange rate of currency between the G-20 countries.
CP solves monetary reform is key to avoiding trade

wars
Lehrman & Mueller 4/19 -- Lehrman is the author of Money, Gold &
History Mueller is the author of Redeeming Economics: Rediscovering the
Missing Element(Lewis E. Lehrman and John D. Mueller, 4-19-2016,
Monetary Reform or Trade War, WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/monetary-
reform-or-trade-war-1461104951)//mz
This floating exchange-rate system, combined with the official reserve-
currency role of the world dollar standard, explains why free trade has been
getting a bad name among Democrats, Republicans and independents. Under the floating
exchange-rate reserve-currency system, free trade has become no more than
a romantic fantasy. The solution is to establish a level trade playing field
with a system of stable exchange rates among the nations of the G-20, or at least
the G-7, to which emerging countries will conform. Such a solution would
require the next president to bring together the major world leaders to
establish stable exchange rates to avoid trade and currency wars that
inevitably lead to protectionism and sometimes to real wars. This international
monetary solution of stable exchange rates would eliminate the burden and privilege of the dollars reserve-currency
role. Neither tax, nor regulatory, nor budget reforms, however desirable, will
eliminate currency wars. To restore Americas competitive position in
production, manufacturing and world trade, stable exchange rates are the
only solution tested in the laboratory of U.S. historyfrom President Washington in 1789
until 1971. Stable exchange rates have proven throughout history to establish
the most reliable level playing field for free and fair world trade. There are no
perfect solutions in human affairs. But the history of the past three centuries suggests that
stable exchange rates, resulting from adoption of currencies mutually convertible to gold at statutory fixed
parities, are the least imperfect solution to avoid currency and trade wars.
U.S.-E.U. Trade - FTA CP
1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should propose a Free
Trade Agreement to the United Kingdom with the intention of
signing it.
Post-Brexit, Congress is willing and likely to negotiate

an FTA with the UK
Oreskes & Guida 6/25 (Benjamin Oreskes and Victoria Guida, 6-25-
2016, The bright side of Brexit? A US-UK trade deal, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.eu/article/the-bright-side-of-brexit-us-uk-bilateral-
bliss/)//mz
A new two-way trade deal between the U.S. and one of its oldest allies could
rise from the ashes of the United Kingdoms exit from the European Union
and the already-foundering EU-U.S. talks. President Barack Obama
reassured the world Friday that British voters decisions to leave the EU
would not affect the special relationship between the two countries,
despite having warned this spring that Brits would move to the back of the
queue in trade negotiations if they voted to leave. And several Republican
lawmakers told POLITICO theyd be more than happy to pursue a U.S.-
United Kingdom deal once the smoke from an EU-U.K. split clears. Theyve
been a great trading partner to the United States for decades and decades,
and I wouldnt stop trading with them cause they got out of the EU, Sen.
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said before the vote. Id be happy to negotiate a
bilateral agreement. Senate Finance Committee member Isakson added, it
might even be easier than negotiating a broad agreement with the entire
EU. And thats not an insignificant point. As sprawling regional trade deals
become increasingly toxic politically EU-U.S. trade talks have faced
strident opposition in Germany and Austria, for example, and the Trans-
Pacific Partnership became a bogeyman during the U.S. presidential
primaries a trade deal with the U.K. could be relatively easy to negotiate
and then sell to lawmakers and the public. The prize would be reducing
tariffs and other regulatory barriers the U.K. would likely have as a holdover
from EU policies. Were interested in having free trade with anybody,
Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked about the
prospects of a two-way agreement post-Brexit. We should now begin to
discuss a modern, new trade agreement with the U.K that not only continues
but expands the level of trade between our two nations, House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said Friday, adding he remains
committed to an agreement with the EU as well. If the Brits vote to leave the
EU, there will be a new bilateral trade agreement, Arkansas Sen. Tom
Cotton declared on Tuesday
CP spills over to other negotiations and spurs
economic freedom
Bromund and Gardiner 14 -- Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior
Research Fellow in and Nile Gardiner, PhD, is Director of the Margaret
Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage
Foundation (Ted Bromund and Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., 9-26-2014, Freedom
from the EU: Why Britain and the U.S. Should Pursue a U.S.U.K. Free Trade
Area, Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/freedom-from-the-eu-why-
britain-and-the-us-should-pursue-a-usuk-free-trade-area)//mz
This concern is unfounded. There is every reason to believe that Britain, the worlds sixth-largest
Britain does decide to
economy, would be able to negotiate trade agreements independently. If
leave the EU, one of its central priorities should be to negotiate a free trade
area (FTA) with the United States, a goal that the U.S. should also champion.
An FTA would be good for the economies of both nations. It would demonstrate their
commitment to promoting economic freedom and be a further manifestation of their
close and enduring relationship. It would also be an opportunity for both nations to
negotiate a modern free trade area based on sovereignty and freedom,
which would establish a standard that should be applied to other trade
negotiations.
FTAs solve trade war

Martin 10 -- Professor of Economics at Sciences Po in Paris(Philippe
Martin, 4-9-2010, Free trade agreements: Do they help keep the peace?,
http://voxeu.org/article/free-trade-agreements-do-they-help-keep-peace)//mz
To understand the role of strategic factors in FTAs, we need to come back to
an old argument, the so called Liberal Peace argument which states that
bilateral trade flows reduce the probability of a bilateral war, a mechanism
that has been analysed theoretically and on which some empirical evidence
exists (see in particular, Hegre et al. forthcoming, Spolaore and Wacziarg
2009, Martin et al. 2008, Polachek and Seiglie 2007). Hence, FTAs, because
they create trade, should reduce the probability of wars between countries.
2NC - Solvency
No solvency deficits the CP is comparatively different
from other trade deals and spills over to US-EU
agreements
Scissors 6/24 -- Resident scholar at the AEI, American Enterprise
Institute (Derek Scissors, 6-24-2016, Trade priority for the next
administration: US-UK free trade agreement, AEI,
https://www.aei.org/publication/trade-priority-for-next-admin-us-uk-
agreement/)//mz
The politics of a trade policy reorientation is more intricate. The lead
American initiative now is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is in
trouble in Congress. More broadly, the Trump and Sanders campaigns show
popular unhappiness with trade, attributed to job losses from competition
with cheaper labor and exodus of American firms to looser regulatory
environments. A US-UK agreement largely avoids these landmines because
the two economies are similar by world standards . In contrast to the painful
TPP talks involving 12 quite disparate countries, a US-UK deal could be
comparatively quick and easy to negotiate given the two labor markets and
regulatory systems, as well the deep economic ties. A US-UK agreement
largely avoids these landmines because the two economies are similar by
world standards. The Obama administration is naturally not going to be
interested in de-emphasizing the huge amount of work it has done on the
TPP. But the next administration should be very interested. A politically
damaging and possibly unwinnable TPP vote can be avoided, yet the
potential derailment of the free trade train can also be avoided. Moreover,
through starting with the UK, the trade train would appear to be ultimately
headed where the Obama administration says it wants. Brexit plus a US-UK
agreement should make the economic logic of the EU-US deal currently
being written off clearer and stronger. Beyond contemporary politics, the
biggest problem with the TPP is that the standards are not high enough, so
unbiased observers do not find worthwhile gains for the US. Importing some
provisions from a successful US-UK agreement may address this issue. It
would at least signal to existing partners that dealing with the US does pay
off, which is currently very much in doubt. Its been clear for months, at
least, that the US needs a better trade policy path than the one were on.
Brexit may or may not be a true crisis, but the next administration has a
chance to turn it into an opportunity.
2NC Solves U.S. Economy
US-UK trade is an essential part of both countries
economies
Wilson 4/26 (Bill Wilson, 4-24-2016, TTIP: What is the future for UK-US
trade?, BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36123622)//mz
The heightening of the trade rhetoric seems curious when one examines the
current mutually-beneficial trading relationship between the UK and US.
While the EU bloc of nations is the UK's largest export market, that is a
large territory comprising another 27 countries. The UK exports a huge
variety of items to the US, from gin and industrial chemicals to live animals
and vegetable fats. Conversely, the US is the UK's third biggest source of
imports, after Germany and China, buying some 2.9bn in goods from
America. According to the UK government around 17% of British exports
went to the US in 2012. In addition, the US and the UK are each other's
largest foreign investors, and "this investment supports approximately one
million jobs in each country," it says.
2NC Politics Net Ben
CP is popular and maintains billions worth of US-UK
trade
Godfrey 7/5 (Mike Godfrey, 7-5-16, Further Congressional Calls For US
FTA With UK, http://www.tax-
news.com/news/Further_Congressional_Calls_For_US_FTA_With_UK____7160
8.html)//mz
Following the Brexit vote, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan (R
Wisconsin) has called on the US Administration to pursue a free trade
agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom, while a bill has been introduced into the
Senate with the same purpose. Before the Brexit vote, President Barack Obama had said that the UK
would be at the "back of the queue" for an FTA, while the US Trade Representative, Michael Froman, has
since reiterated that the Administration is not currently considering negotiating a separate FTA with the
UK in the near future, stressing that the focus for now is on completing the proposed Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the EU. However, Ryan commented in media
interviews in Wisconsin that "we
need to emphasize that [the UK is] our
indispensable ally, we have a special relationship, and I think that does mean
we should have a trade agreement. That is something on which we should
begin discussions." "We would probably want to put together our own trade
agreement with [the UK], which would be easier to do actually, " he added. "We're
in talks with Europe, but I think we should do a parallel track of a UK trade agreement while we talk with
Europe about TTIP. Trade with [the UK] is very big between our two countries and very beneficial. I think
we should make sure that our trading relationship is stable, so that our respective economies are not
affected but actually improved." In addition, US Senators Mike Lee (R Utah) and Tom Cotton (R
Arkansas) have introduced the United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act, which would obligate the US
President to initiate negotiations for new bilateral agreements with the UK within 30 days after the bill is
enacted. Those negotiations would have the goal of reaching a final comprehensive FTA in one year. The
Administration would also have to continue all existing commercial agreements with the UK after Brexit,
as if the UK were still part of the EU. In particular, the market access provided to financial institutions
based in the US and the UK through passporting rights should be supported by equivalent forms of
market access before the UK exits the EU. "Our
nation's special relationship with the UK
has promoted economic prosperity and security in both countries for over a
hundred years," Lee said. "This relationship can and should be preserved."
Cotton added that "the UK has stood with us at the front lines of battle, and
it should therefore be at the front of the line for an FTA that benefits both
our nations." According to US official statistics, total trade between the
United States and the UK totaled USD114.1bn in 2015, with a USD1.8bn
surplus in favor of the former. In comparison, total trade between the United
States and the EU totaled almost US700bn last year, but with a USD155bn
surplus in favor of the EU. At over 20 percent of the total, the UK is the
largest importer of US goods in the EU.
UK FTA is popular
Stanton 6/30 (Natalie Stanton, 6-30-2016, The UKs potential new trade
agreements, MoneyWeek, http://moneyweek.com/the-uks-potential-new-
trade-agreements/)//mz
A couple of weeks ago Barack Obama waded into the referendum debate , urging
voters to remain in the EU. Britain would be at the back of the queue for a new
trade agreement with the US, he said. However, since Friday, Obama has
changed his tune, emphasising the historic special relationship between
the two countries. A number of senior economists in the US have suggested that it will be easier to
negotiate a new trade deal with Britain without interference from the 27 remaining EU countries. The
back of the queue statement will be forgotten by the next administration,
if not sooner, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of International
Economics. The US Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, and Secretary of State, John Kerry, have both refrained
the speaker of the House of
from repeating Obamas trade warning. Meanwhile,
Representatives, Paul Ryan, has already called for the US to pursue a free
trade agreement with the UK, arguing that discussions should begin now in
order to ensure a smooth trade relationship.
2NC - Spillover
Yes spillover
Scissors 6/24 Resident scholar at the AEI, American
Enterprise Institute
(Derek Scissors, 6-24-2016, Trade priority for the next administration: US-
UK free trade agreement, AEI, https://www.aei.org/publication/trade-
priority-for-next-admin-us-uk-agreement/)//mz
Brexit blah blah blah what should the US do? One answer may be to
immediately reorient trade policy toward a US-UK free trade agreement,
perhaps to be followed by a US-EU agreement and others. There are
economic and especially political arguments in favor The economic
arguments are simple. If Brexit does actually harm the world economy for
longer than a few stock trading days, a US-UK deal will as quickly and
effectively as possible re-anchor Britain within the formal rules for global
exchange, helping protect or smooth supply chains and financial flows.
Given the size of the American economy, a bilateral agreement would
provide only small net economic benefits to the US. But a high-quality deal is
feasible and could set a sound precedent for others that would enable more
sizable gains for all parties.
Aff
Solvency Deficit
CP doesnt solve minimal impact on trade and the
economy
Wright 7/1 (Mark Antonio Wright, 7-1-2016, Its Time for a U.S.-U.K.
Free-Trade Agreement, National Review Online,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437364/brexit-us-uk-relations-
bilateral-free-trade-pact-smartest-response)//mz
Politically, its a good deal for the diplomatic and foreign-policy reasons, it makes a good amount of
sense, says Scott Lincicome, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. And there would be economic
[benefits, as well]. If the U.K. is going through a turbulent economic time, its always good for a key ally
That said, the purely economic
to stick its hand out and help them weather the storm.
effects, while still positive, would be relatively small. Britain and America
are both advanced, highly developed industrial economies with highly
educated and skilled workforces. The comparative-advantage benefits
whereby two nations piggyback on each others efficiencies by specializing
in certain economic activities and then engaging in trade would be
marginal. Ideally and this is leaving the politicians out of it a trade
agreement [should be] between two countries with different levels of
economic development, Lincicome says. Now, you still will get benefits
[from a U.S.-U.K. free-trade deal], particularly on regulatory cooperation and
regulation reciprocity, where we dont adopt their regulations and they dont
adopt ours, but we basically say, Any goods and services that have been
approved by your national regulator will be approved in our country.
RELATED: Why Leave Won and What Must Happen Next While that might not result in a massive
boost to each countrys GDP, the streamlining of regulations and the easing of obstacles to trade would,
over time, increase the volume of goods and services exchanged.
FTA fails US has no interest in signing one

Holehouse 15 (Matthew Holehouse, In Brussels9, 10-29-2015, Major
blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal,
Telegraph.co.uk,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-
blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html)//mz
The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves
the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President
Obamas most senior trade official said that America is not in the market
for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face
crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU. The comments come as David
Cameron pushes the EU to complete a major transatlantic free trade deal
that could slash the cost of American food, clothing and computers for
British consumers, as well as making it easier for British firms to export.
Downing Street says the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
could be worth 10 billion a year to the British economy, or 400 per family,
and will revive the entire European economy. The intervention a hint that
the White House is alarmed at the tightness of the polls was cheered by
pro-EU campaigners. The Out campaign has always claimed that Britain
would quickly win new deals around the world. Mr Froman said: "I think it's
absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part
of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity. "We're not particularly in
the market for FTAs [free trade agreements] with individual countries. We're
building platforms that other countries can join over time." "We have no FTA
with the UK so they would be subject to the same tariffs and other trade-
related measures - as China, or Brazil or India.
CP takes too long negotiation process is timely

Warner 7/19 (Jeremy Warner, 7/19/16, If this is the end of globalisation,
what hope for UK trade post Brexit?, Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/19/if-this-is-the-end-of-
globalisation-what-hope-for-uk-trade-post/)//mz
In any case, Simon Evenett, Professor of international trade and economic
development at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland, cautions strongly
against quickie trade deals, despite the pressures on Dr Fox to
demonstrate to voters that Brexit can deliver immediate results. Meaningful
trade deals take a long time to negotiate unless one side rolls over and
agrees something which is not really in their interests, he says. Certainly,
opening up service industries to free trade, which must be a priority for
Britain, wont happen in any quickly negotiated deal.
CP doesnt solve no effect on trade flows

Warner 7/19 (Jeremy Warner, 7/19/16, If this is the end of globalisation,
what hope for UK trade post Brexit?, Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/19/if-this-is-the-end-of-
globalisation-what-hope-for-uk-trade-post/)//mz
The brutal truth is that the only FTAs that have a lot of impact in terms of
trade and investment flows are those between geographically proximate
partners. The most important of these are NAFTA and the EU. Those between
distant countries tend to be far less effective.
FTAs fail and dont solve trade wars no enforcement

and empirics
Dimicco 7/19 (Dan Dimicco, The Former Ceo Of Nucor and A Trump
Campaign Advisor On Trade, 7-19-2016, Trumps trade advisor: Face it,
we're already in a trade war, CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/trump-
gets-it-on-trade-hillary-clinton-does-not-commentary.html)//mz
The countless free-trade agreements the U.S. has put in place have failed America,
its economy, and its workers. The three worst agreements were giving China "favored nation trading
status," allowing China's entry into the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. What
makes them so damaging is the rules of these agreements have been ignored
and not enforced or they have been outright circumvented. And it's not just the U.S.
that is fed up. In a recent Wall Street Journal article titled, "China's One-Way Deals Grate on Germany," reporter Andrew
Browne explains that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is losing patience with China buying western technology and
it is past time to put an end
brands, but then keeping its own markets closed. Trump gets it. He knows that
to this attack on the U.S. and other economies, on job creation, on
manufacturing, on national security and on the future of the middle class . Trump
would do this by negotiating from a position of strength, not condescending weakness. China respects strength but takes
full advantage of weakness. In the end it will be in China's best interest to stop its questionable trade tactics. Trump's
trade policies will include legal tariffs (if necessary), renegotiation, declaring China a currency manipulator which will allow
us to bring action against them, proactive filing of trade cases with the International Trade Commission and World Trade
Organization and more. Success in these areas will put an end to this trade war and
restore a level playing field. It will give free trade the opportunity to succeed .
Trump gets what Clinton doesn't: You don't win a trade war with appeasement or more free-
trade agreements. In particular, you can't win one if you refuse to acknowledge it even exists!
US-Sino Relations 1 - EEZ
1NC Relations
Text: The USFG should eliminate all surveillance
activities conducted by the US Navy within Chinas
exclusive economic zone
Ending US surveillance in Chinas EEZ is key to lower
tensions and improve relations opens up dialogue
Brown 10 (Peter J., US and China can't calm South China Sea,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LF04Ad01.html)//bj
The US-USSR agreement was effective because it was a navy-to-navy accord that stayed below the radar
of high-level policy makers, and it could be argued that support for it in the Soviet Navy was stronger
than in the US Navy. "It gave the Soviet Navy prestige to have a bilateral relationship with their American
counterpart whereas the Red Army did not have any relations with the US Army," said Winkler. "That
situation may not exist with the PLAN as the PLAN supposedly is a component of the army. The PLAN
thus may not have internal political motivation to have a one on one relationship with the US Navy." In
Chinese military officers are increasingly angry and frustrated because
fact,
the US continues to probe using highly sophisticated, technologically
advanced ships and aircraft in places where they are most unwelcome, such
as in waters off the new base for China's new nuclear-powered submarines
on Hainan Island. The US Navy simply ignores the fact that China wants all
US intelligence collection operations by US vessels and maritime patrol
aircraft near China stopped. "They do not want to talk about anything but
making the US stop. China has objected to an interpretation of Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) rules as prescribed by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS) that
permit such activities," said McVadon. "Most countries agree with the US that
these activities are permitted and that China's effort is essentially to treat
the EEZ and air above it as territorial waters and airspace ." One US civilian who
attended a session earlier this year on "Incidents at Sea" where US and Chinese naval personnel and
China has refused to
civilian experts were assembled described what transpired as a "monologue".
accept US maritime strategy as something rooted in cooperative
international action and freedom of navigation in all waters beyond the
territorial sea.
2NC Solves Relations
US surveillance activities lead to heightened tensions
and damage overall cooperation
Saunders et al. 12 -- Saunders is the Director of the Center for the Study of
Chinese Military Affairs. He has been a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Institute for
National Strategic Studies since January 2004. Dr. Saunders served as Director of Studies for
the Center for Strategic Research from 2010-12, with responsibility for supervising the
Centers research on regional, global, and functional security issues (Mark E. Redden and
Phillip C. Saunders, Managing Sino-U.S. Air and Naval Interactions: Cold War Lessons and
New Avenues of Approach, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs Institute for
National Strategic Studies China Strategic Perspectives No. 5,
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/ChinaPerspectives-
5.pdf)//bj
The United States and China have a complex, multifaceted, and ambiguous relationship where
substantial and expanding areas of cooperation coexist with ongoing strategic tensions and suspicions.
Chinas rising economic and military power raises concerns in the United
States about how a stronger China will behave. Chinese leaders describe a
trust deficit that impedes bilateral cooperation; some believe the United
States is encircling China and seeking to contain its rise. Mutual suspicions
and the competitive elements of the relationship have deepened in the last
few years.1 One specific manifestation of these competitive dynamics
involves disputes and incidents when U.S. and Chinese military forces are operating in close
proximity in the Western Pacific, and especially when U.S. aircraft and ships are
operating in Chinas Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).* Over the last 10 years, three sets of
high-profile incidents involving U.S. surveillance and military survey platforms operating within Chinas
EEZ have highlighted this issue: the April 2001 collision between a U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft and a
Peoples Liberation Army Navy Air Force J-8 fighter the USNS Bowditch incidents in March 2001 and
September 2002 the USNS Impeccable and USNS Victorious incidents in 2009. All three incidents
involved aggressive maneuvers by Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and/or
paramilitary (Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol and State Oceanographic Administration) forces
operating in close proximity to U.S. surveillance and military survey
platforms to deter U.S. assets from conducting their missions. The incidents
occurred within Chinas EEZ, which all but a handful of countries regard as international
waters and airspace under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).2 Chinese
intercepts of U.S. military and military support units operating within
Chinas EEZ are routine, but the provocative and dangerous nature of
Chinas actions during these three sets of episodes makes them stand out . In
the case of the EP-3 incident, the Chinese pilots maneuvers resulted in a collision that damaged the EP-3
incident significantly raised
and resulted in the loss of the Chinese aircraft and its pilot. Each
tensions between the two militaries and disrupted military-military
cooperation (in the EP-3 case, military-to-military contacts were suspended for more than a year).
Disputes over these U.S. operations have been an ongoing source of friction
in the military-to-military relationship; a major incident could seriously
damage the overall bilateral relationship.
CP is key to ease Chinese officials concerns over
surveillance activities
5.pdf)//bj
Intelligence/Counter-intelligence. Formal international rules and informal norms of behavior affect

Chinas ability to gather needed strategic and tactical intelligence and to limit the ability of potential
The ideal circumstance for China is permissive
adversaries to collect intelligence.
rules for Chinese operations and restrictive rules for others operations in
Chinas EEZ or other sensitive areas. PLA officers have expressed particular
concern about U.S. efforts to use air and naval surveillance to collect
battlefield intelligence on PLA capabilities and the operational environment in
the Western Pacific. Given the gap in U.S. and Chinese military capabilities, the PLA has
strong incentives to deny the United States technical intelligence on systems
such as submarines, air defenses, and advanced electronic warfare systems that could complicate U.S.
military planning and actions. At the same time, China needs to collect information on the military
capabilities of potential adversaries and on the operational environment, including in disputed waters
and in the EEZs of other countries. This need will likely grow over time as PLAN operational activity
increases and expands in geographic scope.
1NC- Miscalc
Removing surveillance assets from Chinas EEZ is key
to avoiding miscalc and escalation prevents US and
Chinese lashout
Glaser 14 -- Senior Advisor for Asia, Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Bonnie S., Armed Clash in the South China Sea:
Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14, http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-
pacific/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883)//bj
Themost likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S.
military operations within China's EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese
response. The United States holds that nothing in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military
China insists that reconnaissance
activities in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent.
activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of
the coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law. China
routinely intercepts U.S. reconnaissance flights conducted in its EEZ and
periodically does so in aggressive ways that increase the risk of an accident
similar to the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet near
maritime incident could be triggered by Chinese
Hainan Island. A comparable
vessels harassing a U.S. Navy surveillance ship operating in its EEZ , such as
occurred in the 2009 incidents involving the USNS Impeccable and the USNS Victorious. The large
growth of Chinese submarines has also increased the danger of an incident ,
such as when a Chinese submarine collided with a U.S. destroyer's towed sonar array in June 2009. Since
the U nited S tates
neither U.S. reconnaissance aircraft nor ocean surveillance vessels are armed,
might respond to dangerous behavior by Chinese planes or ships by
dispatching armed escorts. A miscalculation or misunderstanding could then
result in a deadly exchange of fire, leading to further military escalation and
precipitating a major political crisis. Rising U.S.-China mistrust and
intensifying bilateral strategic competition would likely make managing such
a crisis more difficult.
2NC Solves Miscalc
China is ready to lash out against US surveillance
activities
Tactical warning signals that indicate heightened risk of a potential clash in a
specific time and place include commercial notices and preparations, diplomatic
and/or military statements warning another claimant to cease provocative activities or suffer
the consequences, military exercises designed to intimidate another claimant, and ship movements to
As for an impending incident regarding U.S. surveillance
disputed areas.
activities, statements and unusual preparations by the PLA might suggest a
greater willingness to employ more aggressive means to intercept U.S. ships
and aircraft.
Aff
Perception Turn
Unilateral removal of surveillance assets is perceived
as US decline
Fifth, the United States should review its surveillance and reconnaissance activities in the air and waters
bordering China's twelve-mile territorial sea and assess the feasibility of reducing their frequency or
Any modification of U.S. close-in
conducting the operations at a greater distance.
surveillance and reconnaissance activities requires assessment of whether
those sources are uniquely valuable or other intelligence collection
platforms can provide sufficient information about Chinese military
developments. The United States should not take such a step unilaterally ; it
should seek to obtain a concession from Beijing in return lest China
interpret the action as evidence of U.S. decline and weakness .
Surveillance DA
China uses US surveillance operations to justify
military instead of social spending
Brown 10 -- (Peter J., US and China can't calm South China
Sea, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LF04Ad01.html)//bj
Chinese domestic law claims sovereignty
In late 2009, Dutton told Asia Times Online that
over all of the islands in the South China Sea and also claims territorial seas
and EEZs emanating from all of its claimed territories. "However, it may benefit
the Chinese to remain somewhat ambiguous as to the exact nature of the
Chinese South China Sea legal claims," said Dutton. "It is critical that settlement of Chinese
claims in the South China Sea does not apply a legal approach that might prejudice its claims against
China views the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea -
Japan in the East China Sea." [3]
the so-called "near seas" - as core regions of strategic interest in which the
Chinese seek to become the predominant military power . "American
surveillance operations help the US to better understand China's transition
to a more powerful naval presence in the region ," said Dutton. "The operations also
help the US Navy to better understand the characteristics of the ocean
space that could affect operations. Chinese strategic planners see both US
objectives as contrary to China's interests, and so they oppose US operations ."
China seems to publicize American naval operations in the region for the
purpose of inciting indignation among the Chinese people . "This could in turn
give the government support for its policy of spending resources on a larger
navy, rather than on other social concerns ," said Dutton. "Perhaps, as an exercise of its
'soft power,' the Chinese also hope to create similar indignation at the US naval
presence among the citizens of other states in the region ."
Chinese domestic unrest creates crisis instability

risks a Sino-U.S. War
Shirk 07 - expert on Chinese politics and Former Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State during the Clinton Administration (Susan L., China:
Fragile Superpower, p. 255)//ww
When President Hu Jintao met with President George Bush in fall 2005, he sought to reassure the American president that China was not a threat by describing the
Although China looks like a powerhouse

many difficult domestic problems he was struggling to juggle at home.
from the outside, to its leaders it looks fragile, poor, and overwhelmed by
internal problems. But Chinas massive problems, instead of reassuring us, should worry us. It
is Chinas internal fragility, not its growing strength that presents the greatest danger. The
weak legitimacy of the Communist Party and its leaders sense of
vulnerability could cause China to behave rashly in a crisis involving Japan or Taiwan, and
bring it into a military conflict with the United States. If economic growth slows and problems multiply, there
is a possibility that Chinas leaders could be tempted to wag the dog
mobilize domestic support by creating an international crisis . More likely,
however, is that when confronted with a crisis, the leaders make threats
they cant back away from because of their fear of appearing weak to the
domestic audience. Only by understanding the dangers of Chinas domestic
fragility and incorporating this understanding into their policies can Chinese
and American decision makers avoid a catastrophic war .
Turn Asia Prolif
Lack of US military presence in the region undermines
US assurance destabilizes the region and triggers an
arms race
U.S. allies and friends around the S outh C hina S ea

Alliance security and regional stability.
look to the U nited S tates to maintain free trade, safe and secure sea lines of
communication (SLOCs), and overall peace and stability in the region. Claimants
and nonclaimants to land features and maritime waters in the S outh C hina S ea
view the U.S. military presence as necessary to allow decision-making free of
intimidation. If nations in the South China Sea lose confidence in the United States
to serve as the principal regional security guarantor, they could embark on
costly and potentially destabilizing arms buildups to compensate or ,
alternatively, become more accommodating to the demands of a powerful China.
Neither would be in the U.S. interest. Failure to reassure allies of U.S.
commitments in the region could also undermine U.S. security guarantees in
the broader Asia-Pacific region, especially with Japan and South Korea . At the
same time, however, the United States must avoid getting drawn into the territorial disputeand possibly
into a conflictby regional nations who seek U.S. backing to legitimize their claims.
U.S.-Sino Relations 2 -
Counterpiracy
1NC
Text: The USFG should propose increased cooperation
over counterpiracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, air
and maritime surveillance in support of
counterterrorism and countersmuggling operations,
humanitarian affairs, disaster-relief, and
noncombatant emergency evacuations, to the Peoples
Republic of China, with a focus on enhancing
interoperability between the US and Chinese air and
maritime forces.
CP lowers tensions over surveillance and improves

relations spills over to solve SCS tensions and is
supported by allies
Centers research on regional, global, and functional security issues. (Mark E. Redden and
5.pdf)//bj
approach would highlight the value of mutually agreed operational

The first
norms and patterns of cooperation between U.S. and Chinese forces and
demonstrate the routine and nonthreatening nature of surveillance
operations in international waters and airspace. The logical starting point would
be in the counterpiracy operations conducted in the Gulf of Aden .
Development of enhanced interoperability between U.S. and Chinese air and
maritime forces would improve nascent professional bonds between the two
navies. These efforts could focus on the surveillance, as opposed to
interdiction, portion of the counterpiracy mission. This could help to
desensitize the Chinese toward air and maritime surveillance in general
while demonstrating that the PLA also conducts such surveillance as a
routine part of its operations. Other feasible areas for cooperation include air
and maritime surveillance in support of counterterrorism and
countersmuggling operations, humanitarian affairs and disaster-relief, and
noncombatant emergency evacuations. Such initiatives need not be restricted
to the navy-to-navy realm. The U.S. Coast Guard has a well-established track record of
cooperation with Chinese counterparts. Exploiting this record affords the United States an
opportunity to highlight the benefits of cooperative endeavors with Chinese
paramilitary organizations (who are involved in many risky interactions). These patterns of
operation could be incrementally applied to geographic areas closer to
Chinas EEZ as sovereignty sensitivities are reduced and benefits to
cooperation are realized. This approach is also likely to garner the support of
other Western countries, which may be willing to take the lead in some
areas. (This approach would play on Chinese interests in improving PLA
surveillance capabilities, contributing to a stable external environment,
creating a positive Chinese image , demonstrating PLAN contributions to
protecting Chinese overseas interests, enhancing Chinese access to the
global commons, and maintaining stable U.S.-China relations .)
2NC - Solvency
Resolving tensions over US surveillance within Chinas
EEZ is key to reduce the risk of miscalculation and
prevent deteriorating relations
Themost likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S.
military operations within China's EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese
response. The United States holds that nothing in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military
China insists that reconnaissance
activities in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent.
activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of
the coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law. China
routinely intercepts U.S. reconnaissance flights conducted in its EEZ and
periodically does so in aggressive ways that increase the risk of an accident
similar to the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet near
maritime incident could be triggered by Chinese
Hainan Island. A comparable
vessels harassing a U.S. Navy surveillance ship operating in its EEZ , such as
occurred in the 2009 incidents involving the USNS Impeccable and the USNS Victorious. The large
growth of Chinese submarines has also increased the danger of an incident ,
such as when a Chinese submarine collided with a U.S. destroyer's towed sonar array in June 2009. Since
the U nited S tates
neither U.S. reconnaissance aircraft nor ocean surveillance vessels are armed,
might respond to dangerous behavior by Chinese planes or ships by
dispatching armed escorts. A miscalculation or misunderstanding could then
result in a deadly exchange of fire, leading to further military escalation and
precipitating a major political crisis. Rising U.S.-China mistrust and
intensifying bilateral strategic competition would likely make managing such
a crisis more difficult.
Chinese aggression in response to US surveillance

leads to heightened tensions and strains US-Sino
relations
5.pdf)//bj
The United States and China have a complex, multifaceted, and ambiguous relationship where
substantial and expanding areas of cooperation coexist with ongoing strategic tensions and suspicions.
Chinas rising economic and military power raises concerns in the United
States about how a stronger China will behave. Chinese leaders describe a
trust deficit that impedes bilateral cooperation; some believe the United
States is encircling China and seeking to contain its rise. Mutual suspicions
and the competitive elements of the relationship have deepened in the last
few years.1 One specific manifestation of these competitive dynamics
involves disputes and incidents when U.S. and Chinese military forces are operating in close
proximity in the Western Pacific, and especially when U.S. aircraft and ships are
operating in Chinas Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).* Over the last 10 years, three sets of
high-profile incidents involving U.S. surveillance and military survey platforms operating within Chinas
EEZ have highlighted this issue: the April 2001 collision between a U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft and a
Peoples Liberation Army Navy Air Force J-8 fighter the USNS Bowditch incidents in March 2001 and
September 2002 the USNS Impeccable and USNS Victorious incidents in 2009. All three incidents
involved aggressive maneuvers by Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and/or
paramilitary (Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol and State Oceanographic Administration) forces
operating in close proximity to U.S. surveillance and military survey
platforms to deter U.S. assets from conducting their missions. The incidents
occurred within Chinas EEZ, which all but a handful of countries regard as international
waters and airspace under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).2 Chinese
intercepts of U.S. military and military support units operating within
Chinas EEZ are routine, but the provocative and dangerous nature of
Chinas actions during these three sets of episodes makes them stand out . In
the case of the EP-3 incident, the Chinese pilots maneuvers resulted in a collision that damaged the EP-3
incident significantly raised
and resulted in the loss of the Chinese aircraft and its pilot. Each
tensions between the two militaries and disrupted military-military
cooperation (in the EP-3 case, military-to-military contacts were suspended for more than a year).
Disputes over these U.S. operations have been an ongoing source of friction
in the military-to-military relationship; a major incident could seriously
damage the overall bilateral relationship.
U.S.-Sino Relations 3 Tit for
Tat
1NC
Text: The USFG should harass Chinese naval vessels
and Chinese-flagged commercial ships outside of
Chinas EEZ in response to provocations conducted by
the Peoples Republic of China towards U.S.
surveillance vessels within Chinas EEZ.
CP solves miscalc and relations tit for tat
harassment effectively demonstrates the risk of
miscalc and escalation results in less Chinese
aggression
5.pdf)//bj
approach could involve more coercive measures that target Chinese

A second
navy ships or commercial shipping outside Chinas EEZs . Instead of
cooperating in distant waters in hopes of establishing norms that might eventually affect
Chinese behavior inside its EEZs, the U nited S tates could respond to EEZ
incidents in a tit for tat manner by harassing Chinese navy ships or
Chinese-flagged commercial shipping elsewhere. Such behavior would
highlight the potential for geographic escalation and for Chinese behavior
within its EEZ to affect Chinese maritime and commercial interests
elsewhere. (This approach would play on Chinese interests in contributing to a
stable external environment, creating a positive Chinese image, enhancing
Chinese access to the global commons, and maintaining stable U.S.-China
relations.) Although it violates the norms of open access the United States seeks to reinforce, it
highlights Chinese weaknesses (a larger Chinese-flagged merchant fleet operated by state-
owned enterprises directed by senior Chinese Communist Party cadres; limited PLAN ability to protect
merchant shipping) and targets Chinas greater dependence on maritime
shipping.
2NC - Solvency
Coercive and aggressive actions against Chinese ships
is key to change Chinas decision making calculus and
foster increased cooperation
5.pdf)//bj
United States seeks

One factor that emerges from this review of U.S. policy approaches is that the
to gain Chinese acceptance of relatively permissive international norms that
allow a range of military activities inside EEZs, but is concerned about the
risk of aggressive Chinese military intercepts intended to reinforce Chinas
more limited interpretation. Some of the options described above may require the
United States to generate tactical/negotiating leverage by restricting
Chinas ability to enjoy full rights to freedom of navigation or intelligence
collection in international waters if it denies similar access to others. This
risks creating new, more restrictive international norms, which is not the outcome
the United States wants. If Japan harassed Chinese survey ships operating in its EEZ, this might reinforce
an international norm that such activities are not permissible rather than persuade China to tolerate
but given the Chinese
similar U.S. operations on the basis of parallel interests. This is a risk,
transactional approach to negotiations, it may be a necessary one. Similarly, some
of the options discussed above require more assertive U.S. actions (including the
threat to escalate minor incidents) that are not consistent with the long-
term U.S. desire for a peaceful and cooperative relationship with China .
However, such actions may be necessary to broaden the Chinese actors
involved in the issue, alter the Chinese policy calculus, and produce
agreement on restraint . Conclusion The continuing pattern of dangerous U.S.-
China air and maritime incidents in Chinas EEZ is not the product of a lack
of clear international rules and norms . Rather, it is the result of Chinas
interpretation of what military activities are allowed inside its EEZ and its
willingness to violate established rules and norms to deter U.S. surveillance
activities . If the United States hopes to change Chinas behavior, it will need
to understand Chinas underlying calculus and adopt policies that can affect
the variables in that calculus and produce different Chinese behavior . This
paper has outlined key variables in the Chinese policy calculus and identified avenues of approach the
United States might use to alter that calculus.
2NC Japan Net Ben
CP is key to maintain US credibility in the eyes of
allies like Japan
International Studies (Bonnie S., April 2015, Conflict in the South China
Sea: Contingency Planning Memorandum Update, http://www.cfr.org/asia-
and-pacific/conflict-south-china-sea/p36377)//bj
U.S. interests in the South China Sea include freedom of navigation,
unimpeded passage for commercial shipping, and peaceful resolution of
territorial disputes according to international law. Failure to respond to
Chinese coercion or use of force could damage U.S. credibility, not only in
Southeast Asia, but also in Japan, where anxiety about intensified activity by
Chinese military and paramilitary forces is growing . Conflict in the South China Sea
would put at risk the more than $5 trillion in trade that passes through those strategic waters annually.
Also at stake is the U.S. relationship with China, including Washington's efforts to gain greater
cooperation from Beijing on global issues such as combatting terrorism, dealing with epidemics,
confronting climate change, securing a deal on Iran's nuclear program, and persuading North Korea to
relinquish its nuclear weapons.
AT CP Angers China
CP is key to avoid Chinese advancement and avoid
confrontation China backs down in response to force
Smith and Eisenman 14 -- Jeff M. Smith is Director of South Asia
Programs and Kraemer Strategy Fellow at the American Foreign Policy
Council (AFPC) in Washington, D.C., and Joshua Eisenman is Senior Fellow
for China Studies at the AFPC and has been appointed assistant professor at
the University of Texas-Austin Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs (Jeff
M. and Joshua, 5-22-14, China and America Clash on the High Seas: The
EEZ Challenge, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-america-clash-the-
high-seas-the-eez-challenge-10513?page=3)//bj
Testing boundaries and establishing new status quos has been a defining feature of Chinas more
provocative external posture since 2009.When the U.S. and other countries have
faltered in the face of this agenda, as was the case with the Philippines in the Scarborough Shoal,
China has successfully advanced its goals. However, where the U.S. has
demonstrated resolve, Beijing has opted to avoid confrontation . In 2010, after the
sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonon by a North Korean midget submarine, Beijing warned
the U.S. multiple times against sending the USS George Washington aircraft
to conduct exercises with South Korea in the Yellow Sea. After some delay,
those exercises were eventually held over Beijings objection, and the U.S.
aircraft carrier has now exercised in the Yellow Sea multiple times with little
protest from Beijing. When Beijing unilaterally declared an Air Defense
Identification Zone in late 2013, the U.S. decision to immediately fly B-52
bombers within the new ADIZ without notifying Beijing established an
important precedent. And the U.S. has, and must continue to, conduct
surveillance activities in Chinas EEZ despite Beijings frequent objections.
While working to construct better conflict resolution mechanisms and improve relations with the PLAN,
Washington must continue to emphasize that its policy is not subject to fear,
intimidation, coercion, or reckless behavior from Chinese naval or coastal
defense forces. This should include maintaining an active schedule of
surveillance activities, patrolling, and freedom of navigation operations . This
position is not only within the U.S. national interest, but also supported by
domestic and international law. Were the U.S. to accept Chinas interpretation of UNCLOS,
U.S. military vessels could be barred from operating in the roughly one-third of the worlds oceans that
are now EEZs (102 million of 335 million sq. km of ocean). That outcome is unacceptable to the U.S. and
its allies and was never envisioned by the drafters of UNCLOS.
Demonstrating potential for conflict is key to change

Chinese decision-making calculus China will change
behavior if risk of conflict grows
5.pdf)//bj
China shares an interest in preventing dangerous air and

Escalation Control.
maritime encounters with U.S. military assets from escalating into a broader
conflict , but Chinese leaders and officers tend to regard the risk of such
escalation as limited and manageable .39 So long as Chinese decisionmakers
view escalation risks as limited, this factor will have limited weight in the Chinese
decisionmaking calculus.
China will become less aggressive in response to US

harassment and access denial China prioritizes
economic access to the global commons
5.pdf)//bj
Global Commons Access. Assured access to the global economy for resources and
to reach markets is an absolute necessity for continued Chinese economic
growth and development . Chinese attempts to decouple U.S. military access
to select portions of the Western Pacific air and maritime domains from the
broader global commons set a precedent that may be applied to restrict
future Chinese access to the global commons . This may not be of great concern to the
PLAN today, but it may become much more important in the future .
Anti-access campaign highlights Chinese economic

dependence on foreign sea-lanes and expanded
instability
Dutton 11 -- Peter Dutton is director of the China Maritime Studies
Institute in the Center for Naval Warfare Studies of the Naval War College.
He served in the Navys Judge Advocate Generals Corps and as a Naval
Flight Officer, retiring in 2006 with the rank of commander. (Peter, THREE
DISPUTES AND THREE OBJECTIVES: China and the South China Sea,
Naval War College Review, Autumn 2011, Vol. 64, No. 4,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/feb516bf-9d93-4d5c-80dc-
d5073ad84d9b/Three-Disputes-and-Three-Objectives--China-and-the)//bj
There is at least some geostrategic rationale for Chinese antiaccess-oriented norms. China seeks to
develop control over its near seas in order to enhance its own security and enjoy a freer hand in Asia to
pursue its political objectives. However,Chinas approach to the normative relationship between
coastal states and foreign military power in the EEZ is shortsighted in that it focuses on
Chinas regional objectives, seemingly without regard to the importance of
naval power to the security of sea-lanes around the globe. China relies for its
economic growth and development on those very sea-lanes . Thus there
appears to be a gap between Chinas expression of antiaccess legal norms
and its own global interests, since the logical result of a normative shift from
international access to the EEZ toward coastal-state authority to exclude
foreign military power would be an expanded zone of instability at sea and
increased sanctuary for such destabilizing elements as piracy, human
trafficking, and illegal weapons and narcotics trafficking.
China will reverse course - values their international

image and external environment
5.pdf)//bj
Chinas need for a stable external environment that

A second consideration involves
allows a continued focus on domestic economic and social development.
China values cooperative external relationships and a positive public image
to help ensure external issues do not disrupt internal progress . Aggressive
efforts to challenge U.S. military operations in the Western Pacific risk
unsettling the regional security environment and impacting Chinas ability
to focus on internal development . A third consideration involves Chinas broad willingness to
accept international rules and norms that they believe reflect the interests of powerful Western states.
China has benefited immeasurably from most of the rules and norms in the current international system,
but some Chinese leaders and scholars want to modify some existing rules and norms to better serve the
interests of developing countries. Efforts to articulate and enforce Chinas position on what military
operations are appropriate and legal within EEZs are consistent with this perspective. A fourth
consideration involves Chinas efforts to project a positive international
image as a responsible power that is making positive contributions to
regional and global security. Actions that damage this image or which
portray China as a disruptive power that will challenge or threaten
international stability are viewed negatively.
China will stop to ensure strong U.S.-Sino relations

Fuchs 16 -- Michael Fuchs, senior Fellow at American Progress, where his
work focuses on U.S. foreign policy priorities and U.S. policy toward the
Asia-Pacific. (Michael, 3-2-2016, Safe Harbor: How to End the South China
Sea Crisis, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2016-03-02/safe-
harbor)
The United States and China must meet at the negotiating table to hammer
out a security arrangement for the South China Sea that can allow both
sides to maintain their interests while also de-escalating tensions. To meet with
China at the bargaining table, Washington must change its approach . Namely, it must
do more than operate on the periphery in order to shape the region. It must
reframe the South China Sea issue as a conflict that directly involves the
United States and requires Beijing to act as such . Making this a bilateral
U.S.China issue would lead Beijing to question its strategy, because Chinas
relationship with the United States and its role in the Asia-Pacific is the
biggest regional factor affecting Beijings foreign security policy .
Aff
Aggressive U.S. actions and rhetoric increase tensions
Swaine 15 -- senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and one of the most prominent American analysts in
Chinese security studies (Michael Swaine, 6-2-15, Averting a Deepening
U.S.-China Rift Over the South China Sea,
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/06/02/averting-deepening-u.s.-china-rift-
over-south-china-sea-pub-60274)//bj
senior
Reacting to continued Chinese land reclamation efforts on several reefs in the Spratly Islands,
U.S. officials and military officers vow to fight tonight if needed to defend U.S.
interests across the Indo-Pacific, while referring to Chinese claims across the South China Sea as
preposterous and Chinese land activities there as designed to militarize the region and to build a
Chinese officials and spokespersons warn the
great wall of sand. In response,
United States against provocative actions, insist that China will not back
down and reiterate their determination to safeguard our own sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Meanwhile, this heated rhetoric is being fueled by all
manner of often misleading claims, charges, and demands for more aggressive
action by outside commentators on both sides. Many in the United States see China as engaged in a
concerted strategic effort to seize control over the entire South China Sea, land and water alike, as part
of a larger attempt to push the United States out of Asia and replace it as the dominant force in the
region. Only a more aggressive and sustained military-centered U.S. pushback designed to deter and
humble China will avert this outcome, they insist. In contrast, many in China see the United States as
using the disputes over sovereignty in the South China Sea and elsewhere as a means of justifying more
concerted efforts to contain and undermine all Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific, and to encourage
Beijing must double its efforts to
other states to provoke China and militarize the issue.
strengthen its position and show the United States and others that China
cannot be intimidated, they demand. This situation is not just another temporary
downward blip in an up and down Sino-U.S. relationship. It threatens to
drive U.S.-China relations permanently in a far more adversarial, zero-sum
direction and destabilize the region. To allow a dispute over a few rocks and islands in a
corner of the Asia-Pacific region to derail a vital relationship critical to both regional and global peace
Hyperbolic statements, veiled threats and calls for
and prosperity is the height of folly.
more military action serve no useful purpose and will only lead to hardened
positions and redoubled efforts on both sides to counter the other. What is
needed is a far sharper level of clarity by both Beijing and Washington regarding their claims and
grievances, and, on that basis, a clear indication of the consequences of unacceptable behavior, along
with a commitment to provide mutual assurances over the near term to avoid specific tripwires, while
working to stabilize the long term situation.
Turn aggressive actions shift international norms

and increases conflict
5.pdf)//bj
Our analysis does not identify any silver bullet solutions likely to produce an immediate change in PLAN
behavior. The more cooperative approaches require time for the benefits of cooperation to accrue and for
normative arguments to be heard and heeded, both in China and internationally. (If China follows the
Soviet patternwhich is by no means guaranteedits expanded naval capabilities and operational
deployments may eventually produce more parallelism in intelligence operations and greater interest in
coercive approaches
reducing operational risks through mutual restraint.) Some of the more
require violating preferred U.S. norms of freedom of navigation and U.S.
military standard practice of safe airmanship and seamanship to generate
the leverage necessary to alter Chinese behavior. This risks shifting
international norms in undesired directions and would certainly create
greater tension and friction in military relations with the PLA and perhaps
also in broader bilateral relations. U.S. policymakers will need to carefully consider whether
the status quo is tolerable, the costs and risks of various approaches, and what mix of policies might
There is some logic to beginning
move China in desired directions at an acceptable cost.
with softer, more cooperative policy options and holding more coercive
options in reserve in case cooperative options fail or Chinese harassment
increases. However, some might argue that the United States has already employed some soft options
with limited results.
Warming 1 - India Coop
1NC
Text: The USFG should help fund Indias clean
technology development and work together to reduce
CO2 emissions.
India is key to reducing CO2 emissions and warming

its the worlds 3rd largest emitter and influences 134
other countries.
Vickery 15 (Raymond E. Vickery Jr., a leading adviser on U.S.-India relations.
He is a Global Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
where he was previously a Public Policy Scholar, and is a Senior Adviser in India at
the Albright Stonebridge Group. He is the author of books on U.S.-India economic
engagement and India energy, as well as numerous articles on these subjects, Why
India Is Key to a Climate Change Agreement in Paris. The Diplomat, November 22,
2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/why-india-is-key-to-a-climate-change-
agreement-in-paris/) S.He
What India finally offers in Paris and how the United States and the
developed world respond to that offer may well determine the success
or failure of the effort to stave off environmental disaster by holding
the worlds temperature increase to 2 Centigrade over pre-industrial
temperatures at the end of this century. India has made a climate change offer
in the form of its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), and its final
position will be built on its INDC. However, U.S. Secretary of State JohnKerry already
has singled out India for criticism as more cautious and more
restrained than others. India is the third largest greenhouse gas
emitter and a primary leader of the G-77 group of developing
nations. Many members of this now 134-country strong group will be
strongly influenced by what India does. Thus, the reality is that no
satisfactory deal is likely to be reached without India. The stakes could
hardly be higher for the world, for India, and for the United States. The litany of
calamities predicted by most responsible scientists if there is failure
to hold the temperature increase below 2 C is long and well known.
Rising and warming seas, changes in the quality and availability of
water, decreases in food production, unbearable heat, and more
highly destructive weather events will affect most nations. In U.S. political
terms, domestic acceptance of the sacrifices necessary to meet climate change goals will be
impossible if significant efforts in the country are seen as ineffective because of indefinitely
rising greenhouse gas emissions from India. China has pledged to end its increases in CO2
emissions by around 2030. India has made no such pledge. Even though India is in a very
different developmental situation than China, India is widely viewed as the recalcitrant party.
Indian CO2 emissions will surpass those of the U.S. by
The prediction that
the middle of the century adds to this perception. Many in the United States
ask, What is the use of Americans making significant sacrifices to
ameliorate climate change if these sacrifices will be negated by
Indias increasing emissions? India still seems to place undue
reliance on foreign government contributions to a UN Green Climate Fund to
fund its clean energy needs. It is unlikely that the United States will be able to meet
even Obamas commitment of $3 billion for the Green Climate Fund. Even mobilizing $100
billion, as pledged in Copenhagen by the developed economies, pales by comparison with the
The United States and other developed
$2.5 trillion India says it needs.
nations must work closely with their private sector funding sources to
have any hope of mobilizing the capital needed by India and other
developing countries for the development and implementation of
clean energy and amelioration techniques. It is unclear that the U.S. and the
governments of other developed countries are doing so.
India will say yes they suffer the most from warming,
and have already begun making offers to reduce
emissions
Vickery 15 (Raymond E. Vickery Jr., a leading adviser on U.S.-India relations.
He is a Global Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
where he was previously a Public Policy Scholar, and is a Senior Adviser in India at
the Albright Stonebridge Group. He is the author of books on U.S.-India economic
engagement and India energy, as well as numerous articles on these subjects, Why
India Is Key to a Climate Change Agreement in Paris. The Diplomat, November 22,
2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/why-india-is-key-to-a-climate-change-
agreement-in-paris/) S.He
However, no other major country is likely to suffer more than India. India
is already enduring summers that melt roads and kill people. Some 60
percent of its population makes its living from agriculture, which will be
particularly affected. Most farmers will be hit by drought while some
will be flooded. A large portion of the Indian population lives in coastal
areas and low-lying islands. These areas will be subject to more and
deeper flooding and consequent population displacement. Northern
India is dependent in large part on runoff from glaciers that are
shrinking in the face of climate change. Already, rampant disease
vectors are increasing in scope and deadliness. For India, climate
change is a slow-moving disaster. For some time, India sought to negate this
perception by relying solely on the climate justice argument, and this position is still
prominent in its INDC. According to this argument, the developed economies caused the
problem by their profligate burning of hydrocarbons and dumping their greenhouse gas refuse
into the atmosphere. It is only just that India has a right to increase its emissions indefinitely in
the name of uplifting the poor and bringing electricity to the more than 300 million Indians who
are without electrical power. There can be no climate justice when the per capita emissions
of many developed countries vary between 7 to 15 metric tonnes, [and] the per capita
emissions in India were only about 1.56 metric tonnes in 2010. Amid this backdrop, India
cannot be asked to cut its emissions. Further, as Indias Minister of Power, New and Renewable
Energy, and Coal Piyush Goyal has argued to the author and others, the just principle should
be polluter pays. All of this is true. However, all nations have arguments built on justice or
fairness for not doing more in regard to climate change. If all parties hold to these positions,
the result will be that the 2 C. target will be exceeded and an environmental catastrophe will
ensue. Most nations are concerned about others being free riders that is to say reaping
the benefits of a satisfactory agreement without making a sufficient contribution. One persons
climate justice is often seen as anothers free rider. Many argue that India simply wants to
free ride as a beneficiary of the sacrifices of others. Fortunately for India, the United States,
India in its INDC has now moved beyond its traditional
and the world,
climate justice position. Indias offer came only shortly before the midnight October
1 United Nations deadline and long after the other top greenhouse gas emitters, including the
U.S., China, and the European Union, had made their offers. However, when it did come, the
Indian INDC was substantive and provided a way forward. Indias
climate change offer consists mainly of three parts: (1) to reduce
Indias emissions intensity per unit of GDP 33 percent to 35 percent
from 2005 levels by 2030; (2) to achieve about 40 percent installed
electric power capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030; and (3) to create
an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent
through afforestation by 2030. India in its INDC seems to recognize for
the first time the role private finance must play in reaching its clean
energy goals. India has placed a price tag of $2.5 trillion on its needs
for clean energy capital between 2015 and 2030. Obviously, this amount of
money, multiplied by the needs of other developing nations, will not come from domestic or
international governmental sources alone. Thus, India indicates that it is willing to turn to the
domestic and foreign private sector in conjunction with governmental sourcing to obtain
financing. It is authorizing issuance of tax-free investment bonds and is highlighting the role of
its own private sector through Corporate Social Responsibility schemes and direct business
Minister Goyal has gone out of his way to
action to address climate change.
participate in Secretary Kerrys Climate and Clean Energy Investment
Forum. He met recently with private sector finance representatives in Mumbai on the subject
of clean energy, and the Government of India has set up REInvest, an elaborate program to
India has accepted in principle
encourage private investment in renewables. Thus,
the proposition that private financing in conjunction with carbon
taxation and public finance is the way forward to meet its climate
change goals. However, the question remains as to whether India will move far enough
away from its traditional statist economic approach and insistence on aid from the United
States and other developed countries to reach a satisfactory agreement in Paris. Conversely,
no deal is possible in Paris unless the United States and the other developed economies are
able sufficiently to suppress their own uses of carbon based fuels while mobilizing sufficient
financing from both their private and public sectors to assist India and the other developing
nations.
2NC Says Yes
India will cooperate Prime Minister Modi and Obama
have begun to agree over climate prevention.
Friedman 15 (Lisa Friedman, the editor of Climate Wire and lead international
affairs reporter, India and U.S. Commit to Global Fight against Climate Change.
Scientific America, January 26, 2015.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/india-and-u-s-commit-to-global-fight-
against-climate-change/) S.He
President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a

"personal commitment" to work together toward a successful global
climate change agreement in Paris later this year as part of a sweeping energy
package unveiled in New Delhi yesterday on everything from boosting
renewables to curbing air pollution. The deal between the two leaders fell well
short of one that Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, unveiled in Beijing
last year. India offered no new concrete emissions targets yesterday, and Modi insisted that
the landmark U.S.-China deal had no impact on his country. Still, he said, India is
concerned about the threat of global warming. "It's my feeling that the
agreement that has been concluded between the United States and China does not impose
any pressure on us. India is an independent country, and there is no pressure on us from any
country or any person," Modi said during a joint press conference after the two leaders had
"But there is pressure," Modi
taken a stroll in the Hyderabad House gardens.
acknowledged. "When we think about the future generations and what
kind of world we are going to give them, then there is pressure.
Climate change itself is a huge pressure. Global warming is a huge
pressure. ... There is pressure on all countries, on all governments
and on all peoples." Obama, meanwhile, vowed to expand U.S. support
for India's ambitious renewable energy goalsModi has vowed India
will expand its solar energy by 100 gigawatts by 2022and
announced new joint initiatives to improve air quality in Indian cities.
In negotiating this year toward a new global climate deal that could be signed in Paris in
U.S.-India cooperation will be critical. "The prime
December, Obama said,
minister and I made a personal commitment to work together to
pursue a strong global climate agreement in Paris. As I indicated to
him, I think India's voice is very important on this issue. Perhaps no
country could potentially be more affected by the impacts of climate
change, and no country is going to be more important in moving
forward a strong agreement than India," Obama said. U.S. to help
finance India's clean energy Despite the personal chemistry between Obama and
Modi, the relationship between the United States and India in the U.N. climate talks has been
rocky. The United States is pushing for a Paris deal that would for the first time see all major
climate-polluting nations take equal legal responsibility for tackling climate change, while
recognizing that wealthier and longer-polluting countries like the United States will have to
take heavier cuts. India, meanwhile, has argued that the United States and other wealthy
countries have essentially reneged on two decades of promises to cut emissions and deliver
funding and has blasted wealthy nations for demanding that still-developing countries take on
new responsibilities. Yesterday's agreements did not make any concrete headway in bridging
advocates of a climate treaty said the commitment to
that gap, but
cooperate was in itself important, as well as the practical steps to help
ramp up clean energy. "At the practical level, the bilateral steps
announced today will help contain India's carbon emissions in ways
that also address its urgent development needs. These concrete
projects will demonstrate on the ground that the climate and
development agendas are fully compatible. At the political level, the
pledge by the two leaders to stay in close touch through the year on
the climate negotiations is very encouraging," Elliot Diringer,
executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions, said in a statement. "This signals that India sees the Paris agreement as
a priority, and establishes a direct channel that could prove absolutely essential to delivering
the final deal," Diringer said. As part of the agreement, the U.S. Agency for International
Development will install a field investment officer in India with the backing of a transactions
team to help mobilize investment for India's clean energy sector. Meanwhile, the Export-
Import Bankof the United States is exploring projects with the Indian
Renewable Energy Development Agency for up to $1 billion in clean
energy financing, and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. "plans to
build on" Indian renewable projects, particularly in off-grid energy
access. The United States also agreed to implement a U.S. EPA program to help measure
and improve air quality in urban areas. Carol Browner, a distinguished fellow at the liberal
Center for American Progress and Obama's former climate czar, called the agreements
Obama and Modi, she said, "established a new leader-to-
"admirable."
leader channel for communication to work through issues in climate
negotiations, affirmed ambitious solar energy goals for India,
launched a new air quality initiative focusing on India's major cities,
catalyzed new clean energy investment opportunities, and more.
President Obama closed out last year with a historic joint climate
announcement of our two countries' new greenhouse gas reduction
targets, and he has started this year by taking a big step with India
toward a clean energy future." The United States and India have also
been at loggerheads over whether to reduce emissions of
hydrofluorocarbons, known as HFCs, that are used in refrigerants and
insulating foams. Ever since the United States and China formed an agreement last
year to phase down HFCs, India has been the lone holdout among major nations in opposition
to using the Montreal Protocol to phase out the pollutant. When Obama and Modi met last
year, they agreed to cooperate on "making concrete progress in the Montreal Protocol." They
didn't make new promises yesterday, but analysts saw a victory in jointly reaffirming that old
pledge."Today's joint HFC agreement shows that President Obama is
continuing his leader-level campaign to eliminate one of the six main
greenhouse gases this year using the world's most effective and
efficient environmental treaty," said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute of
Governance & Sustainable Development. "The agreement with Prime Minister Modi is a solid
step forward on the climate front, and complements a similar set of agreements President
Obama negotiated with President Xi of China."
India will say yes Air pollution is killing thousands

and precludes meaningful development
Vickery 15 (Raymond E. Vickery, a leading adviser on U.S.-India relations. He is
a Global Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he
was previously a Public Policy Scholar, and is a Senior Adviser in India at the
Albright Stonebridge Group. He is the author of books on U.S.-India economic
engagement and India energy, as well as numerous articles on these subjects, India
needs to follow self-interest on climate change. The Indian Express, December 11,
2015. http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/india-needs-to-follow-self-interesr-on-
climate-change/) S.He
Prime Minister Narendra Modis opening address to the Paris climate change summit and
subsequent remarks are a welcome departure from the confrontational language of carbon
imperialism used by some of his advisors and evidently favoured by a segment of Indian
the
politicians. These remarks signal a new spirit of cooperation on climate change. However,
truth is that all India needs to do, and all the world should expect, is for
India to follow basic self-interest in regard to climate change. This self-
interest is to address a fundamental need of its most impoverished
citizens as well as its rising middle class the need for clean,
breathable air. While climate change will adversely affect India perhaps
more than any other major country in the long run, the immediate
need is to fight air pollution. In doing so, India will take the lead on
climate change. The city with the worst air quality in the world in not
Beijing, its Delhi. By 2025, Germanys Max Planck Institute predicts that 32,000
residents of Delhi will die each year from air pollution alone. According
to the World Health Organisation, 13 out of 20 of the worlds most air
polluted cities are in India. Air pollution sickens many hundreds of
thousands of Indians every year and is the countrys fifth biggest killer.
The same type of dirty fuels most notably coal, diesel, and biomass that
produce deadly particulate matter also produce the greenhouse gases
that are the subject of the Paris climate change meeting. If India will
simply follow its self-interest in cleaning up the air pollution which is
sickening and killing its citizens, meeting its climate change goals will
follow. Some Indian opinion makers posit a conflict between human development and
fighting climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who suffer
the most from air pollution are those on the lowest rungs of the
economic ladder. Lessening pollution that brings sickness and death,
especially to the poor, should be a vital part of any human
development strategy. This is the very essence of sustainability. A
prosperity that lifts citizens out of poverty only to have them choke on
air pollution simply is not sustainable.
India will say yes Clean tech will be more cost

efficient than coal
Vickery 15 (Raymond E. Vickery, a leading adviser on U.S.-India relations. He is
a Global Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he
was previously a Public Policy Scholar, and is a Senior Adviser in India at the
Albright Stonebridge Group. He is the author of books on U.S.-India economic
engagement and India energy, as well as numerous articles on these subjects, India
needs to follow self-interest on climate change. The Indian Express, December 11,
2015. http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/india-needs-to-follow-self-interesr-on-
climate-change/) S.He
While other factors are involved, a root of the problem is coal. Coal produces by far more
Some argue that India
pollution in the production of electricity than any other fuel.
must rely indefinitely on burning dirty coal for the bulk of its power
because it is cheap. This is no longer a valid argument. In a recent
Andhra Pradesh auction, a US-based company won an auction for a
500 megawatt project at Rs 4.63 per kilowatt hour. In comparison,
electricity from burning coal in India is estimated to cost anywhere
between Rs 1.5-5 per kilowatt hour. When the price in healthcare, lost
efficiency and human suffering from pollution is added to the cost for
burning coal, the competitiveness of solar is obvious. Indias movement from
coal will not take place immediately and, in the interim, an emphasis on energy efficiency,
lessening the pollution from the coal that is burned and even the substitution of cleaner
natural gas will play a role. However, a switch to renewables such as solar for largely tropical
India is clearly in the national interest to fight air pollution, if for no other reason. Modis
remarks, along with those of French President Francois Hollande, in launching the international
solar alliance in Paris, were extremely encouraging. With 121 countries participating in the
solar alliance and a strong reliance on mobilising capital through a public-private partnership,
the way forward is plain. This public/private approach was also a theme of Modis Mission
Innovation speech and participation in the launching of twin initiatives by 20 countries and 29
billionaires, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, to spur research and development on
clean energy. Going forward,
India is assuming its rightful place of leadership
on energy and climate change by following what is in its own self-
interest.
India will cooperate Prime Minister is currently
pressing Obama to assist funding clean tech
initiatives.
Goldenberg 14 (Suzanne Goldenberg, Canadian-born author and journalist
currently employed by The Guardian as their United States environmental
correspondent, US and India to announce joint climate change action during
Obama visit. The Guardian, December 15, 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/us-india-joint-climate-
change-action) S.He
America and India will unveil joint efforts to fight climate change
when Barack Obama visits New Delhi next month, as the US tries to keep up the
momentum of international negotiations. Obamas visit on the back of the United Nations
talks in Lima is seen as a key moment to persuade one of the worlds biggest carbon
India is the
polluters to step up its efforts to fight climate change. After China and the US,
worlds third largest producer of the greenhouse gas emissions
causing climate change although it is responsible for only about 6% of such
emissions globally. During the visit, Obama and the Prime Minister, Narendra
Modi, are expected to unveil a number of modest initiatives to expand
research and access to clean energy technologies. The announcement
in the works for Obamas visit to Delhi will be modest in scale nowhere
near last months milestone agreement between the US and China to cut their carbon
pollution. I am expecting a useful meeting but we dont have anything in the works of the
kind that we were involved with in China, Todd Stern, the State Department climate change
envoy, said. But the visit still represents a key moment as major economies begin to deliver on
the. Under the deal, all countries are expected to announce by 31 March emissions
reductions targets and other actions to fight climate change. With China already agreeing to
cut its carbon pollution, and South Korea and Latin American countries paying into a climate
fund for poor countries, the new all-inclusive nature of the Lima deal has put India under a
spotlight. Are we expecting from India too much and leaving the polluters without any
accountability? the environment, forest and climate change minister, Prakash Javadekar,
India is already
said. This is a big thing that developing countries are doing.
understood to be working on its targets for the United Nations, but it
will not put forward those numbers until June, Javadekar said.
However, he added that India would make ambitious efforts. We are
doing very aggressive actions on our own. So we would like to put
them on record and on public domain, he said. Indian newspapers
reported earlier this month that Modi was working to announce an
aspirational year for peaking emissions ahead of Obamas visit.
Javadekar pushed back on that idea and on the entire notion that India should be required
to peak its emissions at all, arguing that its emissions still represented only a fraction of
Chinas. But he said that India was stepping up its efforts to deal with climate change, and
was increasing its targets for expanding solar power and energy efficiency. In the next two
Modi would press Obama to
years, there will be major changes, he said. He said
set up a global clean energy research consortium or make funds
available for licenses for clean energy technologies, perhaps from
international climate finance. They can compensate from Green Climate Fund to
their companies, Javadekar said. Why should companies profit from disaster?
AT India Not Key
India is key lack of coop will doom Paris agreement
Mufson 16 (Steven Mufson, energy correspondent for The Washington Post for
seven years, Obama and Indias Modi promise deals on climate change and
energy. The Washington Post, June 7, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-and-indias-modi-pledge-
future-deal-on-climate-and-energy/2016/06/07/9cb5bb72-2cc0-11e6-b5db-
e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html) S.He
The leaders of India and the United States vowed Tuesday to ratify the Paris climate accord this year,
pledged to nail down terms for limiting a potent greenhouse gas used as a refrigerant in air conditioners,
and set a one-year deadline for concluding a deal for six commercial nuclear power plants. But the two
sides provided few specifics about how they would achieve those goals beyond saying that President
Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who were meeting at the White House, share the same
objectives and have established time frames for resolving differences. Even without the agreed deadlines,
the recent pledge by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to renegotiate the
Paris climate accord if he is elected has added a sense of urgency among world leaders to make sure the
pact goes into effect before the end of the year. Thirty days after at least 55 countries accounting for at
least 55 percent of global emissions have moved to join the agreement, the Paris accord enters into force .
India accounts for 4.1 percent of global emissions. If India joins, it will
practically put us over the hump of 55 percent of global emissions required
for ratification, said Andrew Light, a former State Department negotiator
who is now at the World Resources Institute. India is a key country for the
United States, given tensions with Pakistan and Indias status as a bulwark
against China in South Asia. But Obama has put climate and energy issues at
the forefront of relations with Modi. The focus among negotiators leading up to Tuesdays
meeting was an effort to work out details for restricting hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, by adding them to
the Montreal Protocol, the global treaty adopted in 1987 to address ozone depletion. The two nations
agreed to link increased financial support for India from a multilateral fund with what Obama adviser
Brian Deese called an ambitious approach to phase out HFCs altogether. Without an agreement, the
use of HFCs is expected to soar as the growth of the middle class in India fuels an increase in the sale of
air conditioning and refrigerators. India is the worlds third-largest carbon emitter, and HFCs have a
global warming power thousands of times greater that carbon dioxide. India has been pressing for a
longer grace period before starting to phase out HFCs and a longer phase-out period. But the United
States has been urging action before the HFC industry grows. For India, it doesnt make sense to build
an industry that is a generation behind. And then it doesnt make sense for us to pay to dismantle it, said
David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Greenhouse gas emissions from this surprising source could doom the Paris
climate accord goal. The Montreal Protocol is one part of a broad effort by
Obama to convince Modi to act to prevent an explosion of greenhouse gas
emissions as Indias economy speeds ahead. Obama and Modi were also expected to
discuss Tuesday how India can reach its 100 gigawatt target for solar power by 2022. The leaders backed
the creation of two mechanisms to help stimulate the scores of billions of dollars of financing that will be
needed. One mechanism will be a joint $40 million program to provide high-risk capital for areas off the
grid in India, where about 240 million people have no access to electricity. The second mechanism is a
joint $20 million India Clean Energy Finance Initiative. This will help developers put together renewable
projects and then get substantial financing with the help of the Overseas Private Investment Corp. OPIC,
a U.S. government agency, provides loan guarantees and political risk insurance to American firms
investing overseas. Deese estimated that the two mechanisms together could catalyze up to $1 billion in
investment still a small fraction of the financing India will need to meet its goal. On the nuclear power
front, Westinghouse Electric (now owned by Toshiba) has been negotiating with India in the hopes of
selling it six AP-1000 nuclear reactors. The project site was recently moved to the southern state of
Andhra Pradesh, where site preparation is underway. Local opposition prevented the multibillion-dollar
project from moving ahead in Modis home state of Gujarat. Nisha Desai Biswal, assistant secretary of
state for South Asian affairs, told a Senate committee on May 24 that a commercial deal was quite
close. The stumbling block has been an article in a 2010 Indian law that would make Westinghouse
and its suppliers potentially vulnerable to crippling litigation under local Indian laws in the event of an
accident. India has offered to establish insurance pools, but companies have not accepted that plan.
There was no indication Tuesday that the issue had been resolved.
AT China is More Important
India is key set to overtake China in energy use by
2028
ITV 15 (ITV News, Climate in Crisis: Why is India so important in the fight
against global warming? November 9, 2015. http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-
03/climate-in-crisis-why-is-india-so-important-in-the-fight-against-global-warming/)
S.He
Ahead of the upcoming Paris 2015 UN climate change conference, ITV News travelled to India, a
why is India so crucial to
country which will hold the balance of power at the negotiations. But
efforts to improve the health of our planet, so much so that President Obama
has alluded that it could be the deal maker or breaker in Paris? Scientists
and politicians generally agree that we must curb global emissions to avoid
dangerous climate change by the end of the century. The route to achieving that
ambition is a mix of political, economic and social negotiations around how fast countries can develop,
India is a nation
the kinds of green technology they will be able to use and who foots the bill.
which embodies all the major negotiating points world leaders will try to
tackle at COP21. The country is the worlds third biggest greenhouse gas
emitter and faces the challenge of reducing carbon emissions while
sustaining the economic growth needed to reduce poverty. New Prime Minister
Narendra Modi must deal with the huge tension associated with this balancing act. It is the same tension
affecting the whole developing world, with billions of people facing similar choices about how to get out
Indias voice is very important on
of poverty in a sustainable, environmentally-friendly way.
this issue. Perhaps no country could potentially be more affected by the
impacts of climate change and no country is going to be more important in
moving forward a strong agreement than India BARACK OBAMA , JANUARY
2015. What India does in Paris will become the model for developing nations . It
is expected to negotiate hard for help and investment in technology so it can follow a more sustainable
path to generating electricity, as well as use its massive coal reserves and the historic pollution by the
West as its bargaining chips. Indias use of its coal is particularly important if it burns it all, it will be
virtually impossible for the world as a whole to reduce its carbon emissions. India also highlights how
climate change is not just an environmental story that will affect the world far in the future. As ITV News
discovered, there are many examples of the political, economic and social choices climate change is
By 2028, India is expected to overtake
already enforcing upon huge numbers of people.
China as the worlds most populated country, with 1.45 billion people. As the
population increases, so will the energy consumption, which is predicted to
rise 132% by 2035. India currently produces 7% of global emissions. Already
the worlds third biggest greenhouse gas emitter, this will rise due to energy
demands that will result from population growth. An estimated 300 million
Indians live with little or no light when the sun sets. A 2011 census claimed
just 55% of rural homes use electricity as a primary source of lighting.
Indias gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 7.5% from January to March
this year, faster than Chinas.
Aff
China Key
China is the number one emitter key to solve
warming
Vidal and Adam 07 (John Vidal and David Adam, Vidal is the
Guardian's environment editor and author of McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial;
Adam is the author of Man Who Couldn't Stop, an environment correspondent for
the Guardian, before which he was science correspondent, and worked at the
science journal Nature after a PhD in chemical engineering. China overtakes US as
world's biggest CO2 emitter. The Guardian, June 19, 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews) S.He
China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of
carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show. The surprising
announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and
will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes
the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US,
formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen
according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
as early as next year. But
Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in
cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006
beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of
CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about
600m tonnes. Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said:
"There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date
China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends
estimate available.
show their emissions going up very quickly." China's emissions were 2%
below those of the US in 2005. Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively
low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK. The new figures only include carbon
dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other
greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And
they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well
as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires. Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to
date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But
"Since China passed the
he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot.
US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other
sources of emissions." To work out the emissions figures, Dr. Oliver used data issued
by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and
coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement
production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production,
which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global
CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement
industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces
about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2
emissions. Dr. Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal
using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2
emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy. The announcement comes
as international negotiations to produce a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol when it
The US refused to ratify Kyoto partly because it
expires in 2012 are delicately poised.
made no demands on China, and one major sticking point of the new negotiations has been
finding a way to include both nations, as well as other rapidly developing economies such as India and
Brazil. Tony Blair believes the best approach is to develop national markets to cap and trade carbon,
which could then be linked.
Earlier this month, China unveiled its first national plan
on climate change after two years of preparation by 17 government
ministries. Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance
of greenhouse gas emissions, it now aims to reduce energy consumption per
unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20% by 2010 and to increase the
share of renewable energy to some 10%, as well as to cover roughly 20% of
the nation's land with forest. But it stressed that technology and costs are
major barriers to achieving energy efficiency in China , and that it will be hard
to alter the nation's dependency on coal in the short term. What China needs, said a
government spokesman, is international cooperation in helping China move toward a low-carbon
economy. Chinese industries have been hesitant to embrace unproven clean coal and carbon capture
technologies that are still in their infancy in developed countries.
China is the main cause of global warming

Doyle 15 (Alister Doyle, environment correspondent at Reuters, China to
surpass U.S. as top cause of modern global warming. Reuters, April 13, 2015.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-china-idUSKBN0N411H20150413)
S.He
China is poised to overtake the United States as the main cause of man-made global warming since 1990,
the benchmark year for U.N.-led action, in a historic shift that may raise pressure on Beijing to act.
China's cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, when governments were becoming aware of
climate change, will outstrip those of the United States in 2015 or 2016, according to separate estimates
The shift, reflecting China's stellar
by experts in Norway and the United States.
economic growth, raises questions about historical blame for rising
temperatures and more floods, desertification, heatwaves and sea level rise.
Almost 200 nations will meet in Paris in December to work out a global deal to fight climate actions
beyond 2020. "A few years ago China's per capita emissions were low, its
historical responsibility was low. That's changing fast," said Glen Peters of
the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO), who says
China will overtake the United States this year. Using slightly different data,
the U.S.-based World Resources Institute think-tank estimated that China's
cumulative carbon dioxide emissions will total 151 billion tonnes for 1990-
2016, overtaking the U.S. total of 147 billion next year. The rise of
cumulative emissions "obviously does open China up to claims of
responsibility from other developing countries," said Daniel Farber, a professor of law
at the University of California, Berkeley. In a U.N. principle laid down in 1992, rich nations are meant to
lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions because their wealth is based on burning coal, oil and natural
gas since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century. Emerging nations, meanwhile, can burn
But the rapid economic rise of China, India,
more fossil fuels to catch up and end poverty.
Brazil and many other emerging nations is straining the traditional divide between rich
and poor. "All countries now have responsibility. It's not just a story about China -- it's a story about
the whole world," said Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-
chair of a U.N. climate report last year. India will overtake Russia's cumulative emissions since 1990 in
the 2020s to rank fourth behind China, the United States and the European Union, according to the
China surpassed the United States as the top annual emitter
CICERO calculations.
of carbon dioxide in around 2006 and now emits more each year than the
United States and the European Union combined. Per capita emissions by its 1.3
billion people are around EU levels. Beijing says the best yardstick for historical responsibility is per
capita emissions since the 18th century, by which measure its emissions are less than a tenth those of the
United States. But stretching liability so far back is complicated. Should heat-trapping methane gas
emitted by rice paddies in Asia in the 19th century, now omitted, count alongside industrial carbon
emissions by Europe? Should Britain be responsible for India's emissions before independence in 1947?
Lawyers say it is difficult to blame people living today for emissions by ancestors who had no inkling that
greenhouse gases might damage the climate. "I feel very uneasy about going back more than a
generation in terms of historic responsibility," said Farber, arguing that Berlin could hardly be blamed if
someone died by setting off a rusting German World War One landmine in France. All governments are
now working out plans for a climate summit in Paris in December that will set targets for 2025 or 2030.
Beijing set a goal last year of peaking its rising emissions around 2030,
perhaps before. "China is acting. It has acknowledged its position as a key
polluter," said Saleemel Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development in
London. And historical responsibility is at the heart of talks on solving the problem. The U.N. panel of
climate scientists estimated last year that humankind had emitted 1.9 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide
since the late 19th century and can only emit a trillion more before rising temperatures breach a U.N.
ceiling of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. Any fair formula for sharing out
that trillion tonnes, or roughly 30 years of emissions at current rates, inevitably has to consider what
each country has done in the past, said Myles Allen, a scientist at Oxford University. "Until people start
thinking about blame and responsibility they are not taking the problem seriously," he said.
India Says No
India says no Modi refuses to limit emissions and
progress is miniscule
Plumer 14 (Brad Plumer, Brad Plumer is a senior editor at Vox.com, where he
oversees the site's science, energy, and environmental coverage. He was previously
a reporter at the Washington Post covering climate and energy policy, India says it
won't cut emissions for 30 years. What's that mean for global warming? Vox Energy
and Environment, September 25, 2014.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/25/6843673/india-climate-change-stance-emissions-rise-
30-years) S.He
India's new environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, told The New York
Times this week that his country's carbon-dioxide emissions would likely keep
rising for the next 30 years. "What cuts?" he said about international efforts
to curtail emissions and slow the pace of global warming. "That's for more
developed countries." Some observers have interpreted Javadekar's
comments to mean that India doesn't take climate change seriously at all. But
it's a bit more complicated than that. India's position has long been that it's willing to
voluntarily slow the growth of its emissions (compared with current trends)
but it won't make absolute cuts while it's still climbing out of poverty. And in
theory, India's stance could be compatible with global efforts to reduce emissions and avoid drastic
warming though it certainly won't be easy. Here's a rundown: India's climate stance: This mostly isn't
India has long insisted that wealthier countries like the United States
our fault
and Europe (and even China) should bear most of the burden for tackling
climate change. After all, those nations got to enjoy the growth benefits that
come with burning fossil fuels for their cars, power plants, and factories for many decades.
Now it's India's turn. The chart below shows the basic thinking here. India's per-person
emissions are still one-tenth that of the United States and one-fourth that of
China. India is still very poor, has 1 billion people, and, its officials say, deserves some leeway on this:
That doesn't mean India is totally ignoring climate change. In the Times interview, Javadekar said the
country is looking at plans to slow the future growth of emissions (which are otherwise on pace to rise 60
percent between 2020 and 2040). On top of that, India has a goal of doubling wind and solar generation
this decade. And prime minister Narendra Modi has suggested that solar power could play a helpful role
fossil fuels are expected to keep
in electrifying the country's rural areas. Even so,
growing. India's government has emphasized the need to supply electricity
to the 300 million people who don't already have it and in places where
solar can't do the job, officials have been clear that coal and natural gas will
expand. The current government is also focused on streamlining India's coal
sector in order to allow more reliable access to cheap fuel and to reduce
chronic shortages. What's more, as more people enter the middle class and
buy cars, India's oil consumption has been soaring. Add it up, and India's
emissions are likely keep rising. The big question is by how much.
India wont coop they need coal for development

Upton 13 (John Upton, John Upton is a freelance journalist who blogs about
ecology, The India Problem. Slate, November 27, 2013.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/energy_around_the_world/2013/11
/india_blocking_climate_talks_warsaw_bangkok_and_kyoto_negotiations.html)
Hundreds of millions of Indians live in poverty, wielding a tiny per-person

carbon footprint when compared with residents of the West and coming out on top of
environmental sustainability surveys. But the country is home to so many people that steady
economic growth is turning it into a climate-changing powerhouse. It has
developed a gluttonous appetite for coal, one of the most climate-changing
fuels and the source of nearly two-thirds of the countrys power. India
recently overtook Russia to become the worlds third-biggest greenhouse
gas polluter, behind China and the United States. (If you count the European Union as a single
carbon-belching bloc, then India comes in fourth). India has been obstructing progress on
international climate talks, culminating during the two weeks of U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations that ended Saturday in
Warsaw. The Warsaw talks were the latest annual get-together for nearly 200 countries trying to
thrash out a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Indias erraticism at
international climate talks is frustrating the West. But it is also starting to anger
some developing nations struggling to cope with violent weather, droughts, and floods
blamed on climate change. Indias stance during climate talks is that developed
countries should be legally committed to addressing global warming by
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, and that developing countries
should do what they say they can do to help out. But once-clear distinctions between
developed and developing countries are blurring. A growing number of developing countriesincluding
low-lying island states in the Pacific and some countries in Africa and Latin America with which India has
long been alliedare eyeing the vast, growing, climate-changing pollution being pumped out by China
and India. They are wondering why those two countries, and others in the developing camp, shouldnt
also be committed to reducing their emissions.
India says no empirically proven to thwart attempts

to solve warming.
Upton 13 (John Upton, John Upton is a freelance journalist who blogs about
ecology, The India Problem. Slate, November 27, 2013.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/energy_around_the_world/2013/11
/india_blocking_climate_talks_warsaw_bangkok_and_kyoto_negotiations.html)
And no country has done more than India to stall progress on international
climate negotiations during the past two months. It began last month in
Bangkok, when negotiators met to update the Montreal Protocol. Signed in the
late 1980s, the protocol saved the ozone layer by ending the use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants,
household goods, and industrial products. The problem was, manufacturers often swapped out CFCs for a
closely related group of chemicals called hydrofluorocarbons. HFCs dont hurt the ozone layer, but it
turns out that they are potent greenhouse gases. With climate change now the most important global
environmental challenge, the United States and a long list of other countries have proposed amending
the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of HFCs. All seemed to be going well with the plans for those
amendments. India and the other members of the Group of 20 endorsed the
proposal during September meetings in Russia. A couple of weeks later,
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated the countrys support for
the amendments during meetings with President Obama. But when international
representatives gathered for meetings in Bangkok to actually make the
amendments, they were surprised and angered to find the negotiations
blocked by India. The countrys environment officials told Indian media that
they were worried about the costs associated with switching over to new coolants. What
may have worried them even more was the fear of being accused of opening
the door for foreign air conditioning and fridge companies to take over
domestic markets. If theres one thing that no Indian government up for re-
election in the current political climate would want, its to be seen giving an
inch to America on trade. Then came Warsaw. Extensive negotiations around
agriculture had been scheduled for the first of the two weeks of meetings. Farming
causes about a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions, due in part to land clearing, energy
use, and the methane that bubbles up from rice paddies and is belched out by cattle. But thats not what
drew farming representatives to Warsaw. Farmers are the hardest hit by changes in the weatherwhich
should help them secure a chunk of the hundreds of billions of dollars in climate aid that a new climate
But India, which is home to farms that are
treaty is expected to deliver for poor countries.
struggling to cope with changing rainfall patterns, spearheaded a maneuver
that blocked agricultural negotiations from moving forward. Its negotiators feared
that negotiations over farmer adaptation efforts would lead to requests that those farmers also reduce
their carbon footprints. India has been very clear that agriculture is the mainstay of our population, and
we dont want any mitigation targets there, said Indrajit Bose, a climate change program manager at the
influential Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, who attended the Warsaw meetings. Its a
During the second week of Warsaw
red line for India, and I think we agree with that.
talks, India again blocked progress on HFC reductions, and it worked with
China to water down the meetings most important agreement on the final
day of talks. Despite instances of Chinese obstructionism at Warsaw, China and the United
Stateshave been making headlines during the past week for their blossoming mutual commitment to
tackling climate change. Now India appears to be supplanting China as the developing worlds chief
climate agitator, even as it takes real steps to boost renewable energy production at home and meet
voluntary goals to reduce the emission intensity of its economy. (Meanwhile, Japan, Australia, and
The India
Canada are taking Americas mantle as the developed worlds chief climate antagonists.)
problem isnt limited to climate talks. Early this year India helped dilute an
international agreement that had been crafted to reduce mercury pollution
a major problem with coal-fired power plants. Before the countrys
environment minister was replaced during a mid-2011 Cabinet reshuffle,
India had been hailed as a constructive leader during international climate
talks. Now its being accused of foot-dragging, obstructionism, and flip-
flopping. Recent Indian shenanigans on the global climate stage are partly a
reflection of the fact that a federal election will be held in the spring . Such
elections are held every five years, and frantic campaigning by long lists of parties occupies many of the
the
months that precede them. In India, despite the countrys acute vulnerability to climate change,
climate is simply not an election issue. BBC polling suggests that 39 percent
of Indians have never heard about climate change. Indian voters are
calling for more affordable energynot for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And
India, like other developing countries, has been angered by what appears to be reluctance by developed
countries to lend a meaningful financial hand as the climate goes awry. A cruel irony of climate change is
that the poor countries that did the least to warm the planet are often the hardest hit, vulnerable to rising
tides, crop-wilting droughts, and powerful storms. During the talks in Warsaw, Western countries were
suddenly balking at previously promised climate aid that would have been worth $100 billion a year by
2020. And developed countries have fobbed off developing countries appeals for additional
compensation, so-called loss-and-damage payments, when climate change has harmed their people and
economies. Its not just the electioneering in India thats causing problems for global climate talks.
Another problem seems to be how little press attention the country receives
on foreign shores. Theres not a lot of focus on India anywhere, said
Manish Ram, a renewable-energy analyst for Greenpeace India who
attended the Warsaw meetings. Thats one of the reasons India gets away
with doing what its been doing.
India Not Key
India isnt key other countries can solve warming
Plumer 14 (Brad Plumer, Brad Plumer is a senior editor at Vox.com, where he
oversees the site's science, energy, and environmental coverage. He was previously
a reporter at the Washington Post covering climate and energy policy, India says it
won't cut emissions for 30 years. What's that mean for global warming? Vox Energy
and Environment, September 25, 2014.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/25/6843673/india-climate-change-stance-emissions-rise-
30-years) S.He
The world can still cut emissions even if India's rise . So does that mean the planet is
cooked? Not necessarily. It's worth noting that there are various scenarios out
there in which 1) the world reduces emissions by enough to avoid more than
2C of global warming but also 2) India's emissions keep rising indefinitely.
The authors tried to model a technologically feasible path for reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions sharply by mid-century. Under this plan, wealthy countries
would make drastic cuts but China's emissions don't peak until 2030 and India's emissions keep
growing indefinitely (albeit at a slower rate). The idea is that it's only fair to let those poor, populous
countries catch up on growth. Is that specific scenario realistic? Maybe, maybe not. It would entail a
radical clean-energy push from all countries the United States, Europe, China, India. For its part, India
would need to ramp up its use of wind, solar, and nuclear power far beyond what it's now planning. It
would have to revamp its transportation policies to become less car-centric. India's city planners would
have to rein in accelerating suburban sprawl. The country would also likely need outside help to develop
carbon capture and other advanced technologies. What's more, because there's not much room to
maneuver in the "deep decarbonization" scenario, there are lots of opportunities for bickering among
countries. If India wants even more leeway on emissions, then other countries would have to cut back
even more deeply or else the world will face even more global warming. That's a real and genuine
in past UN climate talks, India has shown a
tension in ongoing climate negotiations. And
tendency to thwart various proposals particularly anything that would
legally commit developing countries into making specific reductions . That
obstinacy has left other countries extremely frustrated at times. At the same time, none of the major
emitters have currently laid out a clear path to making the emissions cuts illustrated above. Many of the
hoped-for clean-energy technologies, like carbon capture for coal plants, are still struggling to gain a
But
footing. There are lots of reasons why global warming will be extremely difficult to address.
India's unwillingness to make absolute emission cuts right now isn't, on its
own, a deal-breaker.
Warming 2 - Solar Shield
1NC
Text: The USFG should build a reflective solar shield
around the earth.
A reflective solar shield is the fastest way to solve

warming
Brahic 07 (Catherine Brahic, Features Editor at New Scientist, Solar shield
could be quick fix for global warming. New Scientist, June 5, 2007.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11993-solar-shield-could-be-quick-fix-for-
global-warming/) S.He
A solar shield that reflects some of the Suns radiation back into space
would cool the climate within a decade and could be a quick-fix
solution to climate change, researchers say. Because of their rapid effect,
however, they should be deployed only as a last resort when dangerous climate change is
imminent, they warn. Solar shields are not a new idea such geoengineering schemes to
artificially cool the Earths climate are receiving growing interest, and include proposals to
inject reflective aerosols into the stratosphere, deploying space-based solar reflectors and
The shields are inspired by the cooling effects of
large-scale cloud seeding.
large volcanic eruptions that blast sulphate particles into the
stratosphere. There, the particles reflect part of the Suns radiation
back into space, reducing the amount of heat that reaches the
atmosphere, and so dampening the greenhouse effect. The 1991
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled Earth by a few
tenths of a degree for several years. Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, in California, US, and Damon Matthews at Concordia University, Canada, used
computer models to simulate the effects that a solar shield would have on the Earths climate
if greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise along a business as usual scenario. We have
been trying to pinpoint the one really bad thing that argues against geoengineering the
computer models simulated
climate, says Caldeira. But it is really hard to find. His
a gradually deployed shield that would compensate for the greenhouse
effect of rising carbon dioxide concentrations. By the time CO2 levels
are double those of pre-industrial times predicted to be at the end of
the 21st century the shield would need to block 8% of the Suns
radiation. The researchers found that a sulphur shield could act very
quickly, lowering temperatures to around early 20th-century levels
within a decade of being deployed. The trouble is, the decadal timescale works
both ways, says Caldeira. A sulphate shield would need to be continuously replenished, and
the models show that failing to do so would mean the Earths climate would suddenly be hit
with the full warming effect of the CO2 that has accumulated in the meantime. So if you have
the shield up there and it fails or, for example, the Republicans put up a shield and then the
Democrats come in to power and turn it down then you effectively compress into a decade or
A
two the warming that would have happened while the shield was up, Caldeira explains.
solar shield would not necessarily stunt plant growth. In fact, there is
some evidence that plants grew more vigorously after Mt Pinatubo
erupted because the sulphate particles increased the amount of diffuse
light and boosted growth in shaded areas. But if a shield was suddenly removed,
a portion of the CO2 stored in plants would be suddenly released as the plants respire faster in
warmer temperatures. Personally, as a citizen not a scientist, I dont like geo-engineering
because of the high environmental risk, Caldeira told New Scientist. Its toying with poorly
understood complex systems. And the ease with which they could work is
also risky, he says: These schemes are almost too cheap and easy.
Just one fire hose spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere would
do the job for a century. That would cost about $100 million nothing
in comparison to the hundreds of billions it would take to transform our
energy supply. But he also believes it is time to consider solar shields
seriously. On 1 June, James Hansen, head of NASAs Institute for Space Studies in the US,
published a paper stating that Earths climate system has reached a tipping point
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol 7, p 2287). Hansens study suggests that only
moderate additional warming is likely to trigger the disintegration of the west Antarctic and
Arctic ice sheets events which would be near-impossible to reverse. If this is the case, then I
am not clear on what the greenest path is, says Caldeira. Is it better to let the Greenland
ice sheet collapse and let the polar bears drown their way to extinction, or to spray some
sulphur particles in the stratosphere? He says that if forced to consider deploying a solar
shield, we would need to be confident that we would not be creating bigger problems than we
are solving. Therefore, it is important both to understand the mess we are in today how close
are we to making irreversible changes, how fast can we alter our energy system and to
understand what might happen should we try to avoid some of the worst outcomes by
engineering our climate.
AT Implausible
Scientists concur that a solar shield is the fastest and
surest way to solve warming
The Telegraph 09 (The Telegraph, Scientists to stop global warming with
100,000 square mile sun shade. February 26, 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/4839985/Scienti
sts-to-stop-global-warming-with-100000-square-mile-sun-shade.html) S.He
According to astronomer Dr. Roger Angel, at the University of Arizona, the

trillions of mirrors would have to be fired one million miles above the earth using a huge
cannon with a barrel of 0.6 miles across. The gun would pack 100 times the power of
conventional weapons and need an exclusion zone of several miles before being fired. Despite
the obvious obstacles - including an estimated $350 trillion (244trn) price tag for the project
is confident of getting the project off the ground. He said: "What we have
Dr. Angel
developed is certainly effective and a method guaranteed to work.
"Tests are ongoing but we expect to be ready to launch within 20 or 30
years time. Things that take a few decades are not that futuristic." Dr.
Angel has already secured NASA funding for a pilot project and British
inventor Tod Todeschini, 38, was commissioned to build a scaled-down
version of the gun. He constructed the four-metre long cannon in his workshop in
Sandlake, Oxfordshire, for a TV documentary investigating the sun shield theory. He said: "The
gun was horrendously dangerous. This was the first gun I'd ever built. "I knew I could put it
together safely but at the end of it all I didn't know what I was going to get. "It was immensely
dangerous. I was attempting to build a gun to produce 1,500G of force but it ended up creating
about 10,000G and we had to turn the power down. "Most weapons used by the army produce
100Gs of force so our gun was about 100 times more powerful. "The main danger was
electrocution because it used enough power to boil 44,000 kettles. "If you were working with
normal levels of electricity you could get a shock and be fine, but if you got a shock off this you
would be dead - no question. "We've proved it's possible to build a scaled-down version of the
it's just a matter of scaling up the
gun needed to get these lenses into the air so
designs for the real thing." If Dr. Angel's sun shield is successful he
says the mirrors will last 50 years before needing to be replaced.
"What you are talking about is a project which will stop global warming
for centuries to come," he said. "At the moment the sums involved
sound huge but in the greater scheme of things it's a price worth
paying. "Over 50 years the mirrors will become damaged and therefore fresh lenses will
need to be fired into space to ensure the shield is constant." Dr. Angel, who pioneers solar
energy, is developing cheaper methods of making the lenses to bring the cost of the project
down. In the meantime researchers at the University of Victoria, Canada, are
testing the sun shield theory by using computer simulations of the
project. Dr. Angel's sun shield theory will feature on Ways to Save the Planet on the
Discovery Channel at 7pm on Sunday.
Aff Answers
Implausible
Solar shield is unrealistic and doesnt solve alt causes
Keith 15 (David Keith, Harvard environmental scientist, A cheap and dangerous
global warming fix. PBS News Hour, July 16, 2015.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/cheap-controversial-solution-climate-
change/) S.He
Is solar geoengineering a solution to climate change? David Keith: Its

Paul Solman:
certainly not a solution if by solution you mean that solar geoengineering is
the only thing that could be done. If you do not bring the emissions of
carbon at the atmosphere to zero, you cant have a stable climate . Its really as
simple as that. And I think a lot of policy is being confused with crazy assumptions that its all one thing
or another. The important question about solar geoengineering is: Would it make sense to do a small
I
amount of it to reduce risks over the century in addition to cutting emissions? Paul Solman: But as
understand it, once you go down this path, a rich person could send up a
bunch of Lear jets emitting sulfates to bounce the rays back towards the
sun. That could have dramatic consequences one way or the other. David Keith:
So it appears that its cheap enough that, in principle, its within the realm of possibility for the most
wealthy people. But I think thats actually a nonsense scenario. In practice, this
would quickly become an issue of state negotiation and state power, not of
individuals. Paul Solman: What about a rogue individual who domiciles in the Cayman Island or
something like that? David Keith: I think its very implausible that it would be done on
large scale by a single person a Goldfinger. Paul Solman: But might there be a state, China
for example, that comes to the conclusion that this is better than nothing that it ought to do it at least
for a while. David Keith: Thats much more plausible. I think the way this is actually most likely to happen
is that some coalition of states decides that their risk of doing this is small compared to the benefits .
Theyre not doing it as an alternative to cutting emissions, but as a way to
reduce risks to the humans most affected by climate change, especially the
poor, and to ecosystems worldwide. And in that case, if its true that in fact the benefits are
widespread and the risks arent very big, a likely outcome would be that other states loudly say, We
decry this unilateral action. And privately they say, Were really happy somebodys doing it.
Warming 3 - Trees
1NC
The United States federal government should
substantially increase tree planting.
Planting trees solves warming
Nadler 04 (Arnold, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught
at universities, consulted/written on energy, environment, economics and
technologies, May 2004, Carbon Sequestration: Can It Help Beat Back
Global Climate Change?,
http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?
ItemNumber=2104)
Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be
removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life.
However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase,
there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that
shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing
a growing tree removes CO2 from the
CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the oceans. If
atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant,
should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions
of trees and a coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy
question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon
in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these
processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and
cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the U nited States, it is
estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon
annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions . Analyzing NASA
satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the
United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of
carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon
emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size
of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nations carbon absorption rates and
therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our
terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted,
this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by
the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United
States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of
CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry estimates that building cleaner
power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided . AEP estimates that
growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered. Assuming that
eventually the United States would adopt a carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid-1990s
several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did
the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is
cheap. It was assumed that carbon credits would apply globally.
2NC - Solvency
CP is sufficient and exclusive new trees are needed
to fight off warming
The Guardian 12 (To what extent could planting trees help solve
climate change?, November 29,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/29/planting-trees-
climate-change)
Forests play an important an important role in climate change. The
destruction and degradation of forests contributes to the problem through
the release of CO2. But the planting of new forests can help mitigate against
climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Combined with the
sun's energy, the captured carbon is converted into trunks, branches, roots
and leaves via the process of photosynthesis. It is stored in this "biomass"
until being returned back into the atmosphere, whether through natural
processes or human interference, thus completing the carbon cycle. Tree
planting and plantation forestry are well established both in the private and
public sectors. The most recent data released by the UN's Food and
Agriculture Organisation suggest that plantation forests comprised an
estimated 7% of global forest area in 2010. Most of these forests were
established in areas that were previously not under forest cover, at least in
recent years. Trees are also planted as part of efforts to restore natural
forests as well as in agroforestry, which involves increasing tree cover on
agricultural land and pastures. Under certain conditions plantations can
grow relatively fast, thus absorbing CO2 at higher rates than natural forests.
In the absence of major disturbances, newly planted or regenerating forests
can continue to absorb carbon for 2050 years or more. In comparison to
preventing the loss of natural forests, however, tree planting has the
potential to make only a limited contribution to reducing CO2 levels in the
atmosphere. In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for aspecial
report which concluded that tree-planting could sequester (remove from the
atmosphere) around 1.11.6 GT of CO2 per year. That compares to total
global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004. Unlike
measures to reduce deforestation, tree planting and reforestation were
included as activities eligible for finance under the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto's
rules and procedures, however, restricted the scale and scope of these
activities. As a result, projects have struggled to get off the ground and the
carbon sequestered has been almost negligible. Outside of Kyoto, some tree-
planting projects established to absorb CO2 have turned out to be nonviable
due to the cost of acquiring inputs or protecting young trees from fire,
drought, pests or diseases. The cost of land is another barrier to widespread
tree-planting, especially where there is competition with other land uses
such as food or biofuel production.
Warming 4 Carbon Tax
1NC
implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Revenue neutral carbon tax solves emissions
CTC NO DATE (Carbon Tax Center, No tax increase? How?, accessed
7/25/16, http://www.carbontax.org/no-tax-increase-how/)
A revenue-neutral carbon tax preserves the taxs price-incentive to reduce
emissions but avoids the income effects that might drag down economic
activity. Revenue-neutral means that government retains little if any of the
tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions. The vast majority of the
revenues are returned to the public; with, perhaps, small amounts utilized to
assist communities dependent on fossil-fuel extraction and processing to
adapt and convert to low- or non-carbon economies. There are two primary
approaches to returning or recycling the tax revenues. One approach
returns revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) dividends to all
U.S. households or residents. Every resident or household receives an equal,
identical slice of the total carbon revenue pie. In this approach, which
adherents at Citizens Climate Lobby call fee-and-dividend, each individuals
carbon tax is proportional to his or her fossil fuel use, creating an incentive
to reduce; but everyones dividend is equal and independent of his or her
usage, preserving the conservation incentive. Alaskas dividend program has
provided residents with annual allotments from the states North Slope oil
royalties for three-and-a-half decades. In the other revenue return method,
each dollar of carbon tax revenue triggers a dollars worth of reduction in
existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or corporate income tax or,
on the state level, sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with
the tax rates rising steadily but not too steeply, to allow a smooth
transition), existing taxes are phased out. While this tax-shift is less direct
than the dividend method, it too ensures that the carbon tax is revenue-
neutral. It offers other important benefits, as well; for example, reducing
payroll taxes could stimulate employment. To repeat: each individuals
receipt of dividends or tax-shifts is independent of the carbon taxes he or
she pays. That is, no persons benefits are tied to his or her energy
consumption and carbon tax bill. This separation of benefits from
payments preserves the carbon taxs incentive to reduce use of fossil fuels
and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. (Of course, it would be
extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individuals full carbon tax bill
since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the
costs of various goods and services.) Revenue-neutrality not only protects
the poor (see next section), its also politically savvy since it offers a way to
blunt the No New Taxes demand that has held sway in American politics
for decades. Returning the carbon tax revenues to the public would also
make it easier to raise the tax level over time, a point made nicely by McGill
University professor Christopher Ragan in a 2008 Montreal Gazette op-ed,
and subsequently borne out by the experience in British Columbia where a
revenue-neutral carbon tax was ramped up in four annual increments; that
tax remains politically popular and is driving down emissions.
2NC - Solvency
Carbon tax solves warming
Bauman & Hsu 12 (Yoram and Shi-Ling, Yoram Bauman has his PhD in
economy and is an environmental economist at the University of
Washington, Professor Shi-Ling Hsu is an expert in the areas of
environmental and natural resource law, climate change, law and economics,
and property, July 4, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-
tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=2)
ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British
Columbias carbon tax a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels
burned in the province increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of
carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not
only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British
Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and
businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its
corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is
among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes
for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in
Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural
households. The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in
British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting
for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not
become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive
disadvantage. The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a
similar revenue-neutral tax swap. Its an opportunity to reduce existing
taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy
security. Lets start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some
of our current taxes on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on
workers is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things,
like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political
spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to
Peter Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz on the left. Thats because economists
know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our
current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy
away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.
Of course, carbon taxes also lower carbon emissions. Economic theory
suggests that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions more affordably
and more effectively than any other measure. This conclusion is supported
by empirical evidence from previous market-based policies, like those in the
1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that targeted sulfur dioxide
emissions. British Columbias carbon tax is only four years old, but
preliminary data show that greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5 percent
even as population and gross domestic product have been growing. Sales of
motor gasoline have fallen by 2 percent since 2007, compared with a 5
percent increase for Canada as a whole. What would a British Columbia-
style carbon tax look like in the United States? According to our
calculations, a British Columbia-style $30 carbon tax would generate about
$145 billion a year in the United States. That could be used to reduce
individual and corporate income taxes by 10 percent, and afterward there
would still be $35 billion left over. If recent budget deals are any guide,
Congress might choose to set aside half of that remainder to reduce estate
taxes (to please Republicans) and the other half to offset the impacts of
higher fuel and electricity prices resulting from the carbon tax on low-
income households through refundable tax credits or a targeted reduction in
payroll taxes (to please Democrats). Revenue from a carbon tax would most
likely decline over time as Americans reduce their carbon emissions, but for
many years to come it could pay for big reductions in existing taxes. It would
also promote energy conservation and steer investment into clean
technology and other productive economic activities. Lastly, the carbon tax
would actually give Americans more control over how much they pay in
taxes. Households and businesses could reduce their carbon tax payments
simply by reducing their use of fossil fuels. Americans would trim their
carbon footprints and their tax burdens by investing in energy
efficiency at home and at work, switching to less-polluting vehicles and
pursuing countless other innovations. All of this would be driven not by
government mandates but by Adam Smiths invisible hand. A carbon tax
makes sense whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, aclimate change
skeptic or a believer, a conservative or a conservationist (or both). We can
move past the partisan fireworks over global warming by turning British
Columbias carbon tax into a made-in-America solution.
Aff
Economy DA
Carbon tax wrecks the economy
Kreutzer 14 (David W., PhD in economy and a senior research fellow at
The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, David Kreutzer
researches and writes about how energy and global warming legislation
would affect the economy, September 16,
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-
taxes-on-the-us-economy)
Hydrocarbon fuels provide 85 percent of energy in the U.S. So, a tax on
carbon-dioxide will drive up energy costs. These higher energy costs work
their way through the economy raising costs of production, reducing income
and reducing employment. Analyses by both The Heritage Foundation and
the Energy Information Administration project impacts of carbon taxes that
show employment losses exceeding 1,000,000 jobs and income losses (GDP)
exceeding a trillion dollars by 2030. Taxes have two general categories of
costs. The first is the tax revenue, called the direct burden in economic
jargon. The second is the cost imposed by the taxs price distortions, called
the excess burden in economic jargon. A simple (if extreme) example will
illustrate these different impacts. Suppose there is a $3,000,000 per gallon
tax imposed on dairy products and with this tax in place a single gallon of
ice cream is purchased each year. The tax revenue (direct burden) is
$3,000,000. The excess burden is the value lost by destroying the dairy
industryfarmers, processors, vendors, etc.minus any gains by those who
produce and sell whatever substitutes replace a portion of the lost dairy
products. In addition the excess burden would include the lost value to
consumers who give up ice cream, milk, cheese, etc. for less appealing
alternatives. The economic impacts outline above (and discussed further
below) include only the excess burden. At least in the Heritage analysis, the
tax revenue is rebated immediately and directly to taxpayers. What remains
is the damage done to the economy. Boxer-Sanders Carbon Tax In 2013
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a carbon
tax in their Climate Security Act of 2013.[1] The tax started at $20 per
metric ton and would rise by 5.6 percent per year, reaching $50 per metric
ton by 2030 (the endpoint for the Heritage analysis). Using the Heritage
Energy Model (HEM), a derivative of the Energy Information
Administrations National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), Heritage
projected what the economic impacts would have been had the bill become
law.[2] The impacts would have included (dollar values are adjusted for
inflation): GDP loss of $146 billion in 2030 A family of four losing more than
$1,000 of income per year, Over 400,000 lost jobs by 2016, Coal production
dropping by 60 percent and coal employment dropping by more than 40
percent by 2030, Gasoline prices rising $0.20 by 2016 and $0.30 before
2030, and Electricity prices rising 20 percent by 2017 and more than 30
percent by 2030. Though renewable energy grew compared to baseline
levels, it wasnt enough to make up for the lost hydrocarbon energy. In
addition it is certain that businesses and households economized on energy
use both by doing without and by employing more energy efficient
technologies. These responses would stimulate employment in certain
sectors, but the net effect is an overall loss in employment. The projected
employment loss for 2016 was 400,000 jobs. Of course the energy-
dependent sectors would suffer relatively larger job losses. Chart 1 from the
Heritage analysis shows job losses as a percent of baseline employment. In
early 2013, a Heritage paper looked at the economic impacts of a carbon tax
that was included as a side case in the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2012.[3]
That analysis noted the following impacts of a $25 per ton tax on carbon
dioxide: Cut the income of a family of four by $1,900 per year in 2016 and
lead to average losses of $1,400 per year through 2035; Raise the family-of-
four energy bill by more than $500 per year (not counting the cost of
gasoline); Cause gasoline prices to increase by up to $0.50 gallon, or by 10
percent on an average gallon price; and Lead to an aggregate loss of more
than 1 million jobs by 2016 alone. Again, it should be noted that the NEMS
and the HEM both include the changes in behavior and investment in
energy-saving technology that firms and households will undertake to adjust
to higher prices. So, the projected income and job losses are over and above
any offsetting gains found in industries and services that provide low-carbon
and no-carbon alternatives. The Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (the most
current edition) also has a $25 per ton carbon-tax side case.[4] Again the
GDP losses are significant, exceeding $150 billion for many years, and the
jobs losses are severe, with employment in some years falling below the no-
carbon-tax reference case by more than one million jobs. So, carbon taxes
will drive up energy costs, reduce employment, and cut income.
Wont Solve
Carbon tax insufficient to solve warming
Plumer 12 (Brad, a senior editor at Vox.com, where he oversees the site's
science, energy, and environmental coverage. He was previously a reporter
at the Washington Post covering climate and energy policy, November 20,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/20/would-a-
carbon-tax-reduce-emissions-sharply-not-on-its-own/)
Lately, the White House and Congress have been talking up tax reform. And that's given policy wonks an
excuse to revisit one of their favorite environmental proposals the carbon tax. The government would
slap a fee on greenhouse-gas emissions to offset tax cuts elsewhere. It would boost the economy and
address global warming. What's not to love? Nothing to see here, just a good old-fashioned all-American
carbon tax. (Ben Margot/Associated Press) Well, set aside the fact that there aren't yet any prominent
politicians touting the idea. It's still worth discussing on its merits. And one of the biggest questions here
is whether a carbon tax would actually reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions significantly. Is it a
comprehensive solution to climate change? Or just a small first step? Many economists would argue that
it could indeed be a comprehensive solution on its own. If you tax oil, coal, and natural gas and make
them all more expensive, then people and companies will either use fewer fossil fuels or they'll seek out
alternatives. Markets will adjust to the change in price. That's the standard theory: If you price the
Over at the
carbon externalities correctly, markets will adjust. But not everyone's convinced.
Brookings Institution, Mark Muro recently argued that a carbon tax, by itself,
might not be enough to make a significant dent in U.S. global-warming
emissions. Sure, in the near term people would cut back on fossil fuel use and companies would find
innovative ways to reduce emissions. This is what appears to be happening in British Columbia, which
modern economies are so heavily
levied a carbon fee in 2008. That's a start. But
dependent on fossil fuels that there's only so much we can reasonably cut
back. Alternatives aren't readily available yet. One way to see this, Muro says, is to ask
carbon tax advocates what they think will happen. Sebastian Rausch and John M. Reilly of the MIT Global
Change Institute recently put forward a proposal for a $20/ton carbon tax that would rise 4 percent each
year, starting in 2013. (The funds would be used to offset taxes elsewhere.) Here's what their economic
model predicts would happen to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions: Blue line: MIT reference case with no
With a
carbon tax. Black line: EIA reference. Green line: Scenario with MIT carbon tax in place.
carbon tax in place, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions do start declining quite a
bit (this is the green line). But by 2030, emission levels stall, even though the
carbon tax keeps rising and rising each year. The United States wouldn't get
anywhere near the 80 percent cut by 2050 that the White House has
envisioned. One explanation here is that MIT's proposed carbon tax just isn't high enough. But Muro
favors another possibility--that a carbon tax alone isn't enough to drive deep
reductions. The private sector tends to under-invest in energy R&D and key bits of infrastructure
such as transmission lines. Without further policies, it's unlikely that we'll see a
sweeping transformation of our energy system to give people alternatives to
coal plants and gasoline-powered cars. That's why Muro argues that a portion of the
revenue raised by a carbon tax should be used to fund public clean-energy R&D. The country won't
wean itself off oil solely because carbon gets taxed . We'll also need public-transit
alternatives, or electric-vehicle infrastructure, or futuristic new hydrogen cars. And in many cases, he
notes, the government may have to help bankroll this infrastructure. Indeed, Muro writes, there's a
growing body of economic research suggesting that a price on carbon can only be fully effective at
tackling global warming if it's paired with increased public funding for energy research and technology:
is necessary but far from
[Frank] Ackerman argued a few years ago that getting the price right
sufficient to mitigate climate change and that direct public sector initiatives are required to
disrupt path-dependencies and accelerate learning. .... Turning to empirical evidence, Calel
under the EU emissions trading
and Dechezleprtre looked at company patenting patterns
system (a cap-and-trade pricing scheme) and concluded that the system has had very
little impact on low-carbon technology change. And then, earlier this year, a Swiss-
German team found that the EU system has stimulated only limited adoption of low-emissions technology
and that research, development, and deployment (RD&D) technology push measures induced more
action. This seems to be a slowly congealing conventional wisdom among those urging forceful action on
climate change. Here's how Grist's David Roberts puts it: "In short, the tax side is not enough. Effective
climate policy also requires spending." Wonkbook newsletter Your daily policy cheat sheet from
Making a carbon-tax
Wonkblog. Sign up Of course, there's a downside to this strategy too, too.
proposal more complicated could also make it more politically contentious.
Right now, the few conservatives who actually support a carbon tax , such as former
Rep. Bob Inglis or economist Greg Mankiw, are mainly in favor of a carbon fee that's
used to help cut other taxes in a revenue-neutral manner . And even that isn't a
terribly popular view among Republicans in Congress. It could prove an even tougher slog to get them on
board with diverting a portion of carbon-tax revenue for R&D and infrastructure spending.
Warming 5 - Ocean
Fertilization
1NC
use iron dumping to fertilize the ocean.
Iron dumping allows the ocean to soak in more carbon

dioxide, setting warming back 10 years
Horton 08 (Jennifer, March 31, Jennifer Horton graduated from Emory
University, where she earned a B.S. in environmental studies, How can
adding iron to the oceans slow global warming?,
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-
slow-global-warming.htm)EC
Global warming has become one of the leading issues of the 21st century. As
scientists predict more ominous scenarios, like Florida being underwater
within decades, people are demanding action. Enter forward-thinking
scientists and companies like Planktos and Climos, who propose adding iron
to the world's oceans to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and, in
turn, to decrease temperatures. The idea of dumping iron in the oceans to
lower temperatures has been around since the late 1980s and has been
known variously as carbon sinking, ocean seeding or iron fertilization. How
Ozone Pollution Works The premise is actually simple. Iron acts as a
fertilizer for many plants, and some, like the phytoplankton that form the
base of the marine food web, need it to grow. Adding iron to the water
stimulates phytoplankton growth, which in turn gobble up carbon dioxide
through photosynthesis. The resulting decrease in carbon dioxide is
supposed to help reduce temperatures since carbon dioxide is one of the
main gases responsible for trapping heat on the earth's surface through the
greenhouse effect. Numerous iron dumping trials have been conducted since
oceanographer John Martin suggested the idea more than 15 years ago
[source: Haiken]. One trial conducted in 2004 indicated that each atom of
iron added to the water could draw between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of
carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton growth [source:
Schiermeier]. Some scientists theorize that adding iron to the Southern
Ocean alone could reduce carbon dioxide levels by 15 percent [source:
Schiermeier]. Scientist Oliver Wingenter suggests a more cautious
approach, arguing that adding massive amounts of iron to the ocean could
cause a major cooling of more than 10 degrees Celsius [source: Wingenter].
He recommends fertilizing just 2 percent of the Southern Ocean to cause a 2
degree Celsius cooling and to set back the tipping point of global warming
10 or more years [source: Wingenter]. Instead of focusing on cutting carbon
dioxide levels, Wingenter's research concentrated on increasing other gases
that result from the phytoplankton blooms, namely dimethyl sulfide, or DMS.
DMS is largely responsible for cloud formation in the polar region and could
increase cloud reflectivity, which would in turn reduce temperatures. During
his iron fertilization experiments, Wingenter found that adding iron
increased the concentration of DMS five-fold [source: Wingenter].
2NC - Solvency
Ocean is a carbon sink
Moore 12(Nigel, Governance Project Manager at the Oxford
Geoengineering Programme, February 6, Much to learn about ocean
fertilization, Oxford Martin School,
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/138)
The oceans store a huge amount of carbon compared with the Earths
atmosphere. This fact has led some scientists and institutions to ask the
question of whether human intervention might be used to cause an increase
in oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon whereby a small relative increase
in carbon stored in the oceans would have a significant impact on CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere. Following the recent Ocean Fertilization
seminar, Nigel Moore from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme explains.
One ocean fertilization method is known as the biological pump
essentially adding nutrients (such as iron) in areas of the ocean where they
are limited, in order to cause more plankton blooms. When plankton grow
they require carbon, which they get from the atmosphere, and thus it is
posited that increasing the amount of oceanic plankton blooms would cause
more carbon to be pulled out of the atmosphere andpotentiallybe
sequestered for a long period of time in the ocean once the plankton die.
Aff
Ocean fertilization alone cannot solve global warming
Oskin 14 (Becky, a master's in geology from Caltech and graduated from
the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa
Cruz, March 21, Iron Fertilization Might Be Ineffective Against Global
Warming, Fossil Study Shows,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/iron-fertilization-global-warming-
fossils_n_5006300.html)
During Earths last ice age, iron dust dumped into the ocean fertilized the
garden of the sea, feeding a plankton bloom that soaked up carbon dioxide
from the air, a new study confirms. But the results deal a blow to some
geoengineering schemes that claim that people may be able use iron
fertilization to slow global warming. The planets natural experiment shows
it would take at least a thousand years to lower carbon dioxide levels by 40
parts per million the amount of the drop during the ice age. Meanwhile,
carbon dioxide is now increasing by 2 parts per million yearly, so in about 20
years human emissions could add another 40 parts per million of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere. Levels currently hover around 400 parts per
million. Even if we could reproduce what works in the natural world, its
not going to solve the carbon dioxide problem, said Alfredo Martnez-
Garca, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and author of the
study, published today (March 20) in the journal Science. Iron and ice: The
idea of fertilizing the ocean with iron to combat rising carbon-dioxide levels
has intrigued scientists for more than 20 years, since the late researcher
John Martin observed that the ice-age drop in carbon dioxide (noted in ice
cores) synced with a surge in iron-rich dust. The link between more iron in
the ocean and less carbon dioxide in the air lies in the tiny ocean-dwelling
plants called phytoplankton. For them, iron is an essential nutrient. In some
regions, such as the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, the water
lacks iron but has plenty of the other nutrients that phytoplankton need to
grow. Sprinkling a little iron dust in that region could boost plankton
numbers considerably, the theory goes. When climate changes during the ice
age boosted the amount of iron-rich dust blowing into the Southern Ocean,
the phytoplankton there grew and spread, gobbling up more carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere in the process, Martin said. The model, called the iron
fertilization hypothesis, has been borne out by modern tests. Seeding small
areas of the oceans does, indeed, cause big phytoplankton growth spurts. In
the new study, Martnez-Garca and his co-authors examined seafloor
sediments from the Subantarctic Zone of the Southern Ocean, southwest of
Africa. When the last ice age peaked between 26,500 and 19,000 years ago,
dust blowing off of Patagonia and the southern part of South America settled
there, the drill core shows. To gauge the changes in seawater composition at
the time, the researchers examined the fossilized shells of microscopic
marine animals called foraminifera, which eat plankton and preserve the
local ocean chemistry in their shells. During the ice age, nitrogen levels
dropped when iron-rich dust increased at the drill core site, Martnez-Garca
discovered. It is particularly gratifying to see such persuasive evidence for
the iron hypothesis now appear in the sediment record, said Kenneth Coale,
director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in Moss Landing, Calif.,
who was not involved in the study. In previous research, Coale and
colleagues looked at the effect of iron enrichment in these waters for over
40 days. The new study shows the effects of iron enrichment for over
40,000 years, providing a historical validation of the iron hypothesis, Coale
said. Too big to succeed? The dust level in the drill core suggests that about
four to fives times more sediment fell across the Southern Ocean between
South America and Africa during the ice age than the amount that falls there
today, Martnez-Garca said. The magnitude of the area we are talking
about is equivalent to three times the areas of the entire United States, and
is maintained for several thousand years, he told Live Science. This helps
put into perspective what we can do in terms of the modern ocean. The new
study supported the argument that the amount of iron needed for
geoengineering is untenable in the long term, said Gabriel Filippelli, a
biogeochemist at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis. It is
difficult to imagine even a decade-long international effort of iron
fertilization, sustained by continual ship runs dumping iron in a weather-
hostile and isolated region of the world, let alone an effort that lasts a
millennium, Filippelli said. But Filippelli also said he thinks the ice-age iron
story is more complicated than just dust blowing in the wind. The authors
note only one source of iron from above, he said. There is also evidence
that the oceans were richer in iron because of more river input during the
ice ages, he said. Thus, the ice-age ocean had extra iron from above and
from below.
Warming 6 - Peridotite
1NC
Text: The USFG should use peridotite to reduce global
warming
Peridotite solves global warming

Andrews 10(Candice, Apr 19th, author, writer, and editor specializing in
nature and travel, Rocking the Cure for Climate Change,
http://goodnature.nathab.com/rocking-the-cure-for-climate-change)
Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earths mantle, the layer
just below the crust. Every continent, except perhaps Antarctica, contains
substantial amounts of it. And in some places on our planet, such as in the
nation of Oman, it lies right on the surface. What makes peridotite so special
is that it could cure global warming. Sucking Up CO2. During fieldwork in
Omans desert, two scientists from Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in New York (geologist Professor Peter Kelemen and
geochemist Dr. Juerg Matter) found that exposed peridotite reacts with the
global-warming carbon dioxide in the air, absorbing up to 100,000 tons of
the greenhouse gas each year and transforming it into a solid mineral (like
limestone or marble). They estimate that the exposed peridotite in Oman
alone could sequester four billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a
year or one-seventh of the 30 billion tons the world emits annually.
Furthermore, Kelemen and Matter say that simple and relatively inexpensive
drilling into the peridotite deposits and then injecting them with heated
water enriched with pressurized CO2 captured from power plants could
speed up the process of locking the carbon dioxide in the rocks by 100,000
times or more. Once set in motion, the carbon-capturing process would start
building upon itself. The reaction would naturally generate heat, in turn that
heat would hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock. The newly
fractured rocks would then be exposed to reactions with still more CO2-rich
solution. Since the farther down you drill, the higher the temperature gets,
heat generated by the Earth itself also would help. Kelemen and Matter
propose that such a chain of events would need little energy input to sustain
itself after it was first jump-started.
2NC - Solvency
Peridotite is abundant and effective
Krajick 08 (Kevin, quoting Peter Kelemen and Juerg Matter, Kelemen is a
geologist and Matter is a geochemist at Columbia Universitys Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory, November 5, Rocks Could Be Harnessed To
Sponge Vast Amounts Of Carbon Dioxide From Air,
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/rocks-could-be-harnessed-to-
sponge-vast-amounts-of-carbon-dioxide-from-air)
a type of rock found at or near the surface in the Mideast nation of Oman
Scientists say that
and other areas around the worldcould be harnessed to soak up huge quantities of
globe-warming carbon dioxide. Their studies show that the rock, known as peridotite,
reacts naturally at surprisingly high rates with CO2 to form solid mineralsand that the
process could be speeded a million times or more with simple drilling and
injection methods. The study appears in this weeks early edition of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. Peridotite comprises most or all of the rock in the
mantle, which undergirds earths crust. It starts some 20 kilometers or more down, but
occasionally pieces are exhumed when tectonic plates collide and push the mantle rock to the
surface, as in Oman. Geologists already knew that once exposed to air, the rock can react
quickly with CO2, forming a solid carbonate like limestone or marble. However, schemes to
transport it to power plants, grind it and combine it with smokestack gases have been seen as too costly
researchers say that the discovery of previously unknown high rates of
and energy intensive. The
reaction underground means CO2 could be sent there artificially, at far less expense.
This method would afford a low-cost, safe and permanent method to
capture and store atmospheric CO2, said the lead author, geologist Peter
Kelemen. Kelemen and geochemist Juerg Matter, both at Columbia Universitys Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory, made the discovery during field work in the Omani desert, where
they have worked for years. Their study area, a Massachusetts-size expanse of largely bare, exposed
peridotite, is crisscrossed on the surface with terraces, veins and other formations of whitish carbonate
minerals, formed rapidly in recent times when minerals in the rock reacted with CO2-laden air or water.
Up to 10 times more carbonates lie in veins belowground; but the subterranean veins were previously
thought to be formed by processes unconnected to the atmosphere, and to be nearly as old as the 96-
million-year-old rock itself. However, using conventional carbon isotope dating, Kelemen and Matter
showed that the underground veins are also quite young 26,000 years on averageand are still actively
forming as CO2-rich groundwater percolates downward. Many underground samples were conveniently
Kelemen and Matter estimate that the
exposed in newly constructed road cuts. All told,
Omani peridotite is naturally absorbing 10,000 to 100,000 tons of carbon a
year--far more than anyone had thought . Similarly large exposures of
peridotite are known on the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea and
Caledonia, and along the coasts of Greece and the former Yugoslavia;
smaller deposits occur in the western United States and many other places .
The scientists say that the process of locking up carbon in the rocks could be
speeded 100,000 times or more simply by boring down and injecting heated water containing
pressurized CO2. Once jump-started in this way, the reaction would naturally generate
heatand that heat would in turn hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock,
exposing it to reaction with still more CO2-rich solution. Heat generated by the earth
itself also would help, since the further down you go, the higher the temperature. (The exposed Omani
peridotite extends down some 5 kilometers.) The scientists say that such a chain reaction would need
little energy input after it was started. Accounting for engineering challenges and other imperfections,
Oman alone could probably absorb some 4 billion tons of
they assert that
atmospheric carbon a yeara substantial part of the 30 billion sent into the
atmosphere by humans, mainly through burning of fuels. With large amounts of new solids
forming underground, cracking and expansion would generate micro-earthquakes.
Aff
No Solvency
More research needed before peridotite can be used
on a commercial scale
Gardner 08 (Timothy, Scientists Say Peridotite Rock Can Soak Up CO2),
Reuters, November 10, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-rocks-
idUSTRE4A59IB20081110)
The scientists, who are both at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory in New York, say they could kick-start peridotite's carbon
storage process by boring down and injecting it with heated water
containing pressurized carbon dioxide. They have a preliminary patent filing
for the technique.
They say 4 billion to 5 billion tons a year of the gas could be stored near
Oman by using peridotite in parallel with another emerging technique
developed by Columbia's Klaus Lackner that uses synthetic "trees" which
suck carbon dioxide out of the air.
More research needs to be done before either technology could be used on a
commercial scale.

Advantage CPs - Michigan7 2016

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Advantage CPs - Michigan7 2016

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Advantage CPs 7-wk Juniors

Washington should also undertake a new campaign to transform the

Community of Democracies should be a high honor and privilege. Only

Economic sanctions will deter foreign companies from

Recommendation: Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the

Protected IP spurs innovation and economic growth

Innovation drives economic growth and job creation. Protection of

Encourage adherence to best-in-class vulnerability-mitigation measures by

Economic sanctions will deter foreign companies from

Recommendation: Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the

Innovation drives global economic growth IP theft

On an unprecedented level, a critical driver of this worldwide economic

IP theft is costing the US as much as $300 billion a year, a government report

compromise . SEC Commissioners decided this month not to suspend the

Financial fraud collapses the economy legal enforcement is

communications of the firms and agencies in question can clear it up.

Strict SEC regulation on Chinese business is needed to

Infrastructure investment on the state and local level

Infrastructure investment significantly improves

Recent research has found that infrastructure investments generally result

Funneling billions into state transportation

Nowhere is the government spending stimulus myth more widespread than

Accurate intelligence that is conducive to PGS strikes within a one-hour time

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ripped legislative provisions recently

NDAA proposals undermine 2017 war spending

WASHINGTON Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is waiting to see whether

Republicans hate any arms restrictions CP reverses

Obama has appeared determined to reduce the

conventional weaponry in US national security thinking as well as practice ,

Strategic stability is also threatened by the ambiguity over whether an

A third dimension to CPGS risk is its essential dependence on intelligence

stability may also be adversely affected due to the unintended

designed to increase funding for trade finance in developing countries and

international financial institutions to consider the interests of the emerging

G-20 countries lack growth themselves cant be a

leadership is more easily achieved from a position of real

The more the United States is

sufficient resources for the State Department to appoint a full ambassador to

freedom should create a global freedom coalition, a flexible platform that

CP boosts U.S. soft power

since early 2015 created a drought in swathes of Africa

is another reminder of the need for reforms that strengthen

at least fourteen African countries

have regions experiencing crisis or emergency levels of food scarcity,

The effects are already being felt

more than 19 million people in East Africa need critical or emergency

Households have resorted to selling off

their livestockakin in developed countries to emptying ones bank account

Worse Yet to Come There is little relief in sight as

Droughts have knock-on effects beyond the

Many of the affected countries

are being overwhelmed by the scale of the problem The

international community is ramping up relief efforts, but as of April 2016,

Just as in Pakistan after devastating floods and earthquakes, Thailand after

U.S. humanitarian assistance helped build trust with

help to desperate people, and improves their image of America.

Disaster relief is crucial to affirm soft power

As natural disasters and complex humanitarian emergencies are becoming

Washington (CNN) The Obama administration is sending disaster response teams

The reality is that much government backed humanitarian work is politicized

compelling evidence that the coalitions airstrikes have killed hundreds of

documented included attacks on camps for internally displaced persons and

US double standard undermines soft power and