Contention One is Inherency

Current U.S. China cooperation in Africa fails due to competition and diverging
interests

Sun April 06, 2015

Yun Sun, Nonresident Fellow of Global Economy and Development, Africa Growth Initiative, The
Limits of U.S.-China Cooperation in Africa, Brookings, April 6, 2015
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2015/04/06/the-limits-of-u-s-china-cooperation-in-
africa/>

Nevertheless, while scholars and media reports on both sides have produced numerous papers and
analysis on what the U.S. and China could or should do to cooperate in Africa (as listed above),
concrete cooperation that the two countries are in fact pursuing or planning to pursue is yet to develop
quickly.
The fundamental cause of inadequate U.S.-China cooperation in Africa is an underlying sense of zero-
sum competition between the two powers on the continent. Essentially, the U.S. and China are yet to see
each other as genuine cooperation partners or friendly forces on many important issues due to their
diverging perceptions and national interests. On the U.S. side, a 2014 RAND study accurately captures
the current U.S. perspective and reflects the U.S.s concern around Chinas expanding influence in Africa
and about the U.S. losing in the Africa game. After listing details of Chinas expanding engagements in
the continent and how they undermine U.S. influence, the report recommends that the U.S. counter
Chinese efforts such as the Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) by cultivating relations with a
wider range of African countries. Following the same line of thought, President Obama took a swipe at
China during the 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit by differentiating the U.S. approach from those that
look to Africa simply for its natural resources and simply want to extract minerals from the ground
Although the president did not mention China by name, the comments were clearly aimed at Beijing.
Such a competitive theme is also popular in China. As summarized by a 2013 report by the China
Academy of Social Sciences, the strengthening of the Wests influence in Africa means that China will
face more difficulties in achieving its strategic interests in Africa The Wests current campaign to
deepen their influence presents more strategic competition to China China should focus more on a
competitive strategy in Africa. Chinese analysts are keen to study how the U.S.s Africa strategies might
affect or undermine Chinese political and commercial interests on the ground. Some have suspected that
the American interventions in Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, and Libya were indeed targeted at undercutting
Chinese economic interests in those countries. To counter American criticism of Chinas resource-centric
economic engagement, China has also grown increasingly adept at attributing such disapproval to
Americans sore loser mentality.
Other than the strong sense of competition, another key factor that hinders U.S.-China cooperation in
Africa is the different approaches and standards the two countries have adopted on issues such as foreign
aid and development assistance. While China does not allow political issues such as democratic or
authoritarian systems to interfere with its pragmatic ties with African countries, the U.S. has strong value-
oriented policies that prevent Washington from engaging regimes with poor human rights records. On the
technical level, China views development and foreign aid as practical policy instruments to promote
political friendship and economic cooperation, while the U.S. attaches clearly stated goals, stringent
conditions, and strict criteria to its development programs. In reality, these vast differences significantly
limit the potential for U.S.-China cooperation.

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its diplomatic
engagement with the Peoples Republic of China by cooperating with China through a joint
committee that uses a synergistic approach to development in Africa

Contention Two is Africa

Advantage One is Regional Instability
A. Conflict in South Sudan continues and pushes it on the brink of collapse
Ajak et. al November 29, 2016
Peter Biar Ajak, senior advisor at the International Growth Center in South Sudan; Kuoth Wiel, South
Sudanese gender and women rights activist, and founder of Nyaeden Foundation; Geoffrey Duke, activist
and researcher with the South Sudan Action Network on Small Arms; Nyamal Tudeal, community activist
and executive director of Nyaeden Foundation; Save South Sudan from destroying itself: Urgent action
is needed by the UN and the international community to stop the violence in South Sudan., Al Jazeera,
November 29, 2016, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/save-south-sudan-destroying-
161129124750028.html
We write this piece with a great sense of urgency. South Sudan sits on the brink of a catastrophic collapse
that may lead to "ethnic cleansing" or even "genocide".
This is the grim warning the United Nations special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng,
gave on November 11 after visiting our country. Since the conflict broke out in December 2013, the South
Sudanese have been living in a nightmare with no apparent exit.
A peace deal, brokered in August 2015 by the International-Governmental Authority on Development
(IGAD), an East African regional security organisation, was short-lived.
In July, less than three months after forming a government of national unity, the leaders of South Sudan
plunged the country back to war. The conflict has led to ethnically targeted mass killings, rapes, torture,
forced displacement, destruction of property and intense suffering. Yet, we fear the worst is yet to come.
In the recent months, extremely disturbing rhetoric has become commonplace. Leaders of South Sudan,
from the various political divides, preach ethnic animosity, revenge and counter-revenge. Radical youth
groups threaten to kill members of other ethnic groups, if they do not leave their regions.
As Dieng reported, atrocities are already taking place. Armed elements on both sides are deliberately
targeting civilians on ethnic grounds, and resorting to torture and rape as instruments of war. Civilians,
including women and children, are being pulled out of buses and cars and killed across the country.
The strategies employed by armed groups on both sides have deeply polarised our people, and are
accelerating South Sudan's descent into total anarchy.
 B. South Sudans collapse could collapse Central Africa and lead to a continental
crisis
Korybko December 7, 2016
Andrew Korybko, political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals, as well
as a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the Peoples
Friendship University of Russia, South Sudans Total Collapse Could Destroy Central And Eastern
Africa, Katehon, December 7, 2016, http://katehon.com/article/south-sudans-total-collapse-could-
destroy-central-and-eastern-africa
Weapons Of Mass Migration
Another dimension of American strategic benefit amidst South Sudans collapse is in the inevitable
unleashing of Weapons of Mass Migration, Harvard researcher Kelly M. Greenhills term to refer to
disruptive cross-border migrant flows that are either initiated or exploited by states for political purposes.
In this case, it would be the US benefiting from overwhelming South Sudanese refugee flows throughout
the region, which could also serve as a convenient cover for insurgent infiltration. Sudan would have to
be on guard to make sure that these refugees/insurgents dont trigger further unrest in Darfur, Abyei,
South Kordofan, and Blue Nile, while Ethiopia would have to watch out and prevent this from happening
in Gambela, Oromia, and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region, all of which are
already fragile and could be thrown into turmoil by a major demographic disruption. Uganda, like it was
already mentioned, is vulnerable in the northern Acholi-inhabited areas for the same reason, as is the
largely under-governed and rebel-infested corner of the northeast Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Before warning about the dramatic scenario that could arise if Weapons of Mass Migration were used
against the Central African Republic, it should be mentioned that Uganda and Ethiopia are both in a
friendly competition for influence in South Sudan, but that this low-key rivalry could be aggravated if
both sides felt compelled to send military forces into the mutually adjacent country and a tense incident
were to unexpectedly arise between them. In fact, the sheer amount of destruction that might be repeated
in South Sudan in the event of a second stage of civil war might be enough to prompt to either of these
two to engage in a unilateral military intervention if a multilateral African Union one isnt forthcoming in
time, not out of humanitarian interests, but in militarily launching an active forward defense that
protects their borders from overwhelming refugee and insurgent inflows. Given that the US is pursuing a
double-sided policy towards Ethiopia in light of Addis Ababas close ties with Beijing, its plausible that
Washington might even cheer if the Ethiopian military was drawn into the conflict zone and became
embattled in a Hobbesian quagmire, which in that case could make South Sudan a Reverse Brzezinski-
like trap for Chinese-ally Ethiopia. The same could even be said for Uganda, which is tilting closer to
China nowadays and already has a history of pro-government intervention in South Sudan.
Central African Collapse
To get back to discussing the final international scenario pertaining to South Sudans possible meltdown,
the Central African Republic is the country most susceptible to being destroyed by Weapons of Mass
Migration simply because of its preexisting state failure and the identity composition of its eastern
regions. South Sudanese refugees and insurgents will more than likely be Christian, but if they spill over
into the eastern Central African Republic, then theyll be a entering Muslim-majority territory that has
recently rebelled against the government. The origins of the Central African Republics conflict are
outside of the scope of this research, but the pertinence in mentioning the war there is to inform the reader
that the underpopulated, Muslim-majority part of the country unilaterally declared its autonomy as the
Republic of Logone in December 2015.
This is also the part of the Central African Republic where the Seleka insurgent coalition arose from in
late-2012 prior to toppling the Chinese-friendly President, so it can be surmised that its also under a
certain degree of American influence. Due to Washingtons militant footprint there (operating under the
cover of trying to catch Joseph Kony), it seems all but certain that the locals could be easily revved up
into partaking in a manufactured clash of civilizations against the Christian newcomers, similar to the
sectarian conflict that theyre engaged in against their western counterparts near the capital. Suffice to
say, the interlinking of the South Sudanese and Central African Republic crises could easily lead to a
black hole of chaos emerging in the African geopolitical Heartland, which in that case would undoubtedly
suck in the neighboring states around it and possibly set the stage for a continental-wide crisis.
Concluding Thoughts
The renewed fighting in South Sudan seems to many observers to just be the latest episode of violence in
the conflict-prone country, albeit one which is assumedly contained within its borders and poses no risk to
the continents overall security. Thats actually a misleading presupposition issued by commentators who
lack knowledge of the situation or any have no insight whatsoever into the regional context. South
Sudan has become a byword for failed state or African basket case, thereby triggering an instant
reaction from feel-good liberal humanitarians who feel obliged to harp on about how tragic the situation
in the country is without explaining how or why its gotten that way.
The truth is that the US- and Israeli-sponsored creation of South Sudan was founded on geopolitical and
energy considerations, and when the plan went wrong and the country almost immediately descended
into tribal warfare, the unipolar forces readapted their strategy and focused on controlling the creative
chaos instead. Since South Sudan no longer realistically seems primed to become a state-supporting Lead
From Behind insurgent hub in the transregional Central African-East African space, the fallback plan is
for it to export its internal destabilization instead through the form of Weapons of Mass Migration and
refugee-masquerading insurgents, thus potentially catalyzing a far-reaching regional geopolitical
transformation.
Its entirely foreseeable that if the South Sudanese violence isnt stopped or contained without its borders,
that its overspill could lead to serious unrest in the neighboring countries, possibly pushing them to the
brink of civil war themselves due to their extremely fragile dispositions. The US grand strategy, if it can
be achieved, is to exploit African tribalism just as it did Mideast sectarianism in order to promote regime
change, secessionism, or Identity Federalism over a wide civilizationally similar and contiguous territory,
thus triggering a domino effect of destabilization that ultimately prolongs Washingtons unipolar moment
by fracturing a regional bloc of states and offsetting related multipolar advances in this geostrategically
significant part of the world.

C. African wars escalate to global power war

Glick December 10, 2007
Caroline Glick, Israeli journalist, newspaper editor, and writer. She writes for Makor Rishon and is the
deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, Our World: Condi's African holiday, Jerusalem Post,
December 10, 2007, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Our-World-Condis-African-holiday
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced a new venue for her superficial and destructive
stewardship of US foreign policy during her lightning visit to the Horn of Africa last Wednesday. The
Horn of Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars, which rage continuously, can
easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the conflicts in this
tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can potentially give rise
to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers. The
Horn of Africa includes the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea,
which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 20-year civil war, is a major source of regional
conflict. Eritrea has a hot border dispute with Ethiopia which could easily ignite. The two countries
fought a bloody border war from 1998-2000 over control of the town of Badme. Although a UN
mandated body determined in 2002 that the disputed town belonged to Eritrea, Ethiopia has rejected the
finding and so the conflict festers. Eritrea also fights a proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia and in
Ethiopia's rebellious Ogaden region. In Somalia, Eritrea is the primary sponsor of the al-Qaida-linked
Islamic Courts Union which took control of Somalia in June, 2006. In November 2006, the ICU
government declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. Backed by the US, Ethiopia invaded to restore the
recognized Transitional Federal Government to power which the ICU had deposed. Although the
Ethiopian army successfully ousted the ICU from power in less than a week, backed by massive military
and financial assistance from Eritrea, as well as Egypt and Libya, the ICU has waged a brutal insurgency
against the TFG and the Ethiopian military for the past year.
THE SENIOR ICU leadership, including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed have
received safe haven in Eritrea. In September, the exiled ICU leadership held a nine-day conference in the
Eritrean capital of Asmara where they formed the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia headed by
Ahmed. Eritrean President-for-life Isaias Afwerki declared his country's support for the insurgents stating,
"The Eritrean people's support to the Somali people is consistent and historical, as well as a legal and
moral obligation." Although touted in the West as a moderate, Ahmed has openly supported jihad and
terrorism against Ethiopia, Kenya and the West. Aweys, for his part, is wanted by the FBI in connection
with his role in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then there is Eritrea's
support for the Ogaden separatists in Ethiopia. The Ogaden rebels are Somali ethnics who live in the
region bordering Somalia and Kenya. The rebellion is run by the Ogaden National Liberation Front
(ONLF) which uses terror and sabotage as its preferred methods of warfare. It targets not only Ethiopian
forces and military installations, but locals who wish to maintain their allegiance to Ethiopia or reach a
negotiated resolution of the conflict. In their most sensationalist attack to date, in April ONLF terror
forces attacked a Chinese-run oil installation in April killing nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians. Ethiopia, for
its part has fought a brutal counter-insurgency to restore its control over the region. Human rights
organizations have accused Ethiopia of massive human rights abuses of civilians in Ogaden.
THEN THERE is Sudan. As Eric Reeves wrote in the Boston Globe on Saturday, "The brutal regime in
Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five
years, and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations." The
Islamist government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is refusing to accept non-African states as members
of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur that is due to replace the undermanned
and demoralized African Union peacekeeping force whose mandate ends on December 31. Without its
UN component of non-African states, the UN Security Council mandated force will be unable to operate
effectively. Khartoum's veto led Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping to warn
last month that the entire peacekeeping mission may have to be aborted. And the Darfur region is not the
only one at risk. Due to Khartoum's refusal to carry out the terms of its 2005 peace treaty with the
Southern Sudanese that ended Khartoum's 20-year war and genocide against the region's Christian and
animist population, the unsteady peace may be undone. Given Khartoum's apparent sprint to victory over
the international community regarding Darfur, there is little reason to doubt that once victory is secured, it
will renew its attacks in the south.
THE CONFLICTS in the Horn of Africa have regional and global dimensions. Regionally, Egypt has
played a central role in sponsoring and fomenting conflicts. Egypt's meddling advances its interest of
preventing the African nations from mounting a unified challenge to Egypt's colonial legacy of
extraordinary rights to the waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region.
Globally, the region is a hotbed of Wahabist activity. Osama bin Laden was based in Khartoum until
1995. The ICU receives support not only from Eritrea, but from the Arab League and the Organization of
the Islamic Conference. So too, international attempts to end the genocide in Darfur have been stymied by
the Arab League and the OIC. One of the main reasons for the recent US decision to establish a military
command in Africa is its strategic importance to the forces of global jihad. The US's largest force in
Africa is located in Djibouti. International efforts to resolve the manifold conflicts in the region have
failed to address the roots of the conflicts and so, even when successful are generally short lived. As the
situation in Southern Sudan and the Eritrean-Ethiopian border show, these agreements only last as long as
neither side believes it can defeat the other. Beyond that, while US and European leaders have spoken
eloquently of the need to end the slaughter in Darfur and help the Somalis establish order, Washington
and Brussels have made clear that they will not take effective action to back up their declarations. Indeed,
even if Khartoum weren't actively working to undermine the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, it is hard to
see the mission actually succeeding. No NATO member will agree to donate helicopters to the
peacekeeping force. Without the helicopters, the peacekeepers will be unable to perform their mission.

Advantage Two is Relations

A. U.S.-China coop over Sudan serves as a test case for future cooperation
Sengupta Mar. 2, 2015
Somini Sengupta, foreign correspondent for the New York Times, For the U.S. and China, a Test of
Diplomacy on South Sudan, The New York Times, March 2, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/africa/for-the-us-and-china-a-test-of-diplomacy-on-south-
sudan.html
So far, neither Washington nor Beijing has advanced a comprehensive strategy to stop the civil war. Both
nations have been hesitant to substantially defang the kingpins of the war, including imposing an arms
embargo or limiting how oil revenues might be used to fund the conflict. Both measures are among the
recommendations of a recent International Crisis Group report on South Sudan.
The ability of the United States and China to work toward a common strategy for peace in South Sudan
is a test case for their ability to work together on the continent and beyond, said Casie Copeland, the
Crisis Groups South Sudan expert. She described both countries as sort of walking in a circle.
That is not for a lack of interest or even because of opposing interests.
Although China and the United States have stubbornly been on opposing sides of the issue of Darfur, the
long-suffering Sudanese region, the two superpowers share a lot of common ground on South Sudan.
China has strong economic stakes in the country; the United States is heavily invested politically. They
both have an interest in restoring stability to the country and avoiding disruptions to its oil flow. Both
capitals have also opted to go slowly.
Obama administration officials have deep emotional ties to South Sudan, and so far they have resisted
taking any steps, like an arms embargo, that would weaken the government in Juba. As the
administrations former South Sudan envoy, Princeton Lyman, put it this week, The position is hardening
in the administration, but it has taken a while.

B. Coop over Sudan can spillover to other issues and prevent a second Cold
War---U.S. and China are both key
Birchmeier December 3, 2010
Joseph F. Birchmeier, Colonel in the US Army, China in Africa: Implications for the United States,
Strategy Research Project for U.S. Army War College, December 3, 2010,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a521360.pdf
Thus, if from a purely economic standpoint, Chinese activity is beneficial to both the U.S. and to China,
and there appears to be no Chinese strategic plan to militarily interfere in Africa, the United States should
look to forge a partnership with China, as it concerns Africa. To do so would pose little to no risk to the
national security of the United States. This partnership should be viewed as a microcosm of the
cooperation that the United States hopes to emulate in its larger dealings with China. As stated earlier, the
U.S. National Security Strategy wants China to act as a responsible stakeholder.73
Spheres of influence have evolved in Africa since China has increased its activity on the continent.
Through the use of the MCC, the United States has gained influence on African states that desire to
achieve good governance or have been willing to improve their governance in order to receive U.S.
assistance. The Chinese have been able to gain influence with the resource rich African states, to include
pariah regimes that do not need U.S. assistance due to their ability to trade with China. Many of these
states that China has gained influence over are states that are beyond the reach of U.S. influence because
of U.S. reluctance to deal with them due to their human rights or poor governance practices. Because
these spheres of influence have developed, there is a requirement for the United States to work with
China in order to achieve common interests across the entire continent. Specifically, these interests are:
regional stability in Africa, African governments that are responsive to their peoples needs, and the
avoidance of a Cold War between China and the United States. Africa offers an excellent opportunity for
the United States to engage with China to meet this desire.
Both China and the United States have much more to lose through direct conflict with each other than
they have to gain. Even if the two sides manage to avoid a shooting war, a cold war with China would
wreak havoc in the United States and throughout the world. The two countries have become economically
dependent on one another.74 As stated earlier, one lesson that China learned as it studied the collapse of
the Soviet Union was that one reason for this collapse was the Soviet Unions Cold War with the United
States. Thus, like the United States, China also has an interest in ensuring that this Cold War does not
develop.

Scenario 1 is War
A. U.S.-China coop key to SCS stability

Yung and Dong July 6, 2016

Christopher Yung, Donald Bren Chair of Non-Western Strategic Thought at the U.S. Marine Corps
University; Wang Dong, Associate Professor in the School of International Studies and Deputy Executive
Director of the Institute for China-U.S. People to People Exchange at Peking University; The United
States and China Can Get along in the South China Sea, War on the Rocks, July 6, 2016,
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/the-united-states-and-china-can-get-along-in-the-south-china-sea/
To many observers, China and the United States appear to be irreconcilably butting heads in the maritime
domain, especially in the South China Sea. This was recently illustrated at the 2016 Shangri-la Dialogue
in Singapore when Chinas representative, Admiral Sun Jianguo, the Deputy Chief of the Joint Staff, and
the U.S. representative, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, provided vastly different portrayals of what
was needed to promote stability and security in the South China Sea. Differences are also likely to surface
in the upcoming weeks as The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration renders its verdict on the case
between China and the Philippines. Despite these recent differences between the two countries, it may
come as a surprise to learn that the maritime arena holds the most promise for China and the United States
to cooperate.
Compared to other strategic domains in which the two major powers interact, such as space and cyber,
both countries are well aware of the specifics of their respective national maritime interests. While this
clarifies areas of agreement and disagreement, the enormous interests involved and the potential for the
two powers to confound one another make the task of arriving at cooperative measures daunting.
China and the United States share interests in the principle of freedom of navigation (FON). Although
they disagree over what FON entails, it offers both sides tangible benefits from maritime-related
economies, good order and stability at sea, and the use of the sea to foster and protect national security
interests. This is not to deny the notable differences in their respective maritime priorities.
For the United States, the entire international trading and economic order is dependent on a secure
maritime domain. Additionally, the ocean serves as both an initial barrier to threats to the homeland and
as a highway for the United States to project power abroad. Finally, because the Washington sees the
prevention of regional hegemons as vital to its own national security interests, the United States is able to
take action to balance that emerging threat or, if necessary, defeat it through a secure maritime domain.
Chinas interests in the maritime domain center on safeguarding national unity and territorial integrity,
defending maritime rights and benefits, and protecting Chinas rapidly expanding overseas interests which
include trade to and from China and access to needed natural resources. During wartime, China also
wants to be able to deny or deter other powers ability to pose either threats within its strategic maritime
zones or layers of Chinese defenses that are defined by the first and second island chains.
Chinese and U.S. perspectives diverge when it comes to how the two countries define their respective
national interests, what they believe to be appropriate means of displaying good and bad intentions, how
the two sides view the sea, and how they interpret international law and the protection of maritime
sovereignty.
China and the United States have fundamentally different philosophies about the nature and meaning of
the sea. Historically for modern China, the sea is first and foremost a means of access by enemies to
threaten and humiliate the country. In contrast, the United States views the sea as a potential barrier to
foreign threats and simultaneously a means for the United States to push out and advance its own
interests.
This explains the tension over U.S. Navy surveillance and reconnaissance operations (SRO). The United
States regards as its right the ability to fly surveillance aircraft or sail surveillance ships within Chinas
exclusive economic zone but outside Chinas territorial waters and contiguous zone. China, however, sees
U.S. SROs as an affront to Chinese sovereignty, intrusive in nature, and potentially threatening to Chinas
security.
Complicating this divergence of interests and perspectives is the security dilemma involved when a
hegemon is confronted by a rising challenger the so-called Thucydides Trap. An additional
complication is the vexing fact that all the present hot spots or potential conflict scenarios between the
two countries reside in the maritime domain.
There remains the possibility that China and the United States could tangle with each other over a crisis
emerging from a Taiwan, a South China Sea, or an East China Sea scenario. Nevertheless, there are
enough overlapping interests in the maritime domain to warrant serious thought about deepening and
strengthening cooperative programs already in existence. The convergence of interests is substantial
enough that new programs that can foster habits of cooperation and reduce tensions deserve
consideration.
During President Obamas visit to China in November 2014, the two sides signed memoranda of
understanding on encounters at sea. The annex on air-to-air encounters was signed during President Xis
state visit to the United States in September 2015. Now both sides should ensure that all parties adhere to
the agreements. They could even consider conducting joint or separate training sessions for sailors and
pilots from both sides. The United States and China should build on existing cooperative activities
between their respective coast guards, while sustaining and, if possible, extending cooperation on anti-
pollution measures, ocean observation, marine scientific research, and prevention of marine hazards.
Moreover, the two powers could expand on the military-to-military cooperation that has taken place
within the maritime domain over the past few years. In particular, the United States should consider
inviting China to exercises such as the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise that
it conducts annually with Southeast Asian militaries. China and the United States should also work to
establish a working group at ASEAN to discuss maritime security cooperation and dialogue. Cementing
these cooperation efforts would ensure that although Chinese and American maritime interests may vary,
the joint interest in preserving stability remains paramount.

B. SCS conflict escalates to nuclear war

Tikhonova November 28, 2015

Polina Tikhonova, freelance journalist with Masters in English Philology, worked for numerous media
outlets, currently writing for Value Walk, US Faces Nuclear War Threat Over South China Sea Chinese
Professor, Value Walk Politics, November 28, 2015, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/11/us-nuclear-war-
south-china-sea/
China is willing to start a nuclear war with the United States over the South China Sea, according to a
Chinese professor.
Beijings rhetoric after an incident with a U.S. warship sailed to the South China Sea suggests that
Chinese decision-makers could resort to more concrete and forceful measures to counter the U.S. Navy,
according to Zhang Baohui, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Asian Pacific
Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong.
If so, a face-off between the two navies becomes inevitable. Even worse, the face-off may trigger an
escalation towards military conflicts, the professor wrote in a piece for RSIS Commentary.
But, according to Baohui, the U.S. military is oblivious to this scenario, since Washington decision-
makers think Americas conventional military superiority discourages China from responding to such
provocations in the South China Sea militarily. However, this U.S. expectation is flawed, as China is a
major nuclear power, the professor wrote.
When cornered, nuclear-armed states can threaten asymmetric escalation to deter an adversary from
harming its key interests, he added.
Baohui then refers to the military parade in Beijing that took place on Sept. 3 and revealed that Chinas
new generation of tactical missiles such as the DF-26 are capable of being armed with nuclear
warheads. Moreover, according to the latest reports, Chinas air-launched long-range cruise missiles can
also carry tactical nuclear warheads.
U.S. could provoke nuclear war with China
And while the U.S. does not have its core interests in the South China Sea, the disputed islands present
Chinas strategic interests, which is why this kind of asymmetry in stakes would certainly give Beijing an
advantage in the balance of resolve over Washington, according to the professor. And if the South
China Sea situation escalates and starts spiraling into a nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and China,
Washington will face a choice of either backing down first or fighting a nuclear-armed power and the
worlds largest military force with a strength of approximately 2.285 million personnel.
Neither option is attractive and both exact high costs, either in reputation or human lives, for the U.S.,
Baohui wrote.
So it would be unwise for the U.S. to further provoke China in the disputed area, since Chinas
willingness to defend its interests, reputation and deterrence credibility could easily escalate the conflict
into a military confrontation that would ultimately harm U.S. interests, according to the professor.
China will join Russia in nuclear war with NATO
With NATO member state Turkey downing a Russian jet in its airspace, there is already a high risk of
military confrontation in the world. And with China being so close and allied with Russia, Beijing
decision-makers could see the incident with the Russian warplane as an opportunity to avenge the West
for the South China Sea provocations.
The Turkish military said it had shot down a Russian jet on Tuesday, triggering a furious response from
Moscow and escalating the already hot tensions in the Syrian conflict. With Russian President Vladimir
Putin warning the West of serious consequences, analysts believe the Kremlin is willing to unleash a
nuclear war over the incident.
Despite the fact that Turkey is backed by NATOs 5th Article, which states that an attack on one Ally shall
be considered an attack on all NATO members, the chances that Putin will start a nuclear war over the
incident with the Russian jet are very likely, according to Pavel Felgengauer, Russias most respected
military analyst.
Felgengauer said Turkey wants to protect a zone in northern Syria controlled by the Turkmens, Ankaras
allies, while the downing of the Russian warplane in the region must prompt the Kremlin to either accept
the zone or start a war with Turkey, which means starting an all-out war with NATO. And the only way
Russia could win a war against NATO is by going nuclear, Felgengauer said.
It is most likely that it will be war, said Felgenhauer, as reported by Mirror. In other words, more
fights will follow when Russian planes attack Turkish aircraft in order to protect our [Russias] bombers.
It is possible that there will be fights between the Russian and Turkish navies at sea.
U.S. provokes China to respond militarily
The U.S. recently asserted its freedom of navigation in the disputed South China Sea. On Oct. 27, the
USS Lassen traveled inside the 12-mile nautical zone around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago.
This reef is one of seven reefs China has artificially built in order to claim its sovereignty over the Spratly
Islands and the sea around it.
Even though Beijing did not take immediate action to counter the U.S. vessel, such further provocations
could seriously destabilize the peace and stability of the whole region, according to Baohui.
They could touch off an unintended escalation and push the two countries towards military conflict. The
logic is quite obvious, the professor wrote.
The U.S. Navys further operations in the South China Sea could thus corner Beijing and force China to
respond militarily. After all, China cannot risk its national interests and power reputation, according to the
Chinese professor. Shortly after the incident, Vice-Admiral Yi Xiaoguang, the Chinese Peoples
Liberation Armys (PLA) deputy chief of staff, warned that China will use all means necessary to defend
its sovereignty if the U.S. conducts similar provocations.
China: we can seize more islands in the South China Sea
China recently said it can use military force to kick out nations illegally to seize more islands in the
disputed South China Sea, but China is now showing restraint, as reported by ValueWalk last week.
The Chinese government has the right and the ability to recover the islands and reefs illegally occupied
by neighboring countries, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said, speaking about the disputed artificial
islands but not naming any particular country.
China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei all have sovereignty claims in the South
China Sea. All but Brunei have military fortifications in the disputed area, which raises concerns about a
high risk of military confrontation in the region.
But we havent done this [seized the islands]. We have maintained great restraint with the aim to
preserve peace and stability in the South China Sea, Liu said.
If China gains complete control over the Spratly Islands, it gets the key to controlling waters through
which $5 trillion in trade passes every year, mostly to and from China.
The professor concluded that reckless actions by one or both parties may well turn mistrust into bloody
military conflicts. But nobody, especially countries in the region, are interested in such a scenario.
If the US claims to be the defender of world peace and regional stability, it must do everything to avoid
this scenario through unintended escalations, Baohui wrote.
 C. U.S.-China war would cause extinction but improved relations solves

Wittner November 28, 2011

Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York at Albany, holds
a Ph.D. in History from Columbia University, Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?, Huntington
News, November 28, 2011, http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries
national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current
deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this
phenomenon.

The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by Chinas
growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged Chinas claims in the
South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with
other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was
asserting our own position as a Pacific power.

But need this lead to nuclear war?

Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China
possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with
nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of Chinas offshore
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower
declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would be used just exactly as you would use
a bullet or anything else.

Of course, China didnt have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national
leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials
during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the
military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists.

Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly,
there havent been very manyat least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed
India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the
conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistans foreign secretary threatened that, if the war
escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move
nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an
attack on Pakistan.

At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders
didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs strategy was to respond to a Soviet
conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-
armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence
worked, they would not have resorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national
missile defense. Why are these vastly expensiveand probably unworkablemilitary defense systems
needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might?

Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a
Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart.
Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the
Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these
Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would win any nuclear
war with China.

But what would that victory entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least
10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of
sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both
nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by
the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a nuclear winter around the globe
destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government
is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its
number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to
spend hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities
over the next decade.

To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be
taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far
have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to
improve U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their
survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

Scenario 2 is Climate Change

A. U.S. China coop on climate change key

Li January 13, 2014

Xiaoyu Li, assistant research fellow specialized in global macroeconomic situation, Department for World
Economic and Development Studies, associate with China Institute of International Studies, China-US
Cooperation: Key to the Global Future, China Institute of International Studies, January 13, 2014,
http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-01/13/content_6606656.htm
Cooperation on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and consequence management.
China-US cooperation will be increasingly critical to the global response to climate change. New
scientific studies warn that the worst-case scenarios for climate change impacts are the most likely
outcomes. Scientific assessments also maintain that anthropomorphic climate change is partly responsible
for extreme weather events that the world is already experiencing at an increasing rate, from the floods in
Pakistan and the heat wave in Russia to the melting glaciers and ice sheets and the superstorm Sandy
that inflicted unprecedented destruction on New York and New Jersey. It is highly likely that global
climate change will be a key issue in the coming two decades as the world faces increasing climate-
induced humanitarian disasters and infrastructure destruction requiring immediate and expensive relief as
well as costly, long-term adaptation. Climate change likely will increase social and political instability in
many areas of the world, including emerging economies and developed countries. It also will likely renew
political pressure for emissions reductions, especially by China and the United States, the worlds two
biggest emitters. China-US cooperation in all these areas will be critical to whether the world cooperates
and how effective any cooperation is in responding to the potentially existential threat posed by global
climate change. The two countries also can build on decades of bilateral cooperation on energy and
environment to seize opportunities for lucrative joint energy technology development that would
substantially benefit Chinese and US businesses as well as lower costs and widely disseminate clean
energy technologies.

B. Warming is real, anthropogenic, and accelerating toward catastrophe

Milman August 30, 2016

Oliver Milman, Journalist reporting on environment/climate change at Guardian, Nasa: Earth is warming
at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years', The Guardian, August 30, 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-
warming
The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it very
unlikely that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year,
according to Nasas top climate scientist.
This year has already seen scorching heat around the world, with the average global temperature peaking
at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the
landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880,
with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat.
But Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and
sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past
millennium.
In the last 30 years weve really moved into exceptional territory, Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasas
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. Its unprecedented in 1,000 years. Theres no period that has
the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).
Maintaining temperatures below the 1.5C guardrail requires significant and very rapid cuts in carbon
dioxide emissions or co-ordinated geo-engineering. That is very unlikely. We are not even yet making
emissions cuts commensurate with keeping warming below 2C.
Schmidt repeated his previous prediction that there is a 99% chance that 2016 will be the warmest year on
record, with around 20% of the heat attributed to a strong El Nio climatic event. Last year is currently
the warmest year on record, itself beating a landmark set in 2014.
Its the long-term trend we have to worry about though and theres no evidence its going away and lots
of reasons to think its here to stay, Schmidt said. Theres no pause or hiatus in temperature increase.
People who think this is over are viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles. This is a chronic
problem for society for the next 100 years.
Schmidt is the highest-profile scientist to effectively write-off the 1.5C target, which was adopted at
Decembers UN summit after heavy lobbying from island nations that risk being inundated by rising seas
if temperatures exceed this level. Recent research found that just five more years of carbon dioxide
emissions at current levels will virtually wipe out any chance of restraining temperatures to a 1.5C
increase and avoid runaway climate change.
Temperature reconstructions by Nasa, using work from its sister agency the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, found that the global temperature typically rose by between 4-7C over a
period of 5,000 years as the world moved out of ice ages. The temperature rise clocked up over the past
century is around 10 times faster than this previous rate of warming.
The increasing pace of warming means that the world will heat up at a rate at least 20 times faster than
the historical average over the coming 100 years, according to Nasa. The comparison of recent
temperatures to the paleoclimate isnt exact, as it matches modern record-keeping to proxies taken from
ancient layers of glacier ice, ocean sediments and rock.
Scientists are able to gauge greenhouse gas levels stretching back more than 800,000 years but the
certainty around the composition of previous climates is stronger within the past 1,000 years. While its
still difficult to compare a single year to another prior to the 19th century, a Nasa reconstruction shows
that the pace of temperature increase over recent decades outstrips anything that has occurred since the
year 500.
Lingering carbon dioxide already emitted from power generation, transport and agriculture is already
likely to raise sea levels by around three feet by the end of the century, and potentially by 70 feet in the
centuries to come. Increasing temperatures will shrink the polar ice caps, make large areas of the Middle
East and North Africa unbearable to live in and accelerate whats known as Earths sixth mass
extinction of animal species.

C. Warming causes extinctionvirtually all climatologists agree

Griffin April 14, 2015

David Ray Griffin, emeritus professor of philosophy at Claremont Graduate University, political writer,
The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?, CNN, April 14, 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/

(CNN) Although most of us worry about other things, climate scientists have become increasingly
worried about the survival of civilization. For example, Lonnie Thompson, who received the U.S.
National Medal of Science in 2010, said that virtually all climatologists "are now convinced that global
warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."
Informed journalists share this concern. The climate crisis "threatens the survival of our civilization," said
Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross Gelbspan. Mark Hertsgaard agrees, saying that the continuation of global
warming "would create planetary conditions all but certain to end civilization as we know it."
These scientists and journalists, moreover, are worried not only about the distant future but about the
condition of the planet for their own children and grandchildren. James Hansen, often considered the
world's leading climate scientist, entitled his book "Storms of My Grandchildren."
The threat to civilization comes primarily from the increase of the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere, due largely to the burning of fossil fuels. Before the rise of the industrial age, CO2
constituted only 275 ppm (parts per million) of the atmosphere. But it is now above 400 and rising about
2.5 ppm per year.
Because of the CO2 increase, the planet's average temperature has increased 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5
degrees Fahrenheit). Although this increase may not seem much, it has already brought about serious
changes.
The idea that we will be safe from "dangerous climate change" if we do not exceed a temperature rise of
2C (3.6F) has been widely accepted. But many informed people have rejected this assumption. In the
opinion of journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben, "the one degree we've raised the temperature already
has melted the Arctic, so we're fools to find out what two will do."
His warning is supported by James Hansen, who declared that "a target of two degrees (Celsius) is
actually a prescription for long-term disaster."
The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has made the planet warmer than it had been since the rise of
civilization 10,000 years ago. Civilization was made possible by the emergence about 12,000 years ago of
the "Holocene" epoch, which turned out to be the Goldilocks zone - not too hot, not too cold. But now,
says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, "We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene."
This catapult is dangerous, because we have no evidence civilization can long survive with significantly
higher temperatures. And yet, the world is on a trajectory that would lead to an increase of 4C (7F) in this
century. In the opinion of many scientists and the World Bank, this could happen as early as the 2060s.
What would "a 4C world" be like? According to Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research (at the University of East Anglia), "during New York's summer heat waves the warmest
days would be around 10-12C (18-21.6F) hotter [than today's]." Moreover, he has said, above an increase
of 4C only about 10% of the human population will survive.
Believe it or not, some scientists consider Anderson overly optimistic.
The main reason for pessimism is the fear that the planet's temperature may be close to a tipping point
that would initiate a "low-end runaway greenhouse," involving "out-of-control amplifying feedbacks."
This condition would result, says Hansen, if all fossil fuels are burned (which is the intention of all fossil-
fuel corporations and many governments). This result "would make most of the planet uninhabitable by
humans."
Moreover, many scientists believe that runaway global warming could occur much more quickly, because
the rising temperature caused by CO2 could release massive amounts of methane (CH4), which is, during
its first 20 years, 86 times more powerful than CO2. Warmer weather induces this release from carbon
that has been stored in methane hydrates, in which enormous amounts of carbon -- four times as much as
that emitted from fossil fuels since 1850 -- has been frozen in the Arctic's permafrost. And yet now the
Arctic's temperature is warmer than it had been for 120,000 years -- in other words, more than 10 times
longer than civilization has existed.
According to Joe Romm, a physicist who created the Climate Progress website, methane release from
thawing permafrost in the Arctic "is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle."
The amplifying feedback works like this: The warmer temperature releases millions of tons of methane,
which then further raise the temperature, which in turn releases more methane.
The resulting threat of runaway global warming may not be merely theoretical. Scientists have long been
convinced that methane was central to the fastest period of global warming in geological history, which
occurred 55 million years ago. Now a group of scientists have accumulated evidence that methane was
also central to the greatest extinction of life thus far: the end-Permian extinction about 252 million years
ago.
Worse yet, whereas it was previously thought that significant amounts of permafrost would not melt,
releasing its methane, until the planet's temperature has risen several degrees Celsius, recent studies
indicate that a rise of 1.5 degrees would be enough to start the melting.

D. Warming disproportionately affects minorities

Rehman September 9, 2016

Asad Rehman, senior campaigner and leader for international climate change through the Friends of the
Earths campaign for international action to prevent climate change, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth
at UN climate negotiations, YES, CLIMATE CHANGE DOES KILL PEOPLE OF COLOR MORE,
News Week, September 9, 2016, http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-right-climate-change-
race-problem-kill-minorities-people-496723
Some people really dont like facts, preferring to be swayed by feeling, hearsay, assumption, and
whatever comes along to affirm their own world view. It would be interesting if it didnt have so much
capacity to do damage.
Friends of the Earth were called racist and all sorts of things yesterday by the keyboard warrior contingent
for supporting the Black Lives Matter protest at City Airport.
Facts may not be very good at changing peoples minds but we are not yet so deeply into a post-factual
society that we shouldnt at least consider them. Heres an honest to God, straight up and down fact:
We have just witnessed a record-breaking 14 consecutive months of the hottest global temperatures since
records began, with vanishing Arctic sea ice and the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef just the latest
reality we have to face. Scientists say we have to go back 120,000 years before we find hotter
temperatures than those currently recorded and are now predicting sea level rises of 10 feet by 2065.
Think of some of the largest cities in the world and where they areRio, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and
Shanghaito realize what sea level rises will mean.
Climate scientists, governments, civil society and anyone else thinking rationally recognize that the
impact of our carbon pollution will mean failing agriculture, greater food insecurity, more intense
droughts and floods, record-breaking super typhoons and hurricanes, increased water shortages, more
extreme weather. These elements lead to the forced displacement of people, and an increase in conflicts,
and this is happening now.
Typhoon Haiyan, which hit the Philippines in 2013, left 7,000 dead and 2 million homeless. Floods in
Pakistan in 2010 affected 20 million people. This years heatwave in India and Pakistan hit 51C, while in
the Sahel (the sub-Saharan region of Africa) drought has affected 23 million, and left 3.5 million
displaced. Just one tropical storm, Erika, which hit the Caribbean island of Dominica last year, put back
development gains by 20 years. And all this is happening at an average temperature of increase of 1C.
Its hard to put an accurate estimate on how many lives are lost each year to climate change, or how many
communities destroyed. Some figures suggest up to 700,000 additional deaths per year, although climate
change fans every existing inequality in the world.
Who are these people who are dying, and who is responsible? Its the greatest injustice of climate change,
that those who are the least responsible for causing the climate crisis, are the first to suffer. The poor, the
marginalized, the indigenous communities are on the frontlineand they are overwhelmingly people of
color in developing countries. And where it is richer, more developed countries dealing with wildfires,
such as those in Australia, the U.S. or the floods in Europe, they invariably have more resources to deal
with the impact.
Here are some more factsjust 10 percent of the worlds population are responsible for 50 percent of
emissions, while the poorest 50 percent are responsible for only 10 percent of emissions. No guessing
where most of that first 10 percent live. The reality is that rich countries in the West have grown wealthy
from burning fossil fuels, and now other countries are using the same dirty development pathway to do
the same. An average citizen in the U.S., with just 5 percent of the world's population, still has a per
capita income of $41,064 and pollutes 17.3 tonnes of CO 2 . India, with 18 percent of the global
population have average of $3,148 per capita income and its citizens are responsible for 1.4 tonnes. The
worlds poorest countriesthe so-called least developed countriesconstitute 11 percent of the global
population but have only a per capita income of $1,461, and the average CO2 output across Africa is 0.9
tonnes.
Political decisions are being made for those whose voices are listened to, and it takes protesters such as
those in Black Lives Matter to advocate for those whose voices are ignored.
The ink on the Paris Agreement isnt dry, but politicians agreed to keep temperature increases to below
the critical 1.5C guardrail. To prevent a breach of that, we can only pollute at the same rate as we are
doing for another six to 10 years. In a fair world, rich countries in the West would have decarbonized
decades ago. But the harsh truth is that its incompatible with preventing a breach of 1.5C and even the
2C guardrail to build new airports, or to progress more dirty energy sources such as fracking.
So the Black Lives Matter protestors were absolutely right to say that climate change is killing black
people. They are absolutely right to put the spotlight on airport expansion. Globally aviation emissions
increased by 71.6 percent between 1990 and 2012, the same volume as the CO 2 emitted by Germany. If
aviation was a country, it would be the worlds seventh largest emitter. Thats why the protest happened,
and thats why we need to listen to their message.

Contention Three is Solvency

A. Joint committee with a synergistic approach solvesincreases relations and
stability while preventing HR violations without loss of African sovereignty
Lysenko September 30, 2016

David Lysenko, U.S.-China Fellow for the Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues, John
Carroll Fellows Initiative, Co-Founder of Number Kings, Research Analyst for One Tent Health, The
Challenges of Globalization: A New Strategy for Developing Africa: Responding to US-China
Cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges, Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues,
September 30, 2016, https://uschinadialogue.georgetown.edu/responses/a-new-strategy-for-developing-
africa

The United States and China should work together through a joint committee that uses a synergic
approach to development in Africa to improve the outcomes for all three parties. This committee can start
with South Sudan as a pilot case because of the importance of this country to the United States from a
human rights perspective and to China from an oil perspective. The goal of the committee would be to
promote the right to develop, a right recognized by the UN, and preferred by China and Africa over the
term human rights, because human rights are often associated with Western values[14]. This also
eliminates the possibility of China needing to justify the hypocrisy of giving human rights to Africans, but
not to its own citizens.

In order for this committee to function, both sides must make certain compromises. The United States
would no longer implement conditional lending; it would be allowed to reward liberalization and good
governance through financial incentives, but not punished for failing to meet conditions. China would
have to comply with local laws, including provisions governing impact on the environment, minimum
wage, affirmative action, and social security. Each investment project would specify an agreed upon
percent of labor and equipment coming from Africa. These compromises are consistent with current
policy trends already occurring in the United States and China. The United States has backtracked from
conditionality towards reward-based conditional lending, rewarding good governance without punishing
bad governance[15]. Meanwhile, Chinas resource-for-infrastructure deals with African countries, such as
Angola, have become increasingly more equitable[16]. Therefore, this committee would formalize and
accelerate trends already expressed by these powers as a constructive fusion rather than forcing either
nation to completely change its stances.

This proposed committee would benefit all parties. For the United States, it would promote a more
effective development strategy in Africa and help moderate the worst of Chinese human rights violations.
For China, it would increase the amount of money going into African development over which China has
influence and allow China to use the relative popularity of the United States in Africa to counter the
current political backlash against China and Chinese companies. Of the 10 African countries studied by
the Global Attitudes Survey, all indicated a higher approval rating of the United States than China. Most
importantly, the approval rating of the United States is 30 percent higher than Chinas in South Africa,
China's largest trading partner in Africa[17][18].

Meanwhile, African countries would have more efficient access to investment without the loss of
sovereignty and human rights violations endemic in its current relationship with China or the conditional
penalties imposed by the United States. By working together toward a common goal, the United States
and China can synergize their existing development approaches, increase stability in the region, improve
relations between the two nations, and incorporate Africa more closely into the global community.
B. Unilateral actions failHR abuses and currently backfiring
Lysenko September 30, 2016

David Lysenko, U.S.-China Fellow for the Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues, John
Carroll Fellows Initiative, Co-Founder of Number Kings, Research Analyst for One Tent Health, The
Challenges of Globalization: A New Strategy for Developing Africa: Responding to US-China
Cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges, Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues,
September 30, 2016, https://uschinadialogue.georgetown.edu/responses/a-new-strategy-for-developing-
africa
Over the past 50 years, African countries have received hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid[1].
Nevertheless, the 18 countries with the lowest GDP per capita are all located in Africa, and no African
country is in the top 55[2]. Many countries, including the United States and China, continue to invest
heavily in Africa. I propose strengthening Sino-American relations through joint investment in
development projects in Africa overseen by a joint committee tasked with improving infrastructure
without compromising the sovereignty of African countries.

The current Sino-African and U.S.-Africa economic relationships are quickly becoming unacceptable to
Africa, China, and the United States. For many African countries, the drawbacks of Chinas Angola
Model have started to outweigh its benefits because of infringement on sovereignty and human rights
abuses. In order to secure stability in the region from which it receives 23 percent of its oil, China uses
the Angola Model, by which it provides low-interest loans, below market value, in exchange for oil and
mining rights[3]. These loans, however, come with conditions that heavily favor China. For instance,
China often adds clauses that require at least 50 percent of the loan be spent on Chinese goods.
Additionally, China often engages in resource-for-infrastructure swapping, such as when China invested
$6 billion, half of Congos GDP, in infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, and universities, in exchange
for exclusive rights to copper and cobalt for the next 25 years[4].

At the same time, human rights abuses are rampant. In Zambia, Chinese managers opened fire on a crowd
for unionizing without any repercussions[5]. Furthermore, managers in Namibia, South Africa, and
Zambia have repeatedly ignored minimum wage laws, affirmative action requirements, and social security
payments[6]. All the while, the benefits to the local economies have been hindered by China primarily
using Chinese workers and machines at the mines[7].

The Angola Model is also starting to backfire against China. For instance, Chad and Gabon withdrew oil
field permits for China National Petroleum Corporation after the company dumped excess crude oil into
their rivers[8]. As a result of human rights abuses, Michael Sata won the Zambian presidency on an anti-
Chinese, xenophobic platform[9]. Meanwhile, South Africa is pushing back against Chinas influence in
the region, by, for example, turning away a Chinese arms ship headed to Zimbabwe[10].

By contrast, the U.S. conditional lending policy, while less fraught with human rights issues, has had
little success in developing a more economically and democratically stable Africa. Washingtons method
of giving aid on the condition of liberalization and good governance has led to at least four problems.
First, the required conditions are often so onerous that they take years to meet[11][12]. Second, when the
necessary changes are enacted, they result in inefficiencies due to the need for extensive central planning.
Third, conditional lending benefits only those countries already committed to economic and political
reform. As a result, those most in need of development assistance often do not get it because their
governments are not interested in meeting the necessary conditions to receive aid[13]. Therefore, the
conditional lending model is comparatively inefficient in developing Africa.

C. US and China both say yescarry a shared moral obligation

Sun April 06, 2015

Yun Sun, Nonresident Fellow of Global Economy and Development, Africa Growth Initiative, The
Limits of U.S.-China Cooperation in Africa, Brookings, April 6, 2015
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2015/04/06/the-limits-of-u-s-china-cooperation-in-
africa/>
The logic of U.S.-China cooperation in Africa is a sound one. Both Beijing and Washington have
important political and economic interests in promoting peace and development of Africa. The two
countries vested interests in Africa, particularly in commercial investment, make peace and stability
imperative. In addition, as two responsible powers, the countries carry a shared moral obligation to
Africa. In cases such as South Sudan, both the U.S. and China stand much to lose if the crisis continues to
fester. Furthermore, a stable and prosperous Africa will provide both the U.S. and China more investment
and trade opportunities, which can enhance the momentum for their cooperation.

D. Were state-as-heuristicwe can learn about the state to combat pressing

issues without being it which means we wont entrench dominant norms

Zanotti 14

Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and
teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping,
democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance.Governmentality, Ontology,
Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World Alternatives: Global, Local, Political
vol 38(4):p. 288-304, 2014

By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of

political agency are reframed in a way that focuses on power and subjects relational character and the
contingent processes of their (trans)formation in the context of agonic relations. Options for resistance to
governmental scripts are not limited to rejection, revolution, or dispossession to regain a pristine
freedom from all constraints or an immanent ideal social order. It is found instead in multifarious and
contingent struggles that are constituted within the scripts of governmental rationalities and at the
same time exceed and transform them. This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities
of liberal political rationalities and of their interactions with non-liberal political players and nurtures a
radical skepticism about identifying universally good or bad actors or abstract solutions to political
problems. International power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these
spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a
heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events. It invites historically situated
explorations and careful differentiations rather than overarching demonizations of power,
romanticizations of the rebel or the the local. More broadly, theoretical formulations that conceive
the subject in non-substantialist terms and focus on processes of subjectification, on the ambiguity of
power discourses, and on hybridization as the terrain for political transformation, open ways for
reconsidering political agency beyond the dichotomy of oppression/rebellion. These alternative
formulations also foster an ethics of political engagement, to be continuously taken up through plural and
uncertain practices, that demand continuous attention to what happens instead of fixations on what
ought to be.83 Such ethics of engagement would not await the revolution to come or hope for a pristine
freedom to be regained. Instead, it would constantly attempt to twist the working of power by playing
with whatever cards are available and would require intense processes of reflexivity on the consequences
of political choices. To conclude with a famous phrase by Michel Foucault my point is not that
everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is
dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and
pessimistic activism.84
 E. Learning about the inevitable state is key to ensure movements do not
unintentionally reinforce it

Koopman 08

Sarah Koopman (Ph.D., political geography) is a feminist political geographer who does collaborative
research with international solidarity movements to support their efforts to decolonize the relationships
between global North and South. Her work also speaks to dynamics in humanitarianism, development,
and peacebuilding more generally.(Imperialism Within: Can the Masters Tools Bring Down Empire?,
http://www.acme-journal.org/vol7/SKo.pdf?q=within)//

Those of us within the core of empire may think of empire as imposed over there on them, but to
effectively struggle against it we have to see how it also affects us over here, and see the imperialism
we carry within. The good helper role is one way empire becomes quite intimate. Solidarity activists have
used it to try to bring down empire, but this masters tool is toxic. When we use it we may appear to take
tiles off of the masters house, but we unintentionally reinforce the foundations, the systems of
domination that prop up empire. We cannot simply ignore or throw away this tool. The good helper role is
too strong a trope, and we continue to slip into these patterns or be read through them. There is no place
outside of power, no pure opposition (Butler, 1999). There is no Zion off the grid. The masters house is
taking up all of the land. If we are going to build a new house it has to be on this same plot, and most of
our building materials will be recycled from his house. We cannot ignore his tools, or we will constantly
trip over them; but we can dismantle and rework them. Changing the good helper tool to become true
compas is a constant process. With this modified tool in-the-making we can dismantle the masters
house, and at the same time be building our own. One of the key components of that better world is new
ways of relating to others, which requires a new sense of self. As we build these, we also undercut some
of the main beams of the masters house.